Breaking every term of the truce which ended the 1990-91 war, and in addition firing upon US forces enforcing the terms, and attempting to kill former President George H. W. Bush. That enough "acts of war" for you? And I've told you all this before, too, so it's hard for you to plead ignorance.
However, considering that there was no link between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, and there were no WMDs, why was Bush justified in paying off Pakistan? Iraq could've been fought before or after the war on terror.
While I agree that the Iraq government had no moral right to exist qua rule by Saddam Hussein, the timing of it was impractical. Unless of course you want to argue that having Iraq is important strategically, but we don't seem to have utilized that reason, so the point is moot.
I hope you don't mind my arguing against something for which I was previously in favor.
However, considering that there was no link between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden ...
Well, there was a weak link. Saddam Hussein cooperated with Al Qaeda at various points.
... and there were no WMDs ...
Bush didn't know that until after he invaded Iraq. From Bush's POV in early 2003, Iraq was the main priority, because he thought it was closer to acquiring WMD than was Iran or Syria.
... why was Bush justified in paying off Pakistan? Iraq could've been fought before or after the war on terror.
Remember that Bush had to make the decision vis a vis Pakistan each year based on what he knew then. When Pakistan initially promised to turn on Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Bush had no reason not to believe Pakistani promises. It was not apparent that Pakistan was going to break these promises until after we were already involved in Iraq.
Obama doesn't have this excuse. It's obvious now that the Pakistani regime is not acting in good faith, and furthermore Obama is making his decision after the Mumbai Massacre and Pakistan's reaction to it
( ... )
Reply
You're aruging that Cuba had in 2003 recently committed acts of war against the United States of America?
Iraq, after all, had.
Reply
Reply
Reply
However, considering that there was no link between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, and there were no WMDs, why was Bush justified in paying off Pakistan? Iraq could've been fought before or after the war on terror.
While I agree that the Iraq government had no moral right to exist qua rule by Saddam Hussein, the timing of it was impractical. Unless of course you want to argue that having Iraq is important strategically, but we don't seem to have utilized that reason, so the point is moot.
I hope you don't mind my arguing against something for which I was previously in favor.
Reply
Well, there was a weak link. Saddam Hussein cooperated with Al Qaeda at various points.
... and there were no WMDs ...
Bush didn't know that until after he invaded Iraq. From Bush's POV in early 2003, Iraq was the main priority, because he thought it was closer to acquiring WMD than was Iran or Syria.
... why was Bush justified in paying off Pakistan? Iraq could've been fought before or after the war on terror.
Remember that Bush had to make the decision vis a vis Pakistan each year based on what he knew then. When Pakistan initially promised to turn on Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Bush had no reason not to believe Pakistani promises. It was not apparent that Pakistan was going to break these promises until after we were already involved in Iraq.
Obama doesn't have this excuse. It's obvious now that the Pakistani regime is not acting in good faith, and furthermore Obama is making his decision after the Mumbai Massacre and Pakistan's reaction to it ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment