[lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens' Hypothetical Iraq War

From: "Eric" <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Andreas: Eric beats the war drums...

I did nothing of the kind. I asked a question. One that you apparently can't 
answer.

Omar said the US should have, "gone after the
Al-Qaida leaders and arrested them, instead of using
9/11 as a pre-text to attack a country that had
nothing to do with it."

My response was, "Assume we had done just that. Getting the al-Qaeda leaders would involve sending troops into Pakistan and ransacking the place, with or without the cooperation of the Pakistani government. Would that have made the US any more popular?" 

You want an answer?

In 2001, bin Laden and al Qaida were in Afghanistan. The US should have either arrested him or destroyed him and his camps. That would be the correct response to 9.11.

Instead, the Neocons saw that as an opportunity to exercise their theory: thus they invaded a country, toppled the government (which was not involved in 9.11), and set up a new goverment. Omar is right.

You bring up a second issue: should the US have gone into Pakistan? Al Qaida was in Pakistan because at Tora Bora, the US secretly allowed Pakistan to pull its troops out (10,000 or more Pakistani soldiers and officers were in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban). Along with that pullout, the Pakistani also brought Al Qaida out of Afghanistan.

So, should the US have gone into Pakistan? That's a weird question. The US allowed al Qaida to go to Pakistan, so why would the US then invade Pakistan?

You didn't answer my question. If the US invaded Pakistan, would you have joined the US army? You think the US should have invaded Pakistan, so would you walk the walk, or just talk the talk?

Put your money where your mouth is. www.GoArmy.com

yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: