Originally Posted by MJ1970
OK. Fair enough. Back to the topic.
Iran is being portrayed as a real, credible and even imminent threat to the US and Israel.
Iraq was portrayed as a real, credible and even imminent threat to the US and Israel.
We were specifically told Iraq had WMDs.
Does any of this give you reason to pause and reconsider what we're being told now?
Honestly, no. It really doesn't. Unlike you, I don't believe the administration lied to the public to start a war. My view is that WMD was primary reason, and that they believed Saddam had them. In fact, I've not seen a single shred of evidence showing the administration lied about WMD.
Also...back to jazz's perfectly appropriate analogy: A large, powerful nation invades a neighboring country (or countries) to the US. Would you consider that a potential threat to US security and even, potentially, an aggression against the US?
Hypothetically and without regard to the absurd analogy, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the analogy is, in fact, absurd. The U.S. didn't invade a peaceful nation in the most stable region in the world. We invaded Iraq. In the Middle East, the most UNSTABLE region in the world. We invaded a nation whose dictator had gassed his own people and launched an attack on Kuwait. We invaded a nation that blatantly defined UN weapons inspections and resolutions, and shared a mutual hatred of the United States with terrorist networks.