Joe, I can't remember who I lent my copy of Art of War to, so I couldn't find the passage I paraphrased if I wanted to. Do take notice of the lack of quotation marks though! (not that you'd have any reason to expect proper punctuation from me.
)
Freeduck, I doubt either of us have the patience to debate the entire campaign. My point was simply that it is NOT "childish" to blame the responsible party (the UN) for what took place on their decade long watch. Debatable? PerhapsÂ… but certainly NOT childish.
To answer your other questions in the broadest of strokes: Yes, I think the rest of the world's Saddam's should be removed as well and yes I would support that. Why Saddam first? Numerous violations of the ceasefire from our previous war, gave us room to say we had the right (regardless of who disagreed). Why not Israel instead? They don't make a habit of shooting at our planes.
Freeduck wrote:You don't have to screw up intentionally to have screwed up. The fact that we apparently understood so little about the country and its people is a fact that supports the conclusion that we had no business invading it.
Errors in judgment on how best to prosecute the war do not "supports the conclusion that we had no business invading it" By that rationale, you would be defending the invasion had we understood the people and country better. Nonsense. That's a position of convenience.
squinney wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:I have trouble believing that anyone intentionally planned the war poorly. There is no profit in it of any kind, for anyone, so why would they?
You're kidding, right?
Who would be profiting less if the invasion was planned better? Any impropriety that's going on doesn't hinge on poor planning. If you think otherwise, you're making one hell of a charge. Are the spoils of a well-prosecuted war not sufficient for these fiends in your eyes?