4 ms·
> But we didn't. And even if the way that was handled sucks and the intelligence was faulty and I was utterly against invading Iraq because it seemed the wrong
by marcusverus 5y ago
> But we didn't. And even if the way that was handled sucks and the intelligence was faulty and I was utterly against invading Iraq because it seemed the wrong thing to do, right after 9/11 the whole world stood with the USA.
The cost-benefit analysis was entirely different. Europe got on the bandwagon with the global superpower. The benefit was that they stayed in the good graces of the global superpower. The risks were not existential—-they signed on for a pair of wars against third world countries. There was zero risk of provoking a world war. There was zero risk of atomic bombs being dropped at home.
Compare to the current crisis. The benefit to the US of fighting the Ruskies is—-what? We would gain weak ally. The costs would be our THIRD Great War fought in Europe for the benefit of Europeans. With the risk of world war or even nuclear war.
And don’t preach to Americans about doing “the right thing” in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of our boys are buried on your soil—-the cost of a long history of ‘standing as one’ with our European allies.
- jacquesm 5y ago> Hundreds of thousands of our boys are buried on your soil—-the cost of a long history of ‘standing as one’ with our European allies. I haven't heard that one in a long time, but thank you for reminding me. You were there? My grandparents and parents were there. And I've seen up close what a Russian annexed country looks like. Believe me you don't want either. > Europe got on the bandwagon with the global superpower. Ah ok. I will re-calibrate accordingly. > There was zero risk of provoking a world war. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-25-fg-nuke25-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-25-fg-nuke2...