Hypothetical situation: A man pulls a gun on a cop. The cop’s partner who the man doesn't see shoots and kills the man. Later it is determined that the man had no bullets in his gun. Does that make the partner a murderer? Of course not, the partner responded appropriately to a legitimate threat. The absence of bullets after the fact does not change the situation.
Does this hypothetical situation parallel the war in Iraq? Saddam said he had weapons of mass destruction, the world believed he did, the Democrats and Republicans believed him and voted to act to remove him. Then after we did we found no WMD's, he had no bullets in his gun so to speak. Does that mean it was wrong to go over there? Should we have just left at that point leaving Iraq in shambles for a new tyrant to take over? Even though many senators and congressman voted to respond to the threat in Iraq, should George W. Bush get all the blame? Should there be any blame, and if so who should share it?
2007-09-10
10:37:27
·
17 answers
·
asked by
atomzer0
6