Quote:
Originally Posted by bhkad
For the record, write this down and then stow it away on a back shelf in an old cookie jar to be opened in the future when more about the decision to invade Iraq is finally revealed to the public, here is what I believe we will discover.
|
How can we claim to live in a democratic society, and read that and not have it induce vomitting?
"the decision to invade Iraq"?
That is a decision that belongs TO THE PEOPLE. Not a secret that should be hidden, misrepresented, or sold under false pretenses.
What bhkad is REALLY doing is trying to give excuses for why the Iraq war could have been justified, IGNORING the fact that the REAL reasons that WERE given were pretty much unilaterally false.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
The Israelis were threatening, behind the scenes, to take out the WMD's themselves and we did not want to risk the possible consequences of what might have resulted from that, so we decided to invade.
|
"behind the scenes"...
So one has to wonder how somebody like bhkad can make such so a definitive statement as to what supposedly "happened".
Moreover, it was the U.S. who went to the U.N. Where was Israel?
And furthermore, where was Israel's INDEPENDENT analysis which told them that Iraq supposedly had WMDs.
Which it actually didn't.
What this boils down to is now some people are trying to give out an excuse that we went to war in Iraq because SOMEBODY ELSE thought they had WMDs...
The story just keeps getting more and more convoluted!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
And that will be in addition to some other factors which also existed simultaneously. Let's never revert to a "ONE REASON FOR THE INVASION" discussion. There were many reasons and most of them were good ones.
|
"most of them WERE good ones"?
THIS reason was NEVER on the table, so it's obviously not on the list in the first place.
WHAT reason that was ACTUALLY sold to the U.S. and/or the U.N. was a "good one".
And a further reason this is absurd is because the Bush administration DID HAVE one MAJOR reason for the invasion.
And now that that one is proven false, NOW they want to balk that we can't have just "one reason"?
Anybody else notice how duplicitous this all is? How much double-talk is going on here?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bhkad
Once again, rather than allowing the Israelis to protect themselves by making a pre-emptive strike on the WMD's we chose to go in instead and in so doing we prevented the possibility of a much larger conflagration which could easily have gotten out of hand.
|
WRONG!
How dare you lie and claim "we chose" when "we" obviously didn't get to "choose" anything along those lines.
And furthermore, to present an ideal that we went to war to PREVENT SOMEBODY ELSE from going to war just reeks of a mentality that is worse than the reasons that saw the start of World War I.