(May 6, 2014 at 7:50 pm)Heywood Wrote: The situation was this:
1st Iraqi war under Bush 1.
Quasi-war where we bombed them at our whim throughout the Clinton administration.
2nd Iraqi war under Bush 2.
It was really just one long war to which Bush 2 put an end. The crime against humanity was propping up Saddam in the 80's and letting him rape his people thereafter. Our chumming up with the bastard started under Carter....so it wasn't just a republican sin.
The first Iraq War was to combat aggression and enforce international law. This was a justified war (and I grant that to a Republican president, just to show you I'm fair). They decided to leave Saddam in power because destabilizing the region and the nation would cause more pain than leaving him in power. I thought it was a mistake at the time but it turns out they were right and I was wrong.
The bombing was not at our whim but the result of treaty violations combined with our planes being fired upon. This was justifiable.
The third Iraq War was a war of aggression. We had no justification for our invasion.
The case made for the war was false, even you must agree, since there were no WMDs or links to Al Qaida. In fact, Saddam and Al Qaida hated each other, so we took out our enemy's enemy and created a great playground for Al Qaida.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
