Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
1) Zarqawi is not (and will not be) in charge of Iraq, and does not have the necessary support to do what Saddam did to the Iraqis. He also does not have an army to attack Iraq's neighbors with.
|
No, he just wants to harm Westerners. So we've gone from someone who did nothing to Westerners to someone who only wants to target Westerners and their supporters and who doesn't mind killing a few Iraqis on the way. The US has actually created what they set out to destroy. Is that a step in the right direction?
Whether he's in charge of the country or not or is able to invade Kuwait is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
2) Zarqawi was around *before* the Iraq war, and was doing nasty things before too. The US invasion did not create Zarqawi or his brand of terrorism, it just exposed it.
|
Yes, they gave it a global stage and in the eyes of many impressionable young men, they gave his cause a very persuasive justification. Youths from all around the region are pouring into Iraq to follow him. He couldn't have hoped for a more impactful recruitment campaign than this invasion. How is this helping to defeat terrorism?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
3) as nasty as he may be, he's still just one leader of one very small group of criminals. I suspect more Iraqis died of traffic accidents than from his terror attacks. You just tend to hear about terror attacks because it's a lot of dead people at one time, at one place. Saddam was infinately more deadly.
|
Give him time. Saddam had decades to "do his thing." Let's talk about this 10 years from now when we can really see who was worse.