Replies

It seems to be a given that we had to invade Iraq. If they had no WMD's, what would have been the logic? This defies any reason. Did we have to go because we disliked Saddaam? Did we have to go because we wanted to kill some of the Iraqi people? Did we have to go because Iraq was a danger to our country? What is the reason?

I just cannot understand the logic of defending a war based on mistruths. We saw it in Vietnam with Johnson and the Tonkin incident which was proved to be false and destroyed his administration. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Trying to defend it, places the Republicans in the same box as the party that we so roundly criticize for not being able to tell the truth.

You want the truth? Here it is, naked and unadorned. George W. Bush made a unilateral decision to invade Iraq, to strengthen his position politically here at home, and to undermine the Democrats and reduce them to a permanent minority party status. Once the Bush Administration could declare victory, this would encourage the national economy to rebound, and this had in fact happened.

The BBC and many among the British elite have stopped comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler, and instead have been saying that by establishing a Gulag at Guantanamo, he unmistakeably has become much more like Josef Stalin, a towering icon in the eyes of the British left. So by their estimation, this may very well be as close to admiration as they are able to muster.

It seems to be a given that we had to invade Iraq.

Well, in the sense that our Commander-in-Chief seems to have made the determination that this was a necessity, yes.

. If they had no WMD's,

Who says they had no WMD?

what would have been the logic?

Oh, hypothetically, you mean. Well I believe it's well-known that our leadership has an approach to the war on terror (remember this "terror" stuff?) which partially involves removing a dictatorial regime in the Middle East and trying to help a more or less free society grow there.

Did we have to go because we disliked Saddaam?

Not "have to".."want to" maybe

Did we have to go because we wanted to kill some of the Iraqi people?

No, it's obvious that we wanted to kill as few Iraqi people as possible. Fewer than Saddam does, for example.

Did we have to go because Iraq was a danger to our country?

Our C-in-C seems to have thought so.

What is the reason?

ask the C-in-C, he explained it many times. If you don't like his decisions/strategy for the war on terror, you can vote against him next time, of course. be my guest

I just cannot understand the logic of defending a war based on mistruths.

what "mistruths" were those again?