Quote:
This has to be one of the most pathetic defenses of not going to war. It involves ignoring history and then making up things.
1) Hussien kepth the three groups together has to be the biggest laugher.
- Umm no. He elevated his Sunni group and supressed the rest killing 100's of thousands. Nevermind the millions he killed in wars of aggression.
2) No terrorist link. I think not. Off the top of my head wuld be his 25000 dolars for suicide bomber families.
|
I already conceded that Saddam was a bad guy - he did horrible things but that isn't sufficent reason to invade under the guise of links to 9/11. There are a lot of dictators out there with atrocities like Saddam. Much like the US's good friend Saudi Arabia. As for linking him to 9/11, giving money to the Palestinians isn't the same - again, something many countries in the middle east do. Fair point though - he supported Palestinian terrorism. If you call "the war on terror" war on ALL terrorists, perhaps the US should invade Chechnya, Ireland, and Algeria as well.
I am curious to where the figure of "millions" killed comes from? Granted, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.5 million were killed in the Iran Iraq conflict, but that isn't exactly "millions" is it? There are a lot of wars on the globe, and last time I checked the US wasn't invading as the result of them - expecially 20 years after the fact.
Saddam brutally repressed the Kurds and Shia. This provided more stability in a secular Iraq than the current US occupation, with fewer casualties. Of greater concern is the road Iraq is now going down - a destablized collection of religious regions at each other's throats next to a fanatical Iranian administration.
Again, I am curious about your figure of "hundreds of thousands" killed? The UN listed 30,000 killed in the 91 uprising. A horrible number to be sure, but IIRC the US occupation has already reached that number. Not that it provides justification regardless how many Saddam has killed.
Quote:
3) Those wasted lives. I mean the Kurds in the north, out from under Saddams thumb. The return of 800,000 to a million Kurds to their homes in safety and a local democratic government. Or the Shias in the south of Iraq who have lived in relative peace with an occasional riot against the British. Or the 250,000 Marsh Arabs returning to a newly flooded home.
The violence in Iraq is very localised. The Americans are having trouble and making mistakes but that does not mean it is a waste. A waste will be if the Americans return home without finishing the job.
4) Let not forget that they do have a democratic government which the majority of Iraqis have voted for!
|
I am curious how the Americans are going to "finish the job" when they are already failing so badly. The violence in Iraq is getting worse, not better - and I don't understand how anyone could suggest otherwise. The democratically elected government doesn't even have the support of it's own people, let alone control over the country.
A once stable secular state under a horrible, but powerful dictator who was contained, and had no connection to Al Quaeda, is now a hotbed for terrorist growth, a powerless democracy descending into ethnic civil war, and well on its way to being a failed state.
As for lessons from history - how about when the citizens of a country don't want peace, it is pretty hard to force democracy at the end of an M-16.
The US is in the process of handing Iraq to the terrorists. Losing more American lives in the meantime isn't going to change much.
