He's right and you know it.
Now there's a debating strategy. I say he's wrong and I know it and you know it too. <ggg>
While not a pleasant ruler by any account, Saddam was no threat to any other country, apparently did not have WMDs, hence US' invasion on these grounds was completely unfounded.
That's your opinion and, IMO, completely unfounded. Aside from the mass torture, rape, killing, etc., which justified toppling him, he had documented ties to terrorists and terrorist funds.
There are US buddies treating their citizens quite as bad as Saddam. Do a Google search for Turkey human rights or Turkey torture. In any case, that was not the case to invade Iraq. The case was that Iraq was dangerous, that there were WMDs.
I don't disagree and I'm sure there are many on here who would argue pro/con Turkey. Dealing with Iraq was a start. I believe that knowing that the US "means business" unlike before, these other nations with human rights tragedies will realize that they could be next. We are already seeing dramatic results in Syria and, hopefully, the Road Map will lead to peace. Even Iran is coming along arguably.
"Mass torture" or its lack thereof has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not France was right in opposing the US aggression of Iraq on the basis of it being a huge threat, because of its imaginary WMDs. It was not, and they apparently did not exist.
I've already answered that point but IMO, the war was justified on the basis of mass torture. I admit that the PR of the war made it seem that it was WMD, and with that approach I disagree. In this nation, one can disagree and still live to see the next day.
If only, there had been a US with a similar mentality back in the late 1930's, perhaps 10 million might have been saved or at least some of them. Forget the niceties, sometimes one has to do what is right. One can argue "what is right" but, in my mind, the history of Hitler and, to a lesser extent, Stalin and Saddam, justifies the removal by an outside nation. I know some poster will come back and say, "What if another nation does not like what is going on in another country? Does that justify an invasion?"
To that I would answer that these particular regimes are so evil that is no redeeming value to their existence, justifying the approach that we have taken.
And now US has lifted sanctions (can they even DO that? those are UN sanctions...) although no WMDs are found yet. What a joke...
Forgetting the political wrangling, does it make sense to have sanctions that really hurt the people who need help now?
As for WMD, I see the arguments that it will be impossible to find them if they are buried in the desert or in Syria and I also see the arguments that, with all the troops,etc., they should have been found.
For me, it seems that there was no question that the potential of WMD was there and probably in effect up to a certain point, months or years, before. I'm not sure whether that alone justifies a war. As I wrote above, that's not the reason I would justify eliminating a mini-Hitler. |
