Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
World War II. Germans bomb British cities, We bomb theirs- we bombed theirs better. They attack our unarmed ships without warning we attack theirs.
|
The paragraph you had quoted from Konovalov was on counter-insurgency, which is what is applicable to Iraq. What you're bringing up here are separate campaigns that were all tied to the more central campaign of encircling and defeating Germany and Italy on the battlefield. That was accomplished in Iraq 3 years ago, so how is any of this applicable?
Quote:
|
They want to preserve our democracy not spread it. The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.
|
You could probably make that case for Afghanistan, seeing how it was connected to 9/11. I would disagree with your methods but at least they have some relevance. How does Iraq, which is what we're actually discussing in this thread, tie into what you're saying here? Was Iraq planning an attack on the US? No, this has never been suggested and there is no indication that they were. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to the US or its allies? The findings of the Iraq Survey Group suggest they did not. Was there any credible link between Iraq and 9/11? The Sept. 11 Commission concluded in their investigation that there wasn't. You have setup a strawman here as it has absolutely no relevance to Iraq. How you go from this strawman to a justification based upon it that the US Military gun down innocent civilians in Iraq I don't understand.
Using your logic, why not simply kill everyone else on the planet to preserve your democracy pre-emptively against the same non-existant threats to it that Iraq posed? It would make about as much sense.