Why is it blame? I believe it is credit that should be bestowed upon the President of these United States. We removed Hussein, and eliminated a whole country's worth of terrorists, insurgents, you name it!
Agreed, we deposed Saddam. But to what end? We deposed Mossadegh in 1953, Diem in 1963, Zapata, etc, etc. The pattern of these interventions doesn't bode well for us. Again, there's a profound problem in terms of the resulting power vacuum. At this point it's simply infeasible for us to curb the bloodshed in Iraq, and we're causing at least some of it. Yes, the Saddam regime was repressive and even bordered on genocidal, but really, those facts aren't really valid reasons for war: look at countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, etc. where the rulers are far worse than Saddam and yet the US does nothing. If one justifies Iraq on a moral basis, you open a slippery slope to intervention everywhere, indeed, you demand intervention everywhere on a moral basis.
After all, we have absolutely no evidence that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we intervened (The 9/11 Commission Report), but they were certainly there afterwards. The demolition of a power struggle creating a playground for extremists, sectarian violence and warlord rule, much like in Afghanistan.
You didn't have any proof before he said that.
And?
What in God's name could be more important than 4,000 Americans dying and even more collateral damage?!
Over half a million Iraqis dying and the destruction of pretty much all of their infrastructure.
Ever hear, "the best defense is a good offense?"
Yes, and using aphorisms to back up your argument is pretty pathetic. You'd have to, in order to support the "Iraq was a threat" theory, provide quite a lot of evidence. After all, NONE of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, we have no evidence Al-Qaeda and Iraq were in league. The WMD theory was exaggerated, such as the fraudulent uranium purchases. I'm going to ignore the rest of that blurb, just because you waste about ten lines on one word.
1. Because there were no WMDs does not mean the information was 'fabricated.' It simply means people in the intelligence business made a mistake. I don't remember if they ever really did say there were WMDs, but if they did, you shouldn't jump to conclusions. This could all very well have been a big fuckup on some satellite unit's fault. Besides, there were research facilites, so they did plan on having these weapons eventually, we just severely impeded their progress. And you can't forget all the trouble they were giving the United Nations inspection personnel, remember? That alone gives us a good reason to believe that Hussein was up to something. Why else wouldn't he cooperate, other than the fact that he was an idiot of vast extremes.
I suggest you read Hans Blix's oral introduction to the UMVOIC:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htmAnd this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.htmlAnd, if you have the time, this:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/S-2003-580.pdf2. Saddam Hussein was a major symbol of terrorism and horrible atrocities that have been committed over the years, and we did nothing about them. He is now eliminated, and that gives me, and many other people satisfaction, that the world is free of one more terrorist leader. I think a lot of Middle Eastern people appreciate his death as well, maybe we should look into some of their responses. Moving on, who else would we eliminate? According to your attitude so far, you're saying we should go and take out other terror factions, which I completely agree with, but if we did that you would scream about more American casualties wouldn't you? The UED reporter said it, and I'm gonna remind you, "All wars have casualties."
Read the summary at the bottom.
4. This war isn't about oil, its about protecting our country from people who want us dead, because their goddamned religion says so. Zealots, extremists, dumbasses alike. Bush is not mentally challenged, if you can't figure that out maybe you should check yourself into a mental clinic. Its not a good habit to reduce people to "sheer retards." What do you think the people who have mentally challenged people in their families have to say about your choice of words?
Provide at least some proof or some backup to the statement that Iraq was a CLEAR security threat TO THE US. After all, a vague or far-off future threat is hardly adequate justification for war. Again, Al-Qaeda was not cooperating with Iraq, there was no reason for us to think so, the WMD threat was disputed/conflicted, and the 'moral' excuse doesn't logically work. The burden of proof is on you.
None.
