Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Jolt
Thanks for the summary, raveneye
Bottom line here: No one will ever convice me that the Iraqis are somehow worse off now than when they had a muderous psychopath as a leader. It may not be disneyworld over there, but at least we've changed some of it for the better.
However, I will concede, they did lie about why we went over there. We had a million and one good reasons to go over there and take out Saddam, but instead Bush chose to make one up.
Grow some balls, dude. Were doing the right thing by getting rid of these people, and we will have to fight them sooner or later. In the words of Winston Churchill:
|
Anyway, we had a million and one good reasons to go over there? Good for who is my question. It wasn't good for myself, I don't feel like it was good for the country (the money, the allies lost, the terrorists created). These people were 0 threat to us. I don't recall the Constitution saying it's ok to spread democracy. The Military is for defending the nation, not attacking.
If a murderous psycopath is defined as someone who kills innocent civilians, has rape rooms, and tortures people, then Saddam is a psycopath. Then you look at what's happened there since we've invaded, thousands of civilians killed, prisoners sodomized and humiliated, and the torture is back. It's bad when Saddam does it, and ok when we do it. I don't understand the logic there.