Quote:
Originally posted by Johny Traffic
what? Did you read the story or my post? I'll spell out what I meant for you, it may help you.
Of course no one new what the aftermath would be, no one ever does in wars, as I clearly said, Im suprised this is news, as after a war no one ever knows what the aftermath will be
|
You're supposed to have a plan. Hoping an occupied population will welcome you with flowers is not a plan; it's a delusion.
Quote:
Originally posted by Johny Traffic
who would you prefere? Maybe you have a better idea that no ones thought off? Or will you just be repeating someone elses lame view? Ive yet to here of a better alternative than whats there. everyone knows it isnt perfect but still I'm sure your idea will be better
|
Saddam was doing just fine at containing the fundamentalists in his own country, by slaughtering every group that opposed him, and he wasn't restrained by having to pretend to be the good guy. He knew what had to be done to keep these nuts under control. Saddam was a permanent solution. The American occupation is temporary and everyone knows it. Sooner or later, we'll leave, and Iraq will belong to Islam. They'll either vote in their clerics (or whomever the clerics nominate) or they'll revolt against the puppet government we've installed. Either way, "democracy" or not, the result is the same.