[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Palantas

Well, I don't think it's irrelevant. How 'bout that? I imagine that people who complain about one thing based on a certain rationale will complain about another situation based on the same or similar rationale. And what do you know? We have people in this thread saying that the information presented in this thread doesn't justify the invasion.

Now explain what this has to do with your banally obvious objection to my original statment: That Saddam Hussein was, in fact, the president of Iraq and not Afghanistan, and that these are two different countries the US invaded.

I don't want to start a snowballing argument, but I will just say that the implications and reasons behind the Invasion of Afghanistan, at least at face value, do not have much to do with the fact of whether Saddam dealt with anti-American terrorist groups or not. Therefore, I found your comment somewhat out of the blue, unless you really believed that Afghanistan was linked to Saddam. But now I see you do not.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="I"]

Oh, no kidding? I learned something new today. :roll:

Palantas

But that very fact shows that your original post doesn't make much sense, especially given that many less people objected to the Invasion of Afghanistan than that of Iraq.

Oh for f***'s sake... People objected to the invasion of Afghanistan even though it was harboring/supporting a group that attacked the US. Ergo, even if Iraq were doing the same, people would still complain about it.

Only to the extent that the population of both said opposition sets overlap. It just seems irrelevant to mention one, and then automatically assume "they" also represents the population set for the other one.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="I"]

So what? Lots of people think the invasion of Afghanistan was totally unjustified. This won't change their opinions.

Palantas

Afghanistan? Last time I checked, Saddam was the President of Iraq. A country also invaded by the U.S., but subsequent to the Invasion of Afghanistan. And for different reasons.

Oh, no kidding? I learned something new today. :roll:

But that very fact shows that your original post doesn't make much sense, especially given that many less people objected to the Invasion of Afghanistan than that of Iraq.

This sounds almost like something out of The Onion.

I think the last and final straw for Hussein was when he decided to commoditize his oil transactions from the US Dollar to the Euro. That was the WMD that he had that no one was able to find.

_R34LiTY_

Saddam should have waited and done that instead of completely destroying his economy, oil output, and international credibility in two reckless wars against fellow OPEC nations. Maybe then that move would have had significance.

So what? Lots of people think the invasion of Afghanistan was totally unjustified. This won't change their opinions.

Palantas

Afghanistan? Last time I checked, Saddam was the President of Iraq. A country also invaded by the U.S., but subsequent to the Invasion of Afghanistan. And for different reasons.

But was that any excuse to order the entire nation's army and police forces to disband, which in the process put maybe hundreds of thousands of angry, armed, and war-skilled men out on the streets, and gave dangerous players like Al Sadr and Al Qaeda free rein in the resulting power vacuum for years?

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Does this in any way perpetuate the argument that good / favorable things seem to come to those who need it the least? It's been on my mind awhile, and I think it makes for good discussion.

KungfuKitten

I understand very well the implications of the need to mitigate risks in the face of high economic uncertainty. I think the meltdown in '08 showed very clearly that no one is immune. But I suppose my thoughts are on the idea in itself. I have been a strong believer of free market economics, but I have often wondered if what I subscribe to is not a contradiction as to what I truly believe. This implies to myself more of a system of meritocracy. And even that system would imply that this process of rejecting the continuously unemployed is also the correct and legitimate way to do things. But as someone who knows plenty of people still struggling after many months of being unemployed, and I myself being down on my luck in different ways, I have wondered where to draw the line.

Does this in any way perpetuate the argument that good / favorable things seem to come to those who need it the least? It's been on my mind awhile, and I think it makes for good discussion.

Why give these people an audience? It's only going to perpetuate their respective notoriety and thus make them much more prominent than they should be. And I say that about every ******** thing (s) or person (s) this forum repeatedly complains about.