>>Allen, keeping it simple here, America was attacked, and our response as far as I'm concerned, fits the justifiable definition of "preemptive war."<<
Dan -
If the war Iraq had been the response to an attack, it wouldn't have been preemptive war, would it?
Keeping it simple here, America wasn't attacked by Iraq. Troops massing at a border are one thing, but a bunch of circumstantial evidence is something else.
As for Saddam always considering himself at war with the U.S. since 1991, I think that position makes a lot of sense, considering that not a week went by during the time between the two wars when there wasn't some sort of action in the No Fly zones. We were shooting missiles and dropping bombs on Iraq throughout that period.
As I said before, you believe that the case for war was valid, I believe it wasn't. Nothing I say could possibly change your mind, and I have yet to see anything from you that will change mine. It is possible, by the way, to change my mind, but to do so you would need to provide more evidence and less inference.
I see no point in debating this with you any longer.
The fact is that we did attack Iraq, wrong or right, and our troops are now there for the foreseeable future. What matters now is finding a way to get out without leaving a worse mess than we have there currently. That sure as hell isn't going to be easy.
- Allen |
