Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glenmore
The recent anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has brought forth a plethora of historical studies. Most of these are extensively footnoted. It is quite apparent that there was a tremendous amount of study, discussion and argument on how and if to proceed as well there should have been. No less was done here as to the whys and why nots of dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
I am not privy to the studies made or relied upon by the administration in deciding to invade Iraq. I would be amazed, though, if they engaged in anything approaching an open-minded, balanced analysis of the situation. Every indication is that their minds were made up and they had no interest in weighing the downside of their approach. Maybe you can point me to studies that prove me wrong, or maybe history will prove me wrong, but I just don't see the evidence that the Iraq invasion was thought through.
Quote:
|
You know the answer to this question but I guess it is more fun to pose it to try and delegitimize our efforts in the Middle East...
|
Actually, the question was rhetorical, but I really don't know the answer to it. If saving the Iraqis from Saddam's human rights abuses justifies this war, why doesn't it justify invading other countries where atrocities are committed? I understand the strategic arguments in favor of invading Iraq. Peragro did a nice job of listing those. But I honestly do not understand that human rights angle. Maybe I'm dense, but my question is asked in good faith.