Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tellumFS
|
Nope, not quite.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tellumFS
|
Okay, that's something
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
|
That's gonna take several sittings.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ObieX
The relevent difference is that this war was not needed. Usually when America sends in a peace-keeping force there is usually an actual fight that needs someone to step between.
|
I understand not considering it an adequate justification for other reasons, but surely Saddam could be considered the schoolyard bully?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq were:
1. Possible connections with al Qaeda
2. WMDs
3. Liberation
We've already seen that 1 and 2 were wrong. If #3 turnes out to be a lie, will that finally convince people this was the wrong war?
|
I'm having a little trouble imagining a scenario under which #3 would turn out to be a lie. I could see it turning out to be an unsuccessful venture, but not a lie.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
The justifications were that of WMD's and 9/11, which were both proven to be incorrect.
*snip*
If you truly believe that the intention of the war was to liberate the Iraqis because Bush felt genuinely heart broken by the oppression that Saddam brought upon them, you have been heavily misguided.
|
Liberation was a justification since the beginning, even if it wasn't used by the administration until later.
I think it's rather presumptuous of you to claim that Bush absolutely did not care about the liberation of the Iraqis. I also think it's entirely irrelevant how Bush felt about the liberation. What's relevant is whether he's working well enough to secure the liberation (and that's certainly up for debate).