(December 31, 2015 at 7:16 am)abaris Wrote:(December 30, 2015 at 10:47 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: Just to be clear, I am agnostic about the merits of invading Iraq.
If Saddam ultimately would have been content to be a horrible dictator who only oppressed his own people, I would say our invasion was 100% a mistake.
I don't know how old you are and therefore can't say if you recall the situation in the 90ies and early 2000s. Iraq was virtually under siege, with strict embargos in place that made it even impossible to get certain medications. A situation killing off quite a number of children by proxy, which made headlines around '95. A situation leading Albright to say, she didn't care if they died, as can be seen in the vid, Capn posted.
And, oh yes, bombed on a regular basis by the US and by the UK. On every given pretext and at one time even called the Monica bombings, because Clinton was in a tight spot for a BJ and needed some distraction to present to the public.
Saddam virtually couldn't move. His army was in tatters and he had no airforce. So this argument of Saddam preparing to strike again is nothing short of absurd. Not to speak of the UN commissions constantly being in and out of the country.
Im 25. I remember when I was younger hearing that Saddam was a "Bad guy" but never knew the extent to how bad he was. I remember being sort of nervous about invading Iraq but I thought maybe there were WMDs there.
I remember though that before we invaded many of the anti-war people used the threat of his WMDs as an argument not to invade saying that all our troops might be massacred.
Why wouldn't Saddam just come clean, tell the UN he was sorry and do whatever he could to get the sanctions lifted? I suppose he was sort of an egomaniac who may have had a grandiose napolean complex of some sort?
It's kind of hypocritical me being an American, but I think it's troubling that Saddam was so fixated on biological weapons for so long.
Why were there such punishing sanctions on Iraq? To stop it from making non-existant WMDS? And wasn't part of the reason why the Iraqi people suffered so because Saddam was more concerned with building palaces for himself than helping his own people?
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 14, 2024, 7:27 am
Thread Rating:
Is world better without Saddam?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)