Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
From your point of view I am going to assume that going to war in Iraq had no value, so "winning" has no value to you. The war had value from my point of view, and I see the value in "winning" the war. I can not explain what we "won" if you don't understand or accept the reasons for the war or the value in going to war in the first place. In many of the threads on the subject of the Iraq war and the value in going to war in Iraq has been discussed frequently. I eventually came to the conclusion that it is not possible to reconcile the differences between those who honestly supported the war and those who honestly don't. Just like now, it is not possible for me to understand how some think the initial invasion was not a "mission" and not a success.
|
Well, I don't think it had "no value." I think some people made money off of it, but I think that those who supported didn't justify it with true, valid arguments. The WMD's weren't found, and it looked to me (and many other people) like it was a distraction from the other, bigger problem: Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan.
But I would sincerely like to know what made it worth it, or more exactly, what was planned as an achievement at the start of it. I don't usually go in Tilted Politics, and the past threads about Iraq were such clusterfucks of bitter bickering that they were hard to read.
Maybe you can tell me what it was, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on whether it was worth it.
My problem with this thing is that many right-leaning people(and I know you don't like labels, ace, but I mean no disrespect) tend to not want to admit it was a mistake, because they supported it at first. So that's why I'd like to know if they still deeply feel that it was a great decision, or not. I know where you stand, so I'm asking you.