Quote:
Originally Posted by NotConvinced  Seems Bush held back on military force more than you would. |
He's held back so far because it's a moot point. In order to exert military force, you have to use military
forces, and the Iraq war has stretched ours to the breaking point.
It's literally astounding to me that any American who has witnessed the events of the last 4-1/2 years, and knows a little somewhat-less-recent history, would advocate another preemptive war.
As categorically proven by the aftermath of the fall of Saigon, there was no line of Southeast Asian "dominoes" waiting to fall and set the stage for communist domination of the region.
As categorically proven by the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad, there were no weapons of mass destruction; there were no ties to Al Qaeda.
So our record of preemptive wars has been dismal. We have fought them for no legitimate reasons and achieved nothing except the disdain of the international community and a robust trade in body bags.