Did we go to Iraq too early?

Question

Imagine having the ability to Know before hand that Japan was going to attack Pearl. You Know it 5 years before it happens! If you strike Japan in 1936 the world Looks at you as an agressive Monster in 1938 they look at you as Jumping the Gun because in spite of the Build up by Japan your proof ( at least what you can show) is weak.

bert t down to this level? EDIT to John: Believe me I wish there was a medication I could take to make this guy go away.


If I was a Guy You would get your chance....too sad.

Answer 1

Yes. The name is proactive self defense.

Answer 2

So by this type of logic we should be attacking Korea??? Maybe someone should write the President.
Yes we went to Iraq to early, we should have wiped out Ben Ladin first, getting the head of the group reponsible for 9/11 might not have prevented all of the Al Queda cells from setting up in Iraq however it would have detoured more so then still having Ben Ladin out there somewhere.

Answer 3

Imagine a world leader knowing exactly where the admitted murderer of almost 3,000 US citizens was hiding, knowing it for a full two months after the crime, yet giving that man a two month headstart before going after him? Imagine having a military force of 180,000 at your disposal, but only sending in 11,000 troops to bring him to justice.

Imagine not only NOT bringing him to justice, but allowing the criminal to continuously release video and audio tapes anytime he pleases, which, according to that "world leader", doesn't embolden others to act as the criminal does.

Imagine that leader, in response to the failure of capturing or killing the criminal, invades and destroys a country which never threatened the US, never attacked the US and was the only nation in the region that world leader knew for certain wasn't hiding the criminal. Oh and it goes without saying of course, that more than 6 years later, the criminal is still at large and still able to demonstrate his contempt for the "leader" who admits he doesn't even THINK about the criminal anymore.

Since you have crystal balls and all, try imagining the thought processes behind THAT. You don't have to imagine the scenario I've described, it's history at this point.

Answer 4

Problem is that you absolutely cannot know for certain what will happen 2 or 3 or 5 years down the road - if you act on your supposed foreknowledge you are arrogantly playing god and in my book that is just wrong. Maybe we should have fired Bush One/Rumsfeld before the deal that gave Saddam his bio weapons way back when....there are lots of woulda-coulda-shoulda scenarios that we could come up with here.

Answer 5

Yes we did! I said that the day Mr. Bush decided to take out Saddam,It's to soon,not yet.
We should have taken care of things in Afghanistan first about 70,000 troops. And then gone after Iraq.
What Mr. Bush had in mind I agreed with. It was the order of achieving it that I disagreed with.

Answer 6

Well considering Saddam had his own GENERALS who were closest to him believing he possesed chemical/biological weapons, I believe we acted accordingly. However I appreciate your attempt at teaching liberals some common sense (sadly, it will probably not get through their blatant hatred towards Bush/Cheney).

Answer 7

I've now read three of your questions in a row and I have to ask...are you on some sort of medication?

Answer 8

Answer: No! However I also believe that your rational and historically accurate analogy will be lost on those that chose liberal distort hatred over facts and honest logic.

Answer 9

You should not go out these days like that you losing your power

Answer 10

not early enough we wasted too much time selling this war they got the majority of wmds out of Iraq