Quote:
Originally Posted by moe.ron
I think you're mistaken, the debate was about why Bush went in. I have argued that the Iraqi war was a mistake from the beginning. I have also argued that the rationale behind it was piss poor and the defense department didn't know what they got themselves into. Wolfowitz was using his experience in Indonesia to try to show they democracy can spread in a nation with Muslim majority. What he didn't realized is that the Arabic street and the Indonesian street are two totally different world.
Rumsfeld also came into Iraq trying out a new theory of a leaner attack force which can take over a nation and in the mean time conduct state building with minimal cost. Yes, a lot of people died because neo-cons were conducting an experiment on a theory. Well, the neo-cons were kicked out Bush's 2nd term.
Also, Bremmer did such a piss poor job, he made AIG executives look like a bunch of efficient managers. The whole mess can be blamed on Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl and Bremmer.
|
I don't disagree with all of this. However, I still feel we should have gone in and invaded Iraq. Yeah, true enough, Bush lied, but I think if he would have given the American people a different reason of going in, he would have gotten more support. The reason why we just can't pack up and leave, is because technically there really isn't any Iraqi armed forces left. We're not fighting an Iraqi army anymore. We are now fighting terrorist groups. If we leave, they come in, which is why I think we're there to stay. Saddam was a real asshole, a fucking madman. Dude, he had to be taken out. He was killing his own people. What kind of shit is that? A madman like that can't be trusted. Just give it time.
Threaded Mode
