At 5/17/08 03:05 PM, Al6200 wrote:
At 5/17/08 02:10 PM, TheMason wrote:
Yeah but they never actually occupied a country. Believe it or not, there's a world of different between striking a nation and taking out their entire government and taking essentially sole responsibility for replacing it.
Irrelevent. It was a huge expense keeping squadrons in Saudi and Turkey as well as a carrier battlegroup in the Gulf. It was a drain on resources that needed to be resolved. Furthermore, we started building permanent bases outside of Iraq (Qatar) under their administration. Furthermore, in 1999 Clinton came exceptionally close to invading because of Saddam's shenanigans. Finally, the intelligence we had saying he had WMDs and was in violation UN resolutions was obtained and briefed to the president and VP during the Clinton administration.
In short, we really were geared towards invading Iraq regardless of who won. Clinton/Gore set the stage for invasion for the next president.
So yeah, we would have still invaded Iraq especially after 9/11.