Replies

Exactly- The misinformation was almsot criminal-

a few points for why he needed to be taken out- He was a modern day hitler- plain and simple- except he was murdering his own people en mass-

You bring up good military reasons- there werre also moral reasons to add to the mix-

saddam would light peopel on fire, hang them from meat hooks and skin them alive- he put peopel through giant shredders alive- feet5 first- threw people off buildings, burned peopel with acid in the face- lit their breads on fire so they suffocated, He used chemicals on his own people- He had MASS GRAVES dug to bury the dead he had killed- ETC ETC ETC

Saddam repeatedly broke international laws and fired upon our military repeatedly-

His sons woudl go to grade schools and order the teachers to bring out several young girls so that they could rape them- They put an olympic athelete in a box and left him there to die because he didn’t medal- ETC ETC ETC

Mistake General? No- there was no mistake-

Can you provide evidence for any of those things you've listed there?

I only ask this because it all has a familiar ring to it. We heard it back in 1990 when some Kuwaitis testified to these various "atrocities" that were allegedly committed by the invading Iraqi army. It turns out that some of the worst allegations were made by a Kuwaiti teenage girl who happened to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S.

It's amazing how many Freepers who post all over this forum about how much their government lies to them are willing to accept the government story about this sort of thing without questioning any of it.

Bob,

Fighting a war (or any war, for that matter), especially in the Middle East, for 'moral' reasons, is not "good enough."

Reports of human rights atrocities had been coming out of the Middle East for decades, and not just in Iraq. And we did nothing. Europe did nothing.

After 9/11, the American people didn't need any further reason to want Saddam dead and buried. Geopolitical excuses, like "Saddam is a foil to Iran," "Saddam, like Tito, keeps a tribalistic Iraq from disintegrating," "Saddam may be a monster, but he's our monster," were no longer good enough reasons to keep him alive.

The First Gulf War (which I supported), was a rousing success, but, as it always seems, America is great at screwing up afterwards. We bloodied his nose, decimated, to a degree, his ability to "export" war, but we left enough of his military intact to remain a foil to Iran and to keep Iraq from disintegrating. Sated our bloodlust, satisfied our sense of moral obligation to the Kuwaitis, and "punished" Saddam for being an evil dictator. Wham, bam, thank you Saddam.

Then 9/11 happens. Revenge, justice, payback, moral outrage are often used as justifications for war, but are, in hindsight, not always the best way to enter a conflict. I supported these conflicts. We bombed Afghanistan into the Stone Age. We achieved a level of success, arguably, that rivaled anything the Soviets could have ever done in their Vietnam-like boondoggle.

We achieved military success, in so short a time, with fewer US casualties. We owned Afghanistan, and no one opposed us, not Russia, China, or Iran. And then we screwed up the afterwards.

Iraq was next. Three weeks, from start to finish. Three weeks the might of the US military conquered a country the size of CA. Could we have done that in 1991, if the political will had been there? And then we screwed up the afterwards.

I am tempted to go on. If and until the United States, her citizens, her politicians and bureaucrats, and her military leaders, are willing to plan (and implement and stay the course), from the get-go, for the afterwards, then the U.S. should stop helping.

We are adult enough to take in the facts, the atrocities, the geopolitics, the "realities" and to make a rational logical decision on whether we should spend our blood and treasure helping, and decide whether we should remain the world's Policeman.