exactly, that's what i'm getting at. iraq was 'wrong' even though we had unverified intel (just like now) that they had WMDs, and there were other reasons such as iraq violating UN resolutions imposed on them after desert storm, and intel that they were harboring terrorists (which seems to be true). btw saddam did for a fact use chemical weapons on his own people even though that wasn't a case for war. Contrast that to syria which has literally nothing to do with us. yet there's ricter making excuses.Quote from Lucrum:
Colossal Hypocrisy
We should not get involved for business reasons, I don't think they're there, unless there are repercussions to the area that full-time, professional analysts are factoring in. No, I think this intervention, should it occur, will be mostly on the morality of using WMDs.Quote from PiggyBank:
what? Are u saying that u agree we should not get involved? what principle is this?
Quote from Scataphagos:
Congress should GROW A PAIR!
The "Checks and Balances" established by the Founders were to PREVENT such "going around"... for all of our citizens' well being.
We don't elect a president to do WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS... We don't elect monarchs.... we don't elect dictators... though they often act as though we did.
Where are Congress and the Judiciary to throttle them asshole presidents??
Quote from Ricter:
We should not get involved for business reasons, I don't think they're there, unless there are repercussions to the area that full-time, professional analysts are factoring in. No, I think this intervention, should it occur, will be mostly on the morality of using WMDs.
There were better reasons to believe Iraq was not a threat, but they were ignored. Perhaps we'll listen to the experts this time.Quote from PiggyBank:
Our military exists for OUR defense, there were reasons to believe iraq was a threat to our nation. there is no such threat from syria. And if we thought saddam had wmds and knew he used them before, wouldn't taking him out be the 'moral' course of action, according to you? obama can't attack syria without (once again) proving himself to be a hypocrite.