Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
Bad argument. If you justify invading one country because its leader is a bad guy, then you have to invade ALL countries whos leaders are bad guys. This includes Iran, N. Korea (much worse than Saddam), China, India, Pakistan, Lebanon, and a boatload of other countries.
Besides, it is not our job to be the world's policeman. All that has ever gotten us is ill will.
WWII was the last war we ever fought that we had any right to be in.
WWII and the wars before it were fought because someone was aggressive against us (WWII - Hitler declared war on us, Japan bombed us. WWI, England intercepted a german transmission and decoded it. The transmission said they were going to have their submarines sink ships without surfacing. We had told them they had to surface the sub to identify their target because they had sunk one of our ships by accident. The german document gave instructions to Mexico to invade the U.S. with the financial and military support of Germany - effectively declaring war on us).
|
Nonsense and nonsense.
The world is not as black and white as you paint it.
The truth is that if Saddam had stayed in his borders in '92, we probably would never get the internal and international support to remove him.
That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be justified, just that it would likely fail.
That is simply politics on the world stage.
Yes, I would love it if we went into North Korea and Iran (not sure how India and China pissed in your Wheaties), but there are other factors that make it prohibitive.
But what I'm really scratching my head over is that you are apparently saying that it is a bad thing Saddam is out of power and that is beyond belief.
The man was an inhuman monster who killed hundreds of thousands of human beings. Circumstances came about that we could take him out and I am not losing one minute of sleep over it.