Well I think there are several different conversations going on. Would Iraq be more stable without our involvement I think everyone agrees and there would be fewer Iraqi casualties. To why we meddled is the same reason we've been meddling for over a century and that's the resources in the area. If we were concerned with humanitarian aid we would be more involved in Africa and taking in more Syrian refugees. If it was because of a risk to national security we would have gone after north Korea. To say we will give dictators a free pass we've been doing that already unless we see means to gain from overthrowing them.
To the presence of ISIL if not them it would have been another group that would be a major threat. every time one group is beaten back another fills its place. The reason for this is because the resentment for foreign involvement is there to be iincited into violence. Foreign countries have been invading, manipulating politics to establish sympathetic governments, and even altering borders as we see fit. If the roles were reversed we'd be pretty pissed as well. We went to arms because we didn't have representation on our taxes.
So do I feel Saddam was an cruel leader, yes. But my question is at what point did the Iraqi people get a say in this?
To the presence of ISIL if not them it would have been another group that would be a major threat. every time one group is beaten back another fills its place. The reason for this is because the resentment for foreign involvement is there to be iincited into violence. Foreign countries have been invading, manipulating politics to establish sympathetic governments, and even altering borders as we see fit. If the roles were reversed we'd be pretty pissed as well. We went to arms because we didn't have representation on our taxes.
So do I feel Saddam was an cruel leader, yes. But my question is at what point did the Iraqi people get a say in this?
