Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
@jmm99:Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.
That'll fit in with the large percentage of people here who say we should have left NATO in 1990. I suspect we'll all survive if that occurs.
@Entropy:"They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward."

That's a key quote that shows that you don't use the European point of view.

It's not about whether the war is clean or dirty, successful or failure.
The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.
Of course he doesn't use the European point of view. That's like me saying you do not use the American point of view...

As for a crime by European standards; Okay. Uh, you do realize we aren't European? International law? I'll leave the legality debate to my attorney but I will ask you this; since a law is "The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system as international law." who or what is the political authority that enforces this international law?

With respect to "not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose..." I'd ask if those are fact or opinions?

I'm also very, very curious as to what you believe to have been the purpose of the invasion of Iraq?