I have no problem coming to the rescue of an oppressed people (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo come to mind)...but, first I want to be told that's what we are doing, and not taken there on some subterfuge lie, and second, if that's what we are doing, I don't want it to be done without the support of large percentage of the world's most influential nations.
I agree. I think the invasion of Iraq was a good move, but for my own views on how policy should be determined, not for the reasons given by the administration to the general public.
People may not remember (it's been 6-7 months), but I was a major Bush-basher in the pre-election discussions.
Nevertheless, it didn't happen, and Saddam's subsequent leadership brought the country to Iraq war 2.
Sorry, I have lots of problems with the statement above. Bush was going to war come hell or high waters.
Well he wasn't going to war with just anyone. As far as I know, invading Denmark was never on the table. Saddam did something that made him the target.
There was never a chance for a peaceful resolution.
Come on, in 11 years that lead up to invasion #2 there was nothing Saddam could have done that would have produced a peaceful resolution? How about resign? There was plenty of chance if he preferred peace to power (or whatever it was he did for those 11 years). |
