Quote:
Originally posted by Pornwolf
If the problems in Africa were spread out I would agree with you but they aren't. As you know, they are in small areas spread throughout the country as are most other genocidal situations in the world that could have used our attention before Iraq.
Iraq's human rights violations aren't current enough to warrant the attention paid to it right now. In the other countries, where kids are being killed and women were being raped daily, our attention could be used right now.
As I said before, Bosnia I agreed with more than our occupation of Iraq because it was a situation like the other world situations we are ignoring. People were getting slaughtered daily. When this is the case I totally agree with stepping in depending on the overall cost to us (manpower and financial).
My contention with this administration's war policy is that we went to a place at a time when we didn't need to. According to all reports, Saddam was not a threat. Plain and simple. If he could muster up the strength to become a threat we would have handled him WITH the full support of the rest of the worlds armies with no problem. That would have saved us not only money but lives. To support the haphazard way we went to 'war' is ridiculous.
It's quite obvious to everyone that there was more to us going to war with them. Paul O'Neal's statements should have made that clear if you had any doubts. I don't think I have to bring up the decietful way Bush spun the war to the American people for acceptance either. Honestly, that's the part that concens me the least.
|
I couldn't agree more. What so many people see is the administration telling the UN and a majority of the world to, "fuck off" when they decided to go into Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, they had no proof that Sadam was doing anything more than playing with his gold plated AK47's. Had they been able to come up with some real evidence other than George Dubyah's broken english, more people would have supported them. I see it like a trial, the bad guy was thrown away and the key dropped down a well before the jury even saw any evidence.
Had the administration not been so intent on running into Iraq so soon, and had waited for the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, I'm sure they would have had more support. Whether or not there were any nukes or biological weapons seems kind of irrelevant to me now. What I saw was the administration showing blatent disreguard for anyone but itself when they went into Iraq. If they find nukes, okay, you were right. But that wont make a difference to some people, because, reguardless of whether or not they found what they said was in Iraq, they still told the world to "fuck off" when they invaded without that "trial."