Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Bush attempted to make it clear that we were not attacking the Iraqi people. We attack Sadaam and his military to remove him from power. We are at fault for making the country of Iraq the global front in the war on terrorist, but the terrorist didn't have to respond the way they have.
|
If you slap a bear in the face, the bear has a choice: go back to sleep, or rip your arms off and eat your head.
The thing is, we have been bombing Iraqi civilians for a long time, and Clinton was absolutely wrong to do it, and Bush was absolutely wrong to do it. The embargos killed millions (?) of Iraqis that had nothing to do with Saddam's policies. As I've said time and again: Saddam was no threat to the US coming up to and as the US invaded in 2003. There was no real reason to invade them. It would have been much better to allow Iraq to have a civil war that removed Saddam from power, while carefully monitoring the situation (and providing the resistence secretly with intel on Saddam). We would have experienced 0 casualties, we could have concentrated our military and intelligence services on actually fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where I have no doubt we would have already found Osama and been able to put him on trial. Instead of a world that resents us for invading a country that was no threat to us, the world would cheer as a major battle against radical militants was won.