Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Honestly, yes.
I've said it here before that what we have done is noble. But the way we wen't about doing it was not.
Bush sold this war to us and Congress on the fear that we could be attacked by Saddam within 45 minutes.
If he had just ratcheted up his argument based on Saddam being a mass murderer and torturer of his own people who will leave that legacy for the Iraqi people long after he is gone, through his children, then yeah I could support it.
It would also have helped us build an actual broad coalition of international support as making the case for invasion based on that actually has a provable base. And a prescedent.
If we had achieved a real international coalition this wouldn't have been an american invasion, which would have severely limited the ongoing guerilla attacks against american troops we are seing now, and the cost to the United States would have been minimalized.
|
I completely agree with you on how lame the "justification" for the war appears, and I wish Bush had been brutally honest about all the reasons. However, because I believed that getting rid of Hussein was such a good idea, maybe I'm not as angry as I should be about the innuendo the administration used in lobbying for the war.
But I can't help it; I'm so damn glad that Hussein is gone, and that Syria, Iran, Libya, and N Korea saw that the US has the resolve to deal with rogue nations, that I just can't get too upset that the WMD's haven't played out the way our intelligence thought it would.
As for the last part, I really don't think anyone beside the countries with us right now would have signed up for this effort unless they were forced to through a completely undeniable moral imperative.