re: A lot. A whole lot. Massively more.
Depends on what Iraq leads to. Maybe "massively more". But right now it's the most untenable position since Vietnam; maybe since WW2. Don't minimize it.
re: Preventing someone from getting nukes...
Which implies Iraq had a snowballs chance in hell of getting nukes, which it didn't.
re: If you wanted to propose an alternate target to Iraq, Iran's about the only one that makes any sense.
I don't want an alt target... I pointing out how stupid your justifications are.
re: OTOH 1 - It didn't violate a cease fire agreement after a war with the US, and it didn't initiate an invasion against any of its neighbors, so there is less justification for any invasion, and 2 - Its a bigger country, and more difficult to deal with, any military involvement would be costlier, and less likely to have a positive result. Also, arguably its people are more free in many ways, although that issue is rather complex, and at times their are unjust crackdowns and impositions of strict religious law.
You make it sound like it was compulsory to attack SOMEONE. Not very libertarian, but very Bush/Cheney/Rummy.
re: Someone who is little or no immediate danger to us, but who appears to be becoming a danger (and who has acted aggressively in the past) is exactly the target you would go for, if your going to go for anyone in an "optional" war.
"Appears to be becoming a danger"? Before you admitted it was about the "danger to the oil". It's pretty hard to follow when you change the justification post to post... but it seems remotely familiar.
re: Also such suggestions are red herrings that you don't really support, and just about no one else does. The idea that it would somehow be better if we had 300,000 American deaths rather then 3,000 makes for a rather weak argument.
Much more than 3000; I guess that rounding exercise is just to minimize the deaths of American kids and the suffering of their families.
They are not red herrings they are examples that disprove your arguments for attacking Iraq. You have used them all, but they also apply to those other countries. Your answer is that Iraq was easy... that's why we did it. Well it's obviously not easy, it's obviously a disaster, and there was no good reason to do it unless you think we should go to war because somebody thinks it will be easy. |
