Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
So tell me - what would you have done - starting with Iraq invading Kuwait???
|
Avoiding the power of hindsight, I'd go with my original opinions: be scared out of my head during the first gulf war (scared that it would escalate), but support it.
Invade Afganistan and do everything (all available resources and attention) to get Bin Laden and his band of merry men.
NOT invade Iraq. If Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld/Wolfie hadn't had a hard-on for Iraq, there was no reason to do it. Imagine that none of that trumped up WMD talk had existed... there's no way we have invaded.
From there, who knows what would have happened? I'd like to think we could have done more damage to the baddies in Afganistan by putting our total resources on that issue. It seems like it would have made a difference in results. And perhaps used our stellar re-building skills to help with THAT country.
I'm no expert on body counts, but it seems like our war has killed more Iraqis than Saddam would have. I know it's speculation, but is it 2:1? 3:1? What is the point at which we say "saddam would have been better"? Or is "freedom" worth any body count?
Sure seems a better path, to me. And there were people on this very board advocating such a path at each juncture...