Quote:
Originally posted by ^Ice_Bat^
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.
|
Ok, let's try this again....the administration's reason for going to war was WMDs and the threat of Saddam, plain and simple. Humanitarianist concerns were not cited as a major justification until after we were unable to find any WMDs. Have you forgotten the months and months of debate over Saddam's nuclear program, the Yellowcake uranium scam (which precipitated the Valerie Plame scandal), Colin Powell's UN presentation, the ridicule of Hans Blix and all the other events that led up to this war?
Your "history lesson" only confirms what I said earlier...this administration is composed of some people who will lie down with the devil when it serves their interests. 20 years ago they were so interested on destroying Iran that they actively supported a madman that was gassing his own people. I can go into the history of American interventionism in Iran , and how it ultimately harmed our interests there, if you'd like. You are right in saying that it was against "our best interests" for Iran to prevail in the war with Iraq, but "our best interests" had nothing to do with the best interests of the people of Iraq (or Iran, for that matter). People like Paul Wolfowitz have been advocating the invasion of Iraq for a decade, and their motives have nothing to do with humanitarianism (no, they think Iraq would make a dandy foothold in the Middle East). I wouldn't be so quick to claim the moral high ground, if I were you.