Letters to the Editor
-
fish, barrel
* Why would it have been better to gamble, that Saddam has no weapons, no bad intent, and is just posturing?
Why was that a gamble? By the same token, you could also say we are gambling that an asteroid will not hit the Earth, or that the dolphins are not actually hyper-intelligent space aliens who are biding their time before slaughtering us with their head-mounted lasers.
Not every possible threat imaginable mind of man represents a "gamble" that must be addressed with force of arms. I'm mildly surprised even you need this explained to you.
The Iraq invasion was not about a sober assessment of the realistic risk posed by Saddam Hussein to the United States. It was about projecting power into a region where the Bush regime wanted to project power, and Iraq was seen as low-hanging fruit due to the degraded state of their military and the hatred of the Iraqi people for the tyrant. The invasion was both wrong (because you don't invade another country just because you wanna) and stupid (because destroying a nation's infrastructure and imposing a colonial rule tends to alienate the populace).
Are you seriously saying the last, painful six years haven't taught you anything... or are you just too titred on a Teusday morning to come up with any original lines to troll with? Hmm?