Quote:
|
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
|
Your picking up soundbites from telly and repeating it as an informed opinion.
Sadam wasnt a long term solution, infact it was widely thought that he didnt have long to go. Infact that was one of the arguments used at the time for opposing war, that he might not have been there that long anyway.
Sadam as you say did do a good job at containing the fundementalists, like he did slaughtering everyone else. So I guess that was fine?
Infact you have presumed that you know my opinion on what should be done. You dont. Like I said Im supprised that its news that we didnt know what to expect after the war, no one knows what will happen in a war, so how would they know what will happen after?
Everyone wants a right ot wrong a black or white, everyone thinks they know whats better more than the polititions do. But what they forget is that there are many variables in any conflict, the decisions taken are not black or white, right or wrong. just varying degrease of grey, There isnt a correct or incorrect way of handeling this just lots of different not perfect ways. But the one variable we can all be sure of is that, we dont know whats going to happen when you invade a country, so like I say Im supprised this is news at all
__________________
hosted flv's, hosted galleries, morphing rss feeds, free content, free sites, hosted blog