Even if we truly believed that Saddam was creating weapons of mass destruction, why in the world would we believe that it was our soul responsibility to deal with the situation? There was absolutely nothing in his personality that indicated we would've been his primary target or that he'd have shared them with any other country. The man was a paranoid control freak. My guess is the only ones that would've been in Saddam's sights would've been the oil producing countries on his boundaries. Maybe it was high time these bloated and greedy regimes took care of their own defense. Maybe it's also time to turn Israel out into the world and let them deal with their own problems as well.
You're using the term Islamo-fascists as well and it's pretty much common knowledge that the Iraq regime was one of the most secular in the region. How was removing Saddam a fight against the more radical of the Muslim world?
I'm not saying I didn't rejoice at a bully getting his due but I was one of the few voices prior to the war screaming against the snake pit we were opening up. For the record, I'm against meddling in any country's affairs unless they prove a concrete threat to our direct safety not just some perceived economic or philosophical threat to our comfort. As much as the Star Trek series was just a vehicle for entertainment, their "Prime Directive" was a blueprint for how superpowers need to conduct themselves. Areas develop best when allowed to evolve naturally even if it feels wrong to the outside observers. We're this impatient nation that needs results yesterday and history has simply proven to not work that way.
Art Martin
Current Events » in reply to Yes.
Here's where we differ
The whole thread (61 posts)
- Conservatives: If we could do it all over again, would we still invade Iraq?
- re: Conservatives: If we could do it all over again, would we still invade Iraq?
- re: Conservatives: If we could do it all over again, would we still invade Iraq?
- Hindsight is always 20/20.
- Probably not
- The problem with conservatives....
- Yes.
- Yes.
- re: Yes.
- Yeap.
- re: excellent, but you forgot one thing:
- That's pretty much how I see it. (n/t)
- Here's where we differ
- re: The two next presidential contenders
- The next President will not have to deal with the war in Iraq.
- And a further point to consider is...
- re: And in november?
- " The American people would never have supported an invasion of a foreign nation which posed no direct threat, simply for economic or geopolitical reasons. "
- your drinking cool-aid if you think it was for those reasons.
- re: " The American people would never have supported an invasion of a foreign nation which posed no direct threat, simply for economic or geopolitical reasons. "
- The next President will not have to deal with the war in Iraq.
- Loaded question. But yes.