Dear Mr. Obama

[Flash]

Does shooting at us count?

Well, to be fair, we were flying over their soil.

That's because they are nuclear powers to one degree or another. Confronting them takes on a whole new level of risk once they join that club. That's why it is so important to keep other countries (including Iran) from getting nukes.

Iran is not a nuclear power by any means yet, and just how do you suggest we stop them if they try?

Did Iraq have nukes? Not really. The Israelis took care of that the first time. Do you think that they gave up on it forever?

I don't. And I sure as hell didn't want to be wrong and find out the hard way.

Probably not the dream, but even idiots can dream. And it would have been very difficult, much more than you can probably imagine, for Iraq to restart its nuclear program in any meaningful way.

Eh, that is just me though.

 

[m0tbaillie]

So I am to believe that since Hussein was not a direct threat then that he would and could never have become a threat in the future?

You're nearly implying that Hussein and his regime did not pose any threat to the United States. Perhaps it did not pose any direct threat in the way of him attacking, but there is reason to believe that he posed a threat to our National Interests.

But defense of the homeland is not the only part of our NSP. Seems to me that Iraq could potentially pose a threat to our National Security and having the capability to strike first is always a good thing to have.

And as far as cutting losses and moving on as compared to making it a success...yea I'm going to say making it a success is a lot better for our credibility.

By that incredibly twisted logic, I guess one could say that Cuba/Canada/Mexico/Belize/Chile/Germany could potentially pose a threat to our national interests, however arbitrary and contrived said interests may be.

Guess we should just preemptively strike them too, huh? You can never be too sure of anything and perpetual paranoia isn't going to make us any safer.

Does shooting at us count?

You mean Northern and Southern Watch? Would we shoot at Russia for flying directly over our sovereign airspace?

 

[Flash]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-iraq-was-inevitable-11456

Seriously, that is all you have? A piece written by a guy who also authored a book saying Senator McCarthy was basically right with what he did? Pretty weak.

http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2000/02/10/herman/index.html

http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-McCarthy-Reexamining-Americas-Senator/dp/0684836254

When?

During OSW and ONW operations. And plotting to kill President George H. W. Bush on a visit to Kuwait.

 

[Flash]

You mean Northern and Southern Watch? Would we shoot at Russia for flying directly over our sovereign airspace?

We did so under UN mandates. I see where you are coming from, and argue the same, but it is a bit nuanced.

Still kind of funny to look at it all; We needed to attack them because they were shooting at us, because we were flying over their territory and bombing them, because they invaded Iraq.......

 

[Harrier Dude]

Well, to be fair, we were flying over their soil.

True. That was a smartass remark, but still true. Besides, they really sucked at their shooting.

Iran is not a nuclear power by any means yet, and just how do you suggest we stop them if they try?

You don't want to know.

Probably not the dream, but even idiots can dream. And it would have been very difficult, much more than you can probably imagine, for Iraq to restart its nuclear program in any meaningful way.

Other shitty countries have done it, or as noted with Iran, are trying to do it. Why not them?

Look, I'm not saying this was the greatest idea ever, just that it was not without justification or forethought. The pre-war intelligence doesn't seem to support the invasion (based soley on the WMD justification, which as noted was only one reason) in retrospect, but that's a far cry from saying that it was a mistake, or worse yet, "based on lies" (not tying that comment to you).

 

[m0tbaillie]

We did so under UN mandates. I see where you are coming from, and argue the same, but it is a bit nuanced.

Still kind of funny to look at it all; We needed to attack them because they were shooting at us, because we were flying over their territory and bombing them, because they invaded Iraq.......

But sir, we ignore the UN entirely all the time... like when they told us not to invade Iraq and strongly urged us to reconsider. Annan even went so far as to dub it illegal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

 

[mmx1]

But sir, we ignore the UN entirely all the time... like when they told us not to invade Iraq and strongly urged us to reconsider. Annan even went so far as to dub it illegal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

The word of the Secretary General doesn't carry the weight of a UN mandate. It's not like he has any real executive power.

 

[mmx1]

Also, if you're going to reference WW2 then why not bring up the fact that we had little camps of our own?

Because our "little camps" and their "little camps" were so alike.

 

[m0tbaillie]

The word of the Secretary General doesn't carry the weight of a UN mandate. It's not like he has any real executive power.

Neither does the Queen of England, technically, but she sure as hell carries quite a bit of weight with quite a few people.

 

[mmx1]

Neither does the Queen of England, technically, but she sure as hell carries quite a bit of weight with quite a few people.

And yet not listening to the queen isn't the same thing as, say, violating an English law.

And frankly, I think the Queen of England carries more clout than the Secretary General. I mean, how many people would die for one over the other? :icon_wink

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

By that incredibly twisted logic, I guess one could say that Cuba/Canada/Mexico/Belize/Chile/Germany could potentially pose a threat to our national interests, however arbitrary and contrived said interests may be.

Guess we should just preemptively strike them too, huh? You can never be too sure of anything and perpetual paranoia isn't going to make us any safer.



You mean Northern and Southern Watch? Would we shoot at Russia for flying directly over our sovereign airspace?

Last I checked, preserving our access to foreign oil was a National Interest for the United States.

Go figure.

 

[Flash]

Last I checked, preserving our access to foreign oil was a National Interest for the United States.

Go figure.

And last I checked, we were not hurting for oil before invading Iraq. Go figure.

 

[mmx1]

Last I checked, preserving our access to foreign oil was a National Interest for the United States.

Go figure.

Shit, we should have invaded Venezuela then. Where's that spanish rosetta stone disc?:icon_wink

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

And last I checked, we were not hurting for oil before invading Iraq. Go figure.

And that would prevent us from seeking to maintain that access how?

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Shit, we should have invaded Venezuela then. Where's that spanish rosetta stone disc?:icon_wink

We're importing from them still.

Say Iraq became unstable under Hussein's control and Iran decided to capitalize on this and invade. Iran takes control we lose that access. Where might they decide to go next? Kuwait.

We don't import from Iran. We import from Iraq and Kuwait and Venezuela.

Keeping Iran out of Iraq and Kuwait is currently a national interest.