Quote:
Originally posted by Beestie
End of story for you, perhaps.
We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.
I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any. We might disagree on whether or not we SHOULD have felt threatened by Iraq but I cannot reasonably entertain the notion that we should ignore a mounting threat.
The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.
|
Why did we feel 'threatened' by Saddam who sat about and did nothing but not North Korea who parade their military about and BRAG about their 'weapons of mass destruction"?
Feeling 'threatened' is NOT a good justification to attack. I can feel threatened by your existence, but that doesn't give me the right to end it.
The Cuban missile crisis is a BS example because you fail to mention that US had plenty of missiles damn close to the USSR also. (Turkey I believe. Not 100% sure, but I can check.)
Placing the missiles in Cuba was a "me too" on the part of USSR. In fact it was later found that most of the missiles were NOT operational. But that’s besides the point.
If libertarians were in power at the time they'd not have the "Oh yeah?!" cold war going with USSR.