Iraq War a Mistake

16.5 said:
To make sure the record is accurate.
Click to expand...

What does that mean?

Further, regardless of the merits of the war on Iraq, I already said that in my view it was not appropriate to divert assets from the War in Afghanistan
Click to expand...

But you've pointed out that Saddam had WMDs and the willingness to use them to commit genocide.

Why is it inappropriate to divert assets to depose a genocidal maniac with access to WMDs?
 
johnny karate said:
What does that mean?



But you've pointed out that Saddam had WMDs and the willingness to use them to commit genocide.

Why is it inappropriate to divert assets to depose a genocidal maniac with access to WMDs?
Click to expand...



I think you're struggling with the difference between what he thought then then and what he thought then now...
 
johnny karate said:
What does that mean?

But you've pointed out that Saddam had WMDs and the willingness to use them to commit genocide.

Why is it inappropriate to divert assets to depose a genocidal maniac with access to WMDs?
Click to expand...

Sigh, 20 questions is it?

Because I was not a fan of opening up a second front. Basic military strategy. Probably lots of other reasons too.

19 more to go!

(or you can just get to your point and call me a hypocrite or whatever because of my nuanced views on international geo-poliitics which is where we both know you are heading)
 
3point14 said:
I think you're struggling with the difference between what he thought then then and what he thought then now...
Click to expand...

That is an excellent observation.

Really.

I know Then that I was angry that they were opening up a second front.

I cannot honestly say THEN that I thought they were going to screw up after the cessation of major combat operations.
 
16.5 said:
I'm a bit at a loss, what I quoted is one of the many justifications for the Iraq War resolution that are actually written right in the Iraq War Resolution, yet you are declaring Congress's stated intent to be irrelevant?

That is a bit puzzling....
Click to expand...

That congress chooses to include irrelevant information in a resolution does not make the information relevant to this thread or to the justification for invading Iraq.

We did not invade Iraq on the correct intelligence that he had used chemical weapons in 1988. We invaded Iraq on the faulty intelligence that Saddam had WMD's and desired to strike America or American targets overseas. We invaded Iraq on the faulty intelligence that Saddam was cooperating with Al Qaeda.

Both of those claims are also in the IWR of 2002. Being included in the IWR does not make them true any more than including the 1988 chemical attacks makes them relevant.
 
Belz... said:
Translation: "I would rather not address this."
Click to expand...

Seriously? He is claiming that part of Congress's stated justification for the resolution is irrelevant to the justification for the resolution.

Absolutely ludicrous.
 
16.5 said:
Seriously? He is claiming that part of Congress's stated justification for the resolution is irrelevant to the justification for the resolution.

Absolutely ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I'm not saying it's not. Just saying that your dismissal isn't very helpful.

ETA: I also understand what Biscuit is trying to say, I think, beyond the wording.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Seriously? He is claiming that part of Congress's stated justification for the resolution is irrelevant to the justification for the resolution.

Absolutely ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Bible thumper circular logic: I know the word of god is true because it says so in the bible.
 
Biscuit said:
That congress chooses to include irrelevant information in a resolution does not make the information relevant to this thread or to the justification for invading Iraq.

We did not invade Iraq on the correct intelligence that he had used chemical weapons in 1988. We invaded Iraq on the faulty intelligence that Saddam had WMD's and desired to strike America or American targets overseas. We invaded Iraq on the faulty intelligence that Saddam was cooperating with Al Qaeda.

Both of those claims are also in the IWR of 2002. Being included in the IWR does not make them true any more than including the 1988 chemical attacks makes them relevant.
Click to expand...

Thanks much.

This post makes good sense to me.
 
Belz... said:
Perhaps. I'm not saying it's not. Just saying that your dismissal isn't very helpful.

ETA: I also understand what Biscuit is trying to say, I think, beyond the wording.
Click to expand...

Really? I was dumbfounded by the first line.
 
16.5 said:
Because I was not a fan of opening up a second front. Basic military strategy. Probably lots of other reasons too.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't basic military strategy dictate diverting assets to the greatest and most imminent threat?

And what greater and more imminent threat was there in Afghanistan than a genocidal maniac with access to and willingness to use WMDs?

(or you can just get to your point and call me a hypocrite or whatever because of my nuanced views on international geo-poliitics which is where we both know you are heading)
Click to expand...

You defend the justifications to go to war in Iraq, but criticize those who voted to go to war in Iraq - who did so based on those same justifications you are now defending.

Those are not "nuanced" views, but rather inherently contradictory ones.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Further, regardless of the merits of the war on Iraq, I already said that in my view it was not appropriate to divert assets from the War in Afghanistan
Click to expand...

I have not followed all the-back-and-forth between this poster and others, but this statement is reasonable. The whole Saddam might have nasty weapons that he might use was never enough for me for to see the wisdom of squandering resources on a poorly executed invasion. At the time I hoped the government had some really smoking-gun intelligence, but it didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom