Iraq
I wonder how the citizens of this country could have been so taken in by the push to invade Iraq a year ago. It was obvious before the war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We had not finished what had to be done in Afghanistan to keep us safer from terrorists and then we involve ourselves in a country where the only issue was oil. Hussein did not threaten us. People tell me that he had violated U.N. directives, yet the major one he violated was supposed to be WMDs which were never there. And if he violated U.S. resolutions was it not the U.N.'s responsibility to enforce them? Now we are considering re-electing a "war" president whose errors got us there in the first place? How can we be so dumb?
posted by Chuck Rightmire at 4:23 PM
2 Comments:
So Chuck, are you saying that Saddam Hussein was a nice old man that we should have left alone? Or that maybe he was just an innocent bystander?
Should we forget that he broke every promise he made at the end of the Gulf War? Should we forget that he broke every UN resolution? Should we forget that he used banned weapons against Iran, and his own people?
You seem to forget, that the UN, and our own intelligence agencies believed he had banned weapons, and even Saddam believed he did, otherwise why would he keep kicking out the weapons inspectors?
You're flogging a dead-horse here Chuck.
I get a kick out of the Democrats criticizing the war, when most of the Democrats in Congress voted to give President Bush the go-ahead.
Eric: that horse may be dead but so are many American thinkers if they think that getting rid of Hussein gave us a reason to go to war against Irag. I have heard about those agreements and resolutions but they were all U.N. resolutions and the U.N. should have been the one to enforce them. And don't tell me that Germany and France had sold out. It is more and more evident that they were right and our views were wrong. We were told that Irag posed a clear and present danger to us. It didn't, and it was pretty obvious right from the start if you listened to and watched the mouths out of Washington. The Administration offered no consistent or real proof. It said it knew things, but it didn't tell us what it knew. In Kennedy's seven days in October 1961,we knew, for instance, that the Soviet Union was providing missiles to Cuba; we all knew it, we saw the pictures on page 1 of our newspapers and on television. But even we better spy capabilities (satellites and better planes) we weren't offered a definite photo to say that Hussein had WMDs or was of any other danger to us and the U.N. wasn't finding them. if they weren't there, why did the U.N. have to act? Why did we have to act? I wonder even more how Irag came into the sights of the gunmen in D.C. Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Iran and even our so-called friends in Saudi Arabia posed and still pose a greater danger as well as others also on the terrorist list by the IRS. Certainly, Saddam was not a father figure to his citizens, although I'm sure that they will once again vote themselves into a tyranny if we let them; I expect it to be a Shia religious tyranny this time. Sure, I'm glad that Saddam is gone since he was a tyrant of the Banana Republic school who killed a lot of his own citizens. But I sure don't feel any safer now than I did; in fact, I don't feel as safe as I did after 9/11.
Post a Comment
<< Home