Quote:
Originally posted by Ace_of_Lobster
Maybe you did.
|
No, you're right. Iraq was indeed stable. Very stable. After all, everyone threatening to destabilize the country (or just insulting Saddam, or looking at him the wrong way, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or whatever) was killed.
Iraq was stable, like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was stable. That does not mean that it is bad to invade those countries to install a *normal* government...
In this instance, you have an ex-dictator (Saddam) on the run (with loads of money to support his cause), and a bucketload of interested parties (fedayeen, secret service, ba'ath loyalists) fighting to restore Saddam's and *their* power. After all, they were important when they were in power - now they're just common criminals and murderers. The rest of the Iraqi people are pawns in their political games, to be used as they see fit.
Just as an example of how the situation has changed: the other day, a couple of Iraqis were acting suspiciously in their farm. A group of US soldiers came in to investigate, and they found various suspicious drawings, maps and plans. They did *not* find any weapons, however. The men were released, with a formal apology. Now, I could argue that the Iraqi guys were victimized, and that the US army was evil for even going in there without firm evidence... but I could also point out that in Saddam's days, these guys would have been arrested, tortured and possibly executed with their entire families; just to be sure...