Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lasereth
Whenever a country is obviously defenseless against a dictator such as Hussein then I believe someone needs to take action. Standing by and letting people be terrorized by a maniacal leader is ignorant whenever there's a chance to remove the threat. It's the entire world's duty to everyone else to uphold decency. There was a chance to take out Hussein and make an attempt to restore Iraq to a reasonable place to live. The US Government took it. Iraq isn't under the control of Hussein, he's out of power, and now Iraq will have a democracy. I think the US Government made the correct decision.
|
Wouldn't sending in someone or a team of someones to remove him have been much more effective and less bloody? Would you have supported that action?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Laserth
I don't think that the US should "invade every country around the globe until only peace and love and the American way" is upheld, but I think it's the duty of <I>those able</I> to remove threats from defenseless people. The US isn't the issue here...it's the issue of whether removing a threat from defenseless people is the right thing to do. I believe it is whether the US takes action or another country takes action.
|
So you would support an invasion of North Korea to remove Kim jong Il, who sits high on his throne of plenty while many of his people starve?
Iran? Libya? Cuba? Where is the line drawn and who draws it?