Quote:
|
We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.
|
Wrong, we attacked because Iraq was
NOT a threat. Notice we didn't attack an actual threat like North Korea. Bush wanted to take attention away from his failure to capture Bin Laden so he attacked a non-threat (Iraq). They weren't percieved as a threat and weren't a threat at any point.
Notice they found one man in a hole in the ground of Iraq, but still no WMD's. And even if Iraq had a thousand WMD's, that doesn't make them a threat. England, France, Russia, China, etc. have nukes, does that make them threats?
Attacking Iraq for weapons they
MIGHT have and
MIGHT use in the future is like going door to door to arrest all gun owners and executing them for murders they
MIGHT commit in the future. Except the attack in Iraq was even worse because they didn't even have the gun, and we have no authority to tell them they can't have one.
Quote:
|
The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.
|
I sure do. The Cuban missile crisis happened as a direct result of America putting nukes in Turkey. Russia put missiles in Cuba in retaliation for America putting them in Turkey. Russia only removed the missiles from Cuba
AFTER Kennedy was smart enough to back down and take our nukes out of Turkey.
We never would have had that crisis if we didn't initiate the threat against them.