So you preferred SH?
Let me think about that.
On the one hand, we had Saddam Hussein contained in Iraq slowly losing his grip and busy killing the some of the radical extremists that we're now fighting.
On a the other hand, we now have a sudden regional upheaval throughout the entire middle east, the loss of thousands of American lives, the maiming of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars from our treasury expended with no end in sight, the strengthening of organized terrorists, the weakening of Islamic moderates and the empowerment of Islamic radicals, Iraq in chaos embroiled in anarchy with no services, no security and sectarian violence raging, the loss of American prestige and trust throughout the entire civilized and uncivilized world, worldwide terrorist attacks increasing every year, our administration the laughing stock of the world, American forces too strained to pose a viable military deterrent threat to Iran or N. Korean plans to acquire nukes, our troops are getting so angry and scared that some of them are raging against the Iraqi civilians, the religious right in this country is talking about Armageddon, AND IT'S ALL GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER.
If you could have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and everything else had remaining neutral then, yes, it would have been good to have him gone. But that didn't happen, did it?
The devil we knew was much preferable to the devil we're seeing now.
We'd have been better off letting events take their own slower, internal course in Iraq and then to have stood with the world if things had gotten out of hand. But we had to be part of the problem. With the arrogance of power we cowboyed it up, fired off our sixguns and now the stampede's run over the chuck wagon, killed the night herders and about to trample the women and children in town. Yee Haw! Ed |
