Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
You would think that this "imminent threat" nonsense would be firmly discredited by now. Bush and co. have backed away from the idea (it's about the Iraqi people now, remember?), but I guess not everyone has gotten the message. Do you really think that Saddam Hussein was likely to launch an attack on the US? What kind of sense does that make?
As for the cruelty of Saddam's regime, yes, that is undeniable. However, remember that it was not "cruelty" that led us to war in the first place. Also, this same cast of characters has a rich history of supporting tyrants whenever it is advantageous to them, so their humanitarian cries ring more than a little hollow to me.
Edited for grammar
|
Actually it was not nonesense at all. Iraq WAS a gigantic mess, it may not have had the sack or sense to attack the US directly, but it definately had an impact on America's interests. Recall in the early 1990's when we were asked to overthrow Saddam by the U.N. and we refused. The world knew then what he was capable of. It was cruelty that led us to war. This man used biological weapons on his own people, threatened people to advance to his high position in Iraq, threatened and murdered those who might have schemed to overthrow him... this man was a tyrant. Hitler had NOTHING to do with us, but he formed mass graves of people with his ethnic cleansing. Although the motives are slightly different, the outcomes are the same. If you think the deaths of countless numbers of Kwaitis and Iraqis who wished Saddam out of power is not a just cause to go to war, then my friend you have a serious moral problem. As of your picture to make your argument, at the time, we were against Iran. You might recall the hostage situation in the Tehran embassy in which militant students took control of a U.S. embassy. You might also recall the Iraq-Iran war from 1980-1988. In 1982, when Iraq was on the brink of defeat, the U.S. decided that a victory by Iran would not be in their best interests, so neutrality by the U.S. in this situation was ended, and we supported Saddam. He was the lesser of two evils here.
Here is a link to this history lesson.
As I always say, most of the time, the difference of how you vote is often determined by the little amount of research, interest, and knowledge of the situation. We must look at both sides and make sure that by casting a vote against Bush is really what Republicans want to do if we are against some of the things he's done. I myself agree he's not the best president, but if Kerry ran things, I guarantee you this board would light up with more complaints than you have ever seen, and you'd be pulling your hair out at the mistake you have made. Further, I suggest you all go
HERE . This is yet another resource to help you decide. Let's at least agree with who's the BEST candidate rather than be retalitory.