Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Dude, we were attcked by someone on 9/11 and we have permission, since we were attacked, to defend ourselves from further attacks.
|
Right, but who attacked us? Who is to be held officially responsible? I'm not aware of another country's army being responsible for the attack. Therefore, perhaps an alternate approach seems in order. Again, how does one attack a movement? Who is responsible for fueling that movement? Who are allies, and who are enemies? Who is part of the problem, who is part of the solution? Who are the victims of terrrorism? Who is involved in movements of religious extremism and who is sympathetic to them? I'm sure you are aware of Hussein's past support of suicide bombing an American ally.
It seems to me that the Iraq War is a continuing salvo in some sort of struggle against the forces that shaped 9/11. No, Iraq didn't directly attack the US, but they were part of the bigger problem that led to 9/11. No, Iraq wasn't a religious theocracy, but it was sympathetic to religious causes when politically expedient, and when it went against western interests. I would submit that Sadaam Hussein was one of the biggest fomenters of anti-western sentiment in the entire world. IMO and many others smarter than myself, he was most definitely an
existential threat to the west in general, and America specifically. He deliberately and boastfully put himself square in the crosshairs of an angry, bloodied post-9/11 America and he paid the price. SOMEBODY had to.
Apparently, you think otherwise.
We seem to disagree on even the most fundamental issues of the scenario, such as terrorism and geopolitics.
Not unlike the current state of the rest of the country, eh?
While I understand where you're coming from, I have to, again, respectfully disagree.