Not talking about Bush, calm down.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not like he invaded the wrong country or anything, calm down.
Did Bush ever apologise for that, or all the lives lost?
What I meant to say is he shouldn't get any slack. Of course he'll get a complete pass by the media.13rin wrote:
Oh but he did get slack for this. No major news network is running this story. He called he family and apologized, but I still stand by that statement.FEOS wrote:
No. It's not like he's handing out MoHs every other day. Those are so few and far between--and should be such an honor for him to be involved in--that every detail should be ingrained in his brain until the day he dies. Especially the first one. Especially if it was posthumous.
Not going to say he's a disgrace to the military. That's a bit harsh. Honestly, I think civil-military relations have improved overall under Obama (mainly because of Gates...we'll see how Panetta does). But he gets no slack for this slip up.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/ … ghanistan/
it wasn't the wrong country. Bush intended to invade Iraq.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not like he invaded the wrong country or anything, calm down.
Did Bush ever apologise for that, or all the lives lost?
No, he intended to invade the country that had violated UNSC resolutions approximately 18 times, many of which involved that country's WMD program and UN inspections. That country would be Iraq. Easy mistake for you to make, I guess. "q" is sooo close to "n" on the keyboard and all...Dilbert_X wrote:
Bush intended to invade the country with the WMDs.
That was Iran, not Iraq, an easy mistake I guess.
Yep that's what happened. Despite the fact that they were wrong, there were more than enough reasons to be concerned.Dilbert_X wrote:
So the 'violations' stopped and yet we claimed they continued?
Iran wasn't nearly as dangerous as Iraq was.Dilbert_X wrote:
All the while Iran was blatantly developing WMDs and missile capabilities?
FixedShocking wrote:
Iran wasn't nearly as dangerous as Iraq wasn't.
There were no reasons at all.Despite the fact that they were wrong, there were more than enough reasons to be concerned.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-30 05:20:13)
Not really.Shocking wrote:
Saddam controlled Iraq. Under his leadership, Iraq was dangerous.
Maybe not directly for any western country but most definitely for the ME.
He developed a biological weapons program.Dilbert_X wrote:
There were no reasons at all.
I'm not saying Iraq wasn't stable under Saddam, it was.Uzique wrote:
are you kidding? iraq was 10x more stable under saddam than it is under any of the mindless factional blood-letters that want power now.
None of which was really unique or any reason to invade, any more than North Korea or China or many others.Shocking wrote:
He developed a biological weapons program.Dilbert_X wrote:
There were no reasons at all.
He developed a chemical weapons program.
Both gave him good results, even if the programs were disbanded, due to all the research that had been done they would easily be revived if necessary. He tested his gas on the Kurds, if you remember. Furthermore, he was definitely interested in nuclear weapons and did want to create them. To top it all off he was hostile to all his neighbours, untrustworthy and unpredictable. Due to fears of further UN sanctions and perhaps even invasion, he disbanded his programs. Yet there is no doubt that if the UNSC stopped sitting on top of him for even just a brief moment, he would have restarted his programs.
And you're telling me there were no reasons to be concerned about Iraq?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-30 05:33:51)
Woah buddy, don't argue with lowi.. i mean dilbertShocking wrote:
The precedent for the Iraq war was made under Clinton, he wanted him gone too - not just Bush. I don't think creating a second North Korea would've been in anyone's best interest.
So why didn't Clinton invade Iraq?Shocking wrote:
The precedent for the Iraq war was made under Clinton, he wanted him gone too - not just Bush. I don't think creating a second North Korea would've been in anyone's best interest.
iraq becoming a second north korea? really?Shocking wrote:
The precedent for the Iraq war was made under Clinton, he wanted him gone too - not just Bush. I don't think creating a second North Korea would've been in anyone's best interest.
