Quote:
Originally posted by Webby
mahoney:
Don't think you will get much dispute over whether it is better Saddam is gone or not.
It may be the "method" more than the result which is a problem.
When the method has resulted in alienating the world, killing many thousands more than were ever killed by Saddam, leaving a trail of deaths and malformations yet to come in that country from depleted uranium effects (which will last around 50 years) - to mention just a few "effects". It is clear this was not sane.
The logic is also warped in that there are many more "thug dicatators" in this world than just Saddam. Today the US still refuses to aid people in Sudan, despite being told loud and clear that this is a massive problem. Rest assured this will be a feeding ground for still more "terrorism" in the future.
On the eve of that "shock and awe" the lead weapons inspector just smirked at the suggestion that Iraq could possibly attack US forces with nuclear weaponary. Believe me, George Bush and his aids were well aware of the situation - they were told and refused to listen.
|
ok i agree with your points,on some levels but
how would YOU have handled it if you were President ?