FaRmLaNd said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
I was in the middle about the war at the time. On its own, there's nothing wrong with a little forward-thinking regime change, but why start with Iraq? There were others they could have gone to for similar jingoistic results, so ultimately i woudl say i was against it at that time, and would still be, though much less vehemently than most who have opposed it
|
I actually have an answer for this one.
Have you ever started off a task so long and ardous you knew you might stop it at any time?
For example, my girlfriend decided to watch "1,000 movies you should watch before you die."
You inevitably start off with all the movies you WANT to see anyway, because who knows if you'll complete the list.
Even assuming George Bush's goal was "Freedom for all, yee haw" you gotta figure he knew he wasn't going to be able to invade EVERY country with a dictatorship.
So he started with the one he wanted to invade most.
Because it'd show up his dad, or for his dad for invasion purposes or whatever reason.
|
Assuming "Freedom for all, yee haw" is the drive. Why wouldn't you start with a country that is placed within one of the most important areas in the world, had attacked other local foreign powers and could thus disrupt the whole region, had used chemical weapons against the kurds and was already restricted by sanctions and a no fly zone protecting Kurdistan?
There are plenty of reasons why Iraq could have been chosen and we certainly weren't going to attack a country like China which is too important and very powerful or a country that has little significance, why not when choosing a state, attack a pariah state thats already been weakened by past conflict and sanctions?
|
North korea would fit all those criteria... minus the "gassing the kurds" but you could add things like "kidnapping foreign nationals."
Plus they were close to nukes, which they now have.
Heck, a lot of countries fit that description.
