Quote:
Originally Posted by Agema
We all know now that two of the most prominent reasons to invade Iraq (WMD, Saddam supporting terrorism) were a load of utter rubbish, and we were sold a pack of lies where contradictory evidence was removed and the evidence supporting it inflated. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now dead (although things wouldn't have been much better under Saddam), thousands of servicemen from various countries are dead. It's incited terrorism against the West, and the country was heavily infested by Al-Qaida, which before it had no support there. It's still in near civil-war. And then there's the stuff like Abu Ghraib.
|
I think that you are stepping into a land mine here.
I do agree with you (even more so since I feel there is never a good reason for one country to invade another country and taking out their leader even if it all had been true).
But you need to look closely at the arguments that have been given. When someone says it was not a mistake and then points at the polls, he is trying to say that it was apparently not a political error for that politician to do it. At the same calling it a blunder means he is agreeing that the reasons given for the action turned out to be false.
As much as it irritates me, I would have to agree with those. We as americans in general did not get nearly as ticked off at Bush about it as I wish we had.
Gandalf Parker
--
Its easy to understand.
Under the Democrats we will be the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will be the Ferrengi.