Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Like the fact that you can use a military to impose your will or that you can use some other means. In my way of looking at it, you are imposing your will. In the world of gray, you get to rationalize it. Unfortunately, the grayness can lead to long-term pain and suffering and no clarity. I say if you are going to impose your will, do it, do it big, do it decisively. One of the problems with our occupation (the part after removing Saddam) is that we lacked real commitment and conviction to do the job.
I am not going to get accustomed to the gray, and I have no interest in it.
|
You can use your military to impose your will if you're willing to ignore the law and morality, sure. The biggest problem with our occupation was it was impossible. The US doesn't do "occupations" anymore (at least doesn't win them) , because we can't maintain law and order in a country where the occupants don't want us there. The problem with our occupation? It was impossible. Short of having 25 million American troops on the ground, it was unreasonable from day one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What do you want from me? The prewar intel was incorrect. We now know that. Even without that intel, I saw Saddam as a threat. My belief dates back to the first Gulf War. I stated several times, Saddam should have been removed from power then, I was in the minority then thinking we should have marched into Baghdad. I supported Bush in his first election in-part because I felt he would not tolerate Saddam's defiance and would not hesitate to use military force. I felt we needed to act when we did, or we would have had a bigger mess at some future date. You and I disagree. However, more people agreed with me than with you - including the Democrats in Congress who voted for the use of military force and our ongoing occupation. Perhaps, before debating with me (I am as far to the extreme as you can reasonably get on this issue), perhaps you would be better having an exchange with those who marginally could have gone either way, find out what caused them to swing Bush's way. Find out why they don't want to hold Bush accountable, if they now think he lied or whatever..
|
Had we marched on Baghdad in 1991, we'd be in year 17 of the occupation (as the UN wouldn't have backed us then, either) and we'd still be losing. Or Clinton would have pulled out and been considered a hero for it. George H. W. Bush would go down in history as a war criminal and W. Bush likely never would have been elected.
How was Saddam a threat, Ace?