Quote:
|
Originally Posted by White Doors
Yes, the muslim fundamentatlists wanted a theocracy in Iraq. A theorcracy would have been even more brutal than Hussein in my opinion.
|
Well, both are pretty bad. No-one is saying (or at least no-one should) that it wouldn't be better to have a democracy in Iraq than to leave Saddam in power forever. For one thing, that guy is SERIOUSLY mentally ill. Apparently he spent the night before the invasion working on his "novel."
But just as clearly--the justification for the war that was given by the Bush administration was at best wrongheaded, and at worst deceptive. Iraq had no WMDs and no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. That much is clear--and should have been clear beforehand, even if it wasn't to everybody. It's quite telling, though, that many in the Bush White House had been concocting plans for the invasion of Iraq that predate 9/11 considerably.
Furthermore, their complete lack of an occupation plan and an exit strategy will likely cost many lives, and may well tip the region into greater conflict and instability.
It's like the hippocratic oath--"first, do no harm." Any action that you take, should be done because there's a reasonable expectation that it will materially improve the situation without unreasonable cost in terms of human life. The jury's out, but it strikes me as unlikely that the Iraq war will meet that test.