|
Concerning the war in Iraq, few people seem to really ever think about this...
Sure, he did it because it made America "stronger", whether it be from oil control, land control, yadda yadda (pick which you prefer)...
However, I think it's SAFE to say that without Saddam, Iraq is probably a better place... I think we can all agree that the guy was a maniac and it is well documented that he has killed thousands upon thousands of his own people and really ruled in peculiar inhumane ways.
Now, a common retort to that would be "Well if America is so thoughtful and considerate, why aren't we helping out all of the other nations in need?" -- Maybe because there's nothing in it for us? Selfish it sounds, but do you see any other countries stepping to the plate and helping other nations in need?
Maybe we just decided "Fuck it, might as well control some land or oil, n' take out a sick twisted bastard causin trouble for everyone" -- whatever we gained out of it should be reward enough, and justification enough for going over there and helping a bad situation? (or at least attempting to)
Now keep in mind, I'm going to vote for Kerry simply cause I don't like war and maybe his approach might not be so kill-crazy... I would have never preferred that bush go to war, but I'm looking at it from an angle most people choose not to.
Perhaps they might have had some solid intelligence that saddam was going to do something crazy, maybe they had strong analysts that concluded if Saddam isn't taken out, there would be more bloodshed from his continuing precense than the bloodshed caused from a war.
But irregardless, I don't agree with the war, but you can't deny the possibility that maybe he made life better for the iraqi people. If that is the case, I still don't believe it is worth the lives of our soldiers all in the name of property control.
But this is just a thought, please refrain from the ignorant remarks. If you disagree, tell me why and use logic.
|