CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Define "acceptable loss" and what becomes acceptable if the reason we went to war for in the first place turns out to be a sham?
I can't put a number to it if you want me to do that. Oh and as much as you seem to want to see this war as a sham - it is not. Saddam should have been gone long ago - WMD reasons or not.
CkG
I don't know how you define sham, but if someone tells me they are doing something for a reason and provides me with what they claim is undeniable proof justifiying their actions, and then their proof is false, I call that a sham. Saddam was a bad guy, no arguement, but there are many bad guys out there, many of whome we support and many of whom are infinetly worse than Saddam could ever be. Altruism is not a reason to declare war on a sovreign nation, but oil, display of military might and Israel are definetly reasons this administration would consider worthwhile enough to mislead the American people IMO. If they find WMD, you will be vindicated, but beleive me, America has lost a lot fo credibility in the eyes of the world thanks to this little adventure.
OK, so one detail of Bush's reasons to go to war has been proven to be wrong but this a sham does not make.
CkG