Jump to content

Cheney: would have invaded Iraq


John Adams

Recommended Posts

On Meet the Press today, Cheney said the US would have invaded Iraq even if we knew, like we now know, that Iraq had no WMDs. His rationale is that Iraq could have started making WMDs.

 

What the !@#$? Is the rationale for war, then, that we can invade any sovereign nation that could start making WMDs. Of course, Cheney dodged and weaved when pressed why the US invaded Iraq but not North Korea based on his rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were, and had been for years, valid reasons for invading Iraq.

 

Problem was, this administration wouldn't have known one if it bit them in the ass.

766897[/snapback]

 

They know them. They just have a hard time explaining them that would sound palatable in a two year time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violating the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War?    :(

772173[/snapback]

 

So that's a "valid" reason? Please educate me. Maybe, not very pragmatic though. Our country spends over $1,000,000,000.00 per week. Whatever the cost, spreading Democracy at gunpoint in the middle east should be our priority. Right? Lets get back to the original reasons for the occupation. And, look at what is happening with the justified war in Afghanistan now! hmmm! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that's a "valid" reason? Please educate me. Maybe, not very pragmatic though. Our country spends over $1,000,000,000.00 per week. Whatever the cost, spreading Democracy at gunpoint in the middle east should be our priority. Right? Lets get back to the original reasons for the occupation. And, look at what is happening with the justified war in Afghanistan now! hmmm! :o

775310[/snapback]

Uh, is your question serious?

 

Because yes, when someone violates the terms of a "ceasefire", it does open up the option for the other side to resume firing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that's a "valid" reason? Please educate me. Maybe, not very pragmatic though. Our country spends over $1,000,000,000.00 per week. Whatever the cost, spreading Democracy at gunpoint in the middle east should be our priority. Right? Lets get back to the original reasons for the occupation. And, look at what is happening with the justified war in Afghanistan now! hmmm! :o

775310[/snapback]

 

Okay, then...how about genocide and ethnic cleansing?

 

Or is intervention for that only justified for European countries? We've already established it doesn't matter in Africa...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, then...how about genocide and ethnic cleansing?

 

Or is intervention for that only justified for European countries?  We've already established it doesn't matter in Africa...

775362[/snapback]

 

The difference being that one administration stepped in while it was actually happening. The other used it as a post excuse (note it happened under an administration of their similar ilk who really didn't mind) when they knew their other justifications were not going to wash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, is your question serious?

 

Because yes, when someone violates the terms of a "ceasefire", it does open up the option for the other side to resume firing.

775344[/snapback]

 

Resuming fire is one thing. Though I doubt that was necessary, shoot at what? But all out invasion and occupation doesn't appear to be prudent diplomacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference being that one administration stepped in while it was actually happening. The other used it as a post excuse (note it happened under an administration of their similar ilk who really didn't mind) when they knew their other justifications were not going to wash.

776850[/snapback]

 

Which administration would that be. Because I KNOW you can't be talking about Clinton's. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...