Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Disagree. It's a silly, strawman argument. The author tries to suggest that either you agree that invading Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMDs, or that you believe that 95% certainty was required.
|
Then why insert the word "say" before 95%?
Quote:
|
The author also manipulates history by suggesting that the war was intended to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMDs, as opposed to being about eliminating the WMDs that he already had. I don't recall anyone in the Admin saying "we realize Saddam has no WMDs, but he may be trying to get them, so... badda-bing, badda-boom."
|
I think you are just plain wrong here, but I'm too lazy to google.
Quote:
|
Other comments are interesting, but generally I disagree with them. These are more subjective/judgment call questions. Have we really deterred Iran from harboring terrorists? Given how poorly the occupation has gone, I doubt it. I think we may have the contrary effect, by creating an "Iraq syndrome" similar to the lauded "Vietnam syndrome."
|
That is one of the main points of the article, as I read it. These were judgement calls, and many may not agree with the judgements ultimately made.
