Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Famous
That there was no moral basis for the war on the terms on which it was fought, and that the Prime Minister of the UK and "President" Bush deliberately mislead their people about the threat Iraq posed to anyone.
The only moral basis for any interference in Iraq was to remove Hussain, who was a butcher. There were far better ways of doing this, it could have been done in the first war if America had offered the support they initially promised to rival factions to the Baarth party.
|
Wrong wrong wrong, a milliong times wrong. Reread what you wrote a few posts above. Debase pointed out the IRaq has the burden of proof to show he destroyed his WMD. He agreed to this term after he failed to invade a neighboring nation. After 12 years of playing games with inspectors, we took him out. We warned him numerous times.
So your pity for a name that invaded a nations and failed, while starving his people, killing an estimated 3 million people and blaming a man that ended all this while the world gasped in hypocricital horror, is nothing short of laughable.
A few posts above, you even admit that " that may be true" which it is true, Saddam signed a treaty after he failed in invade a neighbor.
Why do you claim to have the best interests of the people in mind, when you champion a man that murders so many?
Acually, you are very consistant with the leaders of communism that you champion. Saddam was not a communists, but he does have a lot in common with every communist leader, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, namely a high murder count on people that do not think like him.
So its no suprise that you would defend Saddam. He fits in well with the people YOU would have running the show.