Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz
Straw man arguments ROCK!! So lets say your best friend is always over. Never done you wrong. You helped him out tons of times, you took him from dirt poor, and showed him how to get the better things in life. Your friend becomes successful and well off. Then one day you come home and find him fucking your wife, and you kick his ass. Does your wife turn to you and say.. "Its your fuckin fault honey. YOU are the one that helped him get to where he is in life, and I found him really sexy now that he is successful. See what you did dumbass?"
Doesn't fucking matter where we were in the past. If an Allie turns against you he is no longer an Ally. And you cant be blamed for helping them get to the point where they had the power to fuck with you.
Enough with the dumb arguments. Saddam was bad. He was an ally when we needed him to be. He turned against us, and we took him out. He had PLENTY of chances after the first Gulf war to get his shit back together. Do some reading on what him and his sons did to Kuwaitis THEN come back to the thread. Its pretty hard to find the info now days, been buried in the SE's by a bunch of lefty sheep. Ive talked FIRST HAND to Kuwaiti immigrants that went through that shit. Nashville has the largest population of Kuwaitis in the U.S. So I know what he did. He was a monster after he got that power. Unless the U.S. has some experimental Crystal ball they can see the future with you can't blame his bullshit on them years after we helped him. Its stupid.
Maybe the rest of the world that hates the U.S. can blame France for helping us way back when. lol Stupid strawman arguments.  |
I wouldn't exactly classify Saddam as our "best friend". We hated the Iranians more than we hated Iraq at the time, so we gave him all the weapons we could muster. We knew he was gassing his own people, but we didn't care. As long as he kept fighting Iran and selling us oil, he could slaughter as many of his own people as he could (with our weapons).
And Saddam was a fucking lunatic. No one denies that. But there are hundreds of lunatics running countries and parts of countries throughout the world. There have been genocides taking place in parts of Africa and Eastern Europe up to today. There are countries like Pakistan and North Korea that actually have nuclear weapons available. So out of all these major threats and atrocities taking place, why pick such a small blip on the radar such as Iraq? It's like having 5 guys coming at you with machine guns and you choose to take out the guy carrying only a knife. If you're going to argue that this was about a "threat to our security", then why not take out the countries that are actually a threat to our country? If you're going to play the "atrocities" card, why not take out the countries that are committing much worse atrocities than Saddam ever did?
But the most amusing aspect of the whole Middle East debacle is the demonization of Saddam as if he was any different than the other leaders in the Middle East. Do you know there is a country that has a leader that financially supports terrorist organizations (heck they hold fundraisers for them!)? A country that the overwhelming majority of 9/11 hijackers came from? A country that runs on Sharia law and opresses their people much more than Saddam was when we went to war? But guess what? He gets to hold hands with our President.
