That is a specious argument.
We could not have invaded the USSR. It would have started a war.
We did successfully invade Iraq and removed a vicious, murdering dictator.
I just heard from a Freeper whose son died there. To dismiss that war, which she believes was necessary, is to spit on brave soldiers who fought.
The cases are not the same. We know more about muslims now and wouldn’t do that again.
Oh, wait, Obama might.
Arguing about the Muslim world ... blah, blah, blah is pointless at this point in time.
I wonder what you thought then. Oh, I know.
Exactly the same as you do now.
Yeah, right.
No. It is not a specious argument. It is exactly the same rationale that you are using to justify invading Iraq.
“We could not have invaded the USSR. It would have started a war.”
Uhm - and just WTF was it that we were engaged in Iraq for 13 frigging years?
Oh, that’s right - Iraq was supposed to be “easy peazy” - whereas the USSR would have nuked our arrogant asses into oblivion. Got to be very careful about whose nuts you decide to cut off - especially when they have a real capacity to bomb you into the stone age.
You, sir are a hypocrite. Period.
My thoughts back then were the same as they are now. There was no definitive proof of WMDs. And, even if such were true, but given the assertion that there were, but they were removed, then why did GWB not pursue that intelligence to its logical conclusion? I’ll tell you why: Because while it is really easy to kick the crap out of a bunch of ill-equipped, badly trained Iraqi regulars - it ain’t so easy to take on the Russian Bear.
I got you by the short hairs, buddy - and I am not prone to let go.