04-19-2004, 04:56 AM
|
#28
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The thing is though, Iraq was safer before the war. Now it's very, very dangerous. People can be arrested by US soldiers, declared enemy combatants, and sent to israel for "interrogation."
The reason for this war was not to oust Saddam Hussein, it was to stop him from using his large cache of weapons of mass destruciton against the United States. Now, there appears to be no weapons. If the original declared intention of the war, was to end Saddam's dictatorship, this argument would be a lot shorter.
If the US is against dictatorships, why aren't they hostile towards Saudi Arabia? Why don't they take out Arafat and invade Palestine? Cuba? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Belarus? Turkmenistan? Myanmar? Uzbekistan? Pakistan? China?
Their foreign policy is inconsistent. It begs us to ask why.
|
Wrong. First of all, when we take prisoners, we put them in prison. When Saddam took prisoners, he had them raped and tortured without trial or questioning, then he had them executed (usually in a cruel way, as well.) You can't say Iraq has been less safe, too - far more people died per year under Saddam's regime than under U.S. occupation.
We went into Iraq was because Saddam was a threat to his people, to neighboring nations, and to the United States. It wasn't just for one simple reason like WMDs. It was mainly because he had failed to comply with U.N. regulations and sanctions regarding his weapons cache (which he had many months to dispose of/hide before we came in) and because, as I said, he was a threat. The U.S. hates dictatorships, but most of them aren't threats.
|
|
|
|