Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
Hypothetical and IMO wrong. Not to mention what would have happened when his brutal sons took power. Saddam and his family killed thousands and thousands of thier own people. I guess that's just not important either. He was Ok in power in your book.
|
If hypothetical and wrong, explain and support the reasons why.
I don't think it was Ok for Saddam to be in power, just like I don't think it's ok for many of the leaders of African countries to be in power. However, the US *
is not the world's police force*, something you have agreed with me on numerous times. Sorry to everyone else, but we have enough of our own problems in this country. When we don't have veterans sleeping on park benches, children in soup kitchens and an ever increasing crime rate nation-wide, then we can focus on other countries. Until then, it's not our problem to fix on our own - the international community as a whole should step in to fix those problems.
After the WMD reasons and supporting terrorism reasons for war failed, the Bush administration spun the topic to say "hey, Saddam is a really bad guy. We've liberated the Iraqi people. We succeeded." Strangely, that's not at all what the presented reasons for going to war were.
At the end of this, there will be no "success" in Iraq. The "mission" (whatever it's been spun into now) will never be accomplished.