Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smootsmack
But this isn't meant to be some anti-Clinton post, because I think he was right in intervening. He might have said it best when he said in 1998 that "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction."
And now, it's like offiss says, the point is to avoid another 9/11. I still can't fully grasp many of the same people who complain that we weren't proactive enough in terms of Bin Laden argue that we should have just taken a wait and see approach with Hussein because he had never actually invaded our soil.
|
sigh. awfully circular huh? iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. nothing. why do you guys insist it does? there was nothing bubbling, no real evidence of ANY plans (unlike with bin laden). al-qaeda isnt a nation, thats what makes them dangerous. if iraq as a nation attacked us, the entire world would come down on them along with us. if we had stuck only to afghanistan, the world would come down on al-qaeda and afghanistan because there was PROOF there was a relation. none of that exists for iraq. N O N E.