Reply #147: To do it right, then, means there could not have been a war, given your [View All]

[homelandpunk]

criteria:
<<I think what he meant was that if we had continued the inspections, waited for definitive proof that Saddam had WMD and gotten all of our allies behind us based on proof that Saddam had broken the UN resolutions imposed on him prior to going to war...>>

This can only mean war would not have even happened, were it "done right". Why? Because there are no (and never will be)WMD's found...and Saddam had not broken UN resolutions (It is meaningless to argue whether he WOULD have). Which means that "done right" is waiting, holding, holding, holding....UNLESS!!!
Unless something else besides "Saddam is bad" is offered. Hmmmmmm, what could that be? How about LIES. Which means to even GET to the point of war, is to lie the country (and the world) into agreeing to go to war. So done right in this instance can only mean using deception at the outset. Without deception (high crimes and misdemeanors) there would not even be a war. That sounds good to you? Wanna make WW2 comparisons still???
I know what will be said: So "now that we are in it" we should get it "done right".
The only way to get it done right at this point is figuring out how to tell ourselves ALL the dead - our soldiers AND all the Iraqis - somehow did not die in vain. How do you propose doing that?
"Done right" at this point, and at all points leading up to this point, is barren of any "do right" motivations, deeds, actions, and excuses.