Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
We have a burgeoning democracy in the Middle East where there was once an enemy causing trouble.
It was money and lives well spent that 15 million Iraqis are now free.
The Middle East now has an example of a functioning democracy balancing Sunni/Shiite issues and Kurd/Arab issues. The loss of life during the war is the lowest in recorded history for the US. At $95 billion a year it is a bargain considering what has been accomplished. This is money well spent and lives put at risk for good purpose.
You left out these numbers:
Coalition fatalities:
Jan: 5
Feb: 5
March: 7
Apr: 8
May: 2
Of course some 100,000 are death. Millions displaced. Corruption rather rampant. Abuses still common. Still a couple hundred killed a month. I wonder if they would be as cavalier about the spending of their lives without their consent as you are?
How many hundreds of thousands did Sadam kill per year?
How many hundreds of thousands did Sadam kill per year?
How many hundreds of thousands did Sadam kill per year?
If you want to use that "logic" as justification for the Iraq war, answer me this. According to the very conservative Heritage Foundation, Saddam "killed over half a million of his own countrymen." Saddam Hussein Adjudged Serial Mass Murder | The Heritage Foundation
Why didn't we go into Rwanda, where over 800,000 men, women and children lost their lives?
BBC NEWS | Africa | Rwanda: How the genocide happened
Why didn't we invade Cambodia and stop the Khmer Rouge before almost $2 million people lost were killed?
Cambodian Genocide Program | Yale University
Why did President Bush choose not to use military force in the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war, and stood idly by while 200,000 civilians were brutally murdered?
"The response of the international community was limited. The U.S. under President George Bush chose not to get involved militarily, but instead recognized the independence of both Slovenia and Croatia." The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-95
Your argument, as I understand it (that we should be in Iraq because he was a dictator and killed his own people), makes no sense due to the obvious discrepancies in history. There is genocide going on now (think Darfur); if we went into Iraq to stop Saddam's genocide (which had already ended), how could we possibly justify ignoring the genocide in Darfur? That argument was debunked long ago, my friend.
Iraq is in our national interest, the others were not.
If I have to look it up again, I can link why human rights groups weren't with the invasion despite being against Saddam. We waited until Saddam had already finished killing his enemies. There was no active killing of significance going on when we invaded. Hadn't been for years.
So here's what happened, we let him kill until he was finished, punished the people with sanctions, and then after all that suffering, we brought war and death for no real reason. So, we added injury to injury. No matter how it turns out, we did those people no favors, our arrogance aside.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?