Quote:
Originally posted by xxxdesign-net
Not if you do not target the government/army.. but terrorist rebels which the government of respective countries do nothing about (or cant do nothing about)... Terrorists that btw.. had just attacked US ambassies... A prompt swift retalliation was needed... That fallls in the category "war on terror" ... not war against a country.. ex.: afgahnistan..
Not the case with Iraq..
you can play with words all you want.. act of war.. etc.. but the fact remain is you CANNOT compare the 2... A full blown war against a country is not the same as hitting criminals that killed some of your citizens hidding in a foreign country thinking they are protected... The fact is that they are not protected and now.. they better think again... Clinton made a good move 
|
Firing a missile into any country is an act of war. That's not playing with words.
I agree with you that firing a missile into Sudan is not the same as invading Iraq but not because of principle. This is only because Sudan has no capability for retaliation nor willing allies. Firing a missile into China or Russia, however, would be inviting war and no one would blame them for retaliating.
I guarantee you if the Mexican president were to fire a missile into a Texas pharmaceutical plant it would be taken as an act of war. Do you agree or disagree?
I'm sure you think that if the US were to fire a missile into a Canadian factory that would be an act of war. Correct? So why not Sudan? What are you saying? Its ok to bomb brown people?
I think you're being hypocritical. You are defending Clinton for firing a missile into a Sudanese factory in retaliation for an al Qaeda bombing of an embassy. As far as we've seen, there is little if any evidence that the "chemical factory" was anything of the sort. Clinton acted on intelligence which was - like the intelligence on Iraq - faulty.