| Kasz216 said: I dunno. Obama is on pace afterall. Bush started 2 wars in 2 administrations, and Obama strated 1 war in 2 administrations. Come to think of it, Clinton started what... 2-3 wars in 2 administrations too? Bush senior had Iraq. When the hell was the last time we didnt have a president activly go to war? Did Reagan have any active war's... i'm drawing a blank.
Of them all, really only afghanistan could be justfied as defending ourselves in a way that's not preemptive. Well arueably Iraq 1 as well... although from what i hear there actually is some evidence that Iraq's claims of slant drilling were true. |
Even the case to go to war against Afghanistan was iffy at best. For starters the Taliban requested evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 before handing him over and none was provided. The request was perfectly reasonable. However the Bush administration refused and were adament Bin Laden was responsible. As the Taliban would not back down war was unleashed. The FBI was then tasked with finding out who was responsible. It took them over a year since the invasion and subsequent occupation to come to an unsatisfactory conclusion that Al Qaeda was possibly responsible but the evidence was circumstantial at best and would not hold up in court to indict someone. It's why the FBI never mentioned 9/11 as to why Bin Laden was their most wanted man. So war was unleashed without any solid proof. 10 years later, hundreds of thousands killed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, much more terrorism and millitant activity in the region and nuclear Pakistan dangerously unstable we have to ask ourselves surely there was a far better alternative? If only they listened to the experts who advised the whole saga be treated as a criminal case rather than a war on terror.
