<<<If any of the groups of OBL's or and of the groups that Saddam was funding hit the US again, maybe there will be a minute to re-examine the words....Maybe.>>>
Words are often not precise. Perhaps that is why we have so many lawyers.
To be sure some of the groups that Saddam was funding (or where his money wound up) are in Syria, Iraq, and other places of evil. A case then can be made to go after those places. You don't even have to lawyer to make a pretty good case.
But then again, some of the money even went to places like Haliburton. (BTW, I once held an investment in HAL and would not have been against getting money from Iraq - as long as it was legal - which I think it was).
Getting back to your point about how one could support one war (Bosnia, Kosova, Afghanistan etc) and not Iraq since all these wars were of our own choosing. What is the Principle that made one war more legitimate than the other.
The basic principle should of course be for national interests.
1. To stop terrorism - to make our country safer, and
2. To create value for our brand (or Good Will) towards the USA.
We could conceivably stop all terrorism by terrorizing all terrorists everywhere. But, I don't think anyone is proposing that. The costs would be terribly high and the negatives would greatly outweigh all the benefits.
One way to look at it however, is to weigh the cost versus the benefits of actions taken.
Perhaps, if we didn't have all the facts, the case could be made for going into Iraq the way we did, but in hindsight, at least, the cost of our actions in Iraq are much higher than the benefits.
We should not squander our wealth by taking inappropriate actions. |
