Max Rambone wrote:I didn't compare the wars.....I compared the men.
~archi
It's what was required to oust them, so it constitutes the reasoning for why we shouldn't, at times, go after people we consider to be completely evil. At least not in the way that it has been done. North Korea should be a prime target if this ideal was to be pursued at any cost. The problem being though that such an attack would end up causing massive casualties amongst the civilian population in South Korea and there's no guarantee things would get better afterwards either. Case in point: Iraq.
Magyk wrote:Roflraptor wrote:In terms of real threat posed and damage caused, Iraq just wasn't even close.
While correct, (at least in terms of damage caused) GLHF telling that to people who lost family members on 9/11.
The problem being that Iraq had zero connection to 9/11. I agree with Afghanistan, the fight there I can understand completely. Iraq is another story. The excuse for that war moved between 9/11 and WMDs to Saddam and the latter was the only one that really stuck. Not that people could be blamed for any of that. The US administration was very careful with how it went about vilifying and connecting Iraq to 9/11. As you can see here: http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
Of course, there were reasons to attack Iraq. However, they either weren't good or they weren't true. So, in reality, those families of the 9/11 victims should be very angry that the real perpetrators weren't pursued with far more vigour and should question why so much money was and so many lives were wasted in Iraq. No one was truly avenging them in that attack and I think that is the saddest part of all.
