Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
And Bush has come up with "We need to claim we're tough on terrorists, while invading someone who didn't attack us and as a result not having the resources to get the guy who did."
We DO need to understand that if we continue to act like the world's cop, people will be pissed and they might just try and hurt us. That doesn't excuse the actions of the terrorists, but it does explain them.
Lemme put it another way. If you starve your rottweiler and then give him a steak and then reach down and try to yank the steak away, he'll probably bite you. Now, a dog should NEVER bite his master, but the master bears some responsibility in that he orchestrated the events leading up to getting bitten.
|
So what you're saying is that we're screwed either way, right? If we play "World Cop" by smacking bad people down, people will hate us, but if we don't play "World Cop" to smack down bad people, people will hate us.
Saddam committed many acts which qualified as casus belli. We literally could take our pick. These include documented cases of Saddam sheltering terrorists who had killed US citizens, cases of Saddam subsidizxing suicide bomber attacks on a US ally, Saddam shooting at US planes flying in the "no fly zone", and many more.
You say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Does that mean we should have invaded Pakistan? That is, after all, where most people think Bin Laden is hiding out, right?
From my perspective, we've made one big foreign policy mistake over the past 60 years. We've tried to be friends with everybody, instead of making them try to be friends with us.