Iraq invasion unjustified
From Slashdot Your Rights Online Story | Why Counter-Terrorism Is In Shambles
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
By fyngyrz (762201) on Saturday January 16, @04:24AM (#30788798)
Homepage Journal
As much as I hate to defend one of Bush’s decisions, this isn’t true. Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to hand him over because (1) they didn’t believe he was linked to the 9/11 attacks and (2) he was a “guest” in their country.
So what? That was entirely post-attack. The attack was paid for by Saudis, and executed by nationals from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt.
Now, do you see Iraq in that list? Fuck no, you don’t. Do you see Afghanistan there? Fuck no, you don’t. Do you see us attacking Egypt? No. Lebanon? No. The UAE? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Instead, we attacked Iraq (a total WTF) and Afghanistan, a country uninvolved in the attack; no nationals, no funding.
And if you think it’s ok to attack a country because they don’t want to hand someone over, then you better start ducking, because the US holds people back from all manner of countries. A [japanbases.com], B [iraqinews.com], C [wordpress.com], D [ocsatire.com], etc.
If you think it’s ok to attack a country because you don’t agree with how they do things, then holy chickenshit, you’d *really* better duck, because there’s a whole line of countries that can say that about us.
If you think it’s ok to attack a country because they’re screwed up internally, that is, not obeying their constitution or other founding papers… yeah, you guessed it, duck. because we’re so far away from our constitution it can’t be seen from here.
But I think you might agree with me that if someone attacks you, then you have some justification to hit back at where they come from and/or who paid/ordered the act. Let me repeat, just for the sake of trying to point the objective facts to you:
- Saudi Arabia
- United Arab Emirates
- Egypt
- Lebanon