3 ms·

I hear this argument a lot, and I just can't agree with it. The biggest miss was about chemical weapons, which even if true, would have been an entirely inadequ

I hear this argument a lot, and I just can't agree with it. The biggest miss was about chemical weapons, which even if true, would have been an entirely inadequate justification for the war that followed. The nuclear argument was never well supported and clearly looks fabricated in hindsight. To talk about bad intelligence is to accept that invading a country to preemptively to remove a dictator is a moral action, which is repeatedly demonstrated to be the exact opposite when viewed as a whole. The results of the Iraq war were foreseeable by those that pushed for it. I can't accept that we should just politely not mention it because someone is dying of cancer. This is a war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It's a big deal.

leereeves 8y ago
> invading a country to preemptively to remove a dictator is a moral action That is widely believed. For example, that's exactly what Obama and Hillary did in Libya.
- aero142 8y ago
  And the current disastrous result is just as predictable and evil as Iraq. Maybe more-so because we have such a recent example of why it is such a bad idea.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Quite true. And yet there was immense pressure to do it, often from people who were vocal opponents of the Iraq war (notably the French government).
- wahern 8y ago
  Europe spearheaded the Libyan intervention. The U.S. came along for the ride, not because of some strongly held policy objective. The roles are usually reversed, but by 2011 Obama was already deeply skeptical of intervention. European powers have always had a keen interest in Libya, particularly Italy and France, and the U.K. was still pissed about Lockerbie. The U.S. wouldn't have gotten involved otherwise, no matter how much Hillary pressed. That doesn't excuse the U.S., but we shouldn't equivocate culpability.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Sure, Bernard-Henri Levy deserves his share of the blame too. But how do BHL and 40K get on the same page about something like this? Do they stalk/roll around the same intellectual salons? No they don't. They do both, however, sing for their suppers. The masters had better like the song. The song sounded pretty good when DPRK pointed out what HRC's bayonet really meant. [0] The music buffs might be a bit nervous now, but few would be surprised if Trump gets a new high-pressure sales pitch that totally changes his mind before anything gets signed. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/12090658/North-Korea-cites-Muammar-Gaddafis-destruction-in-nuclear-test-defence.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/1...
grosjona 8y ago
Yes, I agree, it's not right that you can screw up the world and get away with it because of ignorance. It's not a good excuse. If you have power and influence, ignorance is a crime. I hope that humanity will one day become immune to this kind of individual-tragedy rhetoric and save their hearts for the stats.

leereeves 8y ago

> invading a country to preemptively to remove a dictator is a moral action That is widely believed. For example, that's exactly what Obama and Hillary did in Libya.

aero142 8y ago
And the current disastrous result is just as predictable and evil as Iraq. Maybe more-so because we have such a recent example of why it is such a bad idea.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Quite true. And yet there was immense pressure to do it, often from people who were vocal opponents of the Iraq war (notably the French government).
wahern 8y ago
Europe spearheaded the Libyan intervention. The U.S. came along for the ride, not because of some strongly held policy objective. The roles are usually reversed, but by 2011 Obama was already deeply skeptical of intervention. European powers have always had a keen interest in Libya, particularly Italy and France, and the U.K. was still pissed about Lockerbie. The U.S. wouldn't have gotten involved otherwise, no matter how much Hillary pressed. That doesn't excuse the U.S., but we shouldn't equivocate culpability.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Sure, Bernard-Henri Levy deserves his share of the blame too. But how do BHL and 40K get on the same page about something like this? Do they stalk/roll around the same intellectual salons? No they don't. They do both, however, sing for their suppers. The masters had better like the song. The song sounded pretty good when DPRK pointed out what HRC's bayonet really meant. [0] The music buffs might be a bit nervous now, but few would be surprised if Trump gets a new high-pressure sales pitch that totally changes his mind before anything gets signed. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/12090658/North-Korea-cites-Muammar-Gaddafis-destruction-in-nuclear-test-defence.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/1...

grosjona 8y ago

Yes, I agree, it's not right that you can screw up the world and get away with it because of ignorance. It's not a good excuse. If you have power and influence, ignorance is a crime. I hope that humanity will one day become immune to this kind of individual-tragedy rhetoric and save their hearts for the stats.