He might have had a "reason", according to your thinking, and according to his thinking, but if he didn't actually do anything, then we attacked unjustly. Just having a reason it not enough. In this country, for example, you don't go to prison for murder just because you had a reason to kill someone- you have to DO something.
Does it not bother you that the threats to this country are primarily from places other than Iraq? (although I grant you, Iraq is certainly becoming more of a threat, now that we are there). That should bother you. Hitler should have been dealt with when he invaded and violated another nation's borders- as Saddam was dealt with, and as he could have been dealt with again. Comparing Saddam with Hitler is a nice rhetorical trick, that may please you, and may tickle the fancy of people who agree with you, but logically it does not work. There is no evidence that Saddam was going to invade anyone. Now that we have invaded him there is even less evidence that he was going to invade anyone; on the contrary everything we discover shows just how weak and non-threatening he was. Our faulty intelligence made him seem "what iffyier" than he was- but even our faulty data was not strong enough grounds for war. We blew it, and we blew it big. Now we will have to see about extricating ourselves from the mess as gracefully as possible. It will be fascinating to watch, but it need not have happened. |
