Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No, I don't.
|
This is the very model of the same narcissism that is directly responsible for 1.2m Iraqi lives and thousands of US troops' lives.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If I think someone or something is a threat, I will act and answer questions later.
|
I think you're a threat, therefore I have the right to attack you? That's absurd and you don't even believe this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I have no problem with being held accountable for my actions. But I don't have an obligation to wait until there is 100% certainty. My "support" may never pass your test and it may be unwise for me to wait for it. In the case of the Iraq war, we had imperfect information. Everyone knew the information was imperfect. Bush made his case. People knew Bush was a "hawk". He got the needed support, and he acted. If you never supported the war, I doubt there would be any "support" that could change your view at this point. Given the the imperfect information, and trying to interpret someone's intent we will never know what might have been. To me the threat is gone. To you the threat was never there. I can clearly see why this Iraq question never can be resolved.
|
I'm not talking about "imperfect" information (the word you're looking for is incorrect, not imperfect). I'm talking about the removal of reasonable doubt, which never occurred. And guess what? Bushco was totally wrong. The UN tried to warn them, most of Europe and our other allies tried to warn them. Shit most people in the US who weren't sheep tried to warn them: the intel is bad, don't do this.