mervvyn
Marshm'ello
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 537
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Just read some more of the thread:iamsickofyear12 said:1. The terrorists don't want them there. The Iraqis don't want them there. People like you don't want them there. They should leave. Give them back Saddam. Everyone will be happy again.
2. Did Saddam test chemical weapons on his own people. YES! Did Saddam execute thounsands of people for no particular reason. YES! So should America have just let him continue to do that. You talk about UN approval, does the UN approve that?
3. Your taking it out of context. Probably because you have no argument
4. How's your sign going?
the main problem with that argument is: if Saddam was so horribly bad, which you seem to be fairly sure about, why wasn't something done earlier? Why not during the first Gulf War? The best part of your evidence for his brutality comes from that war and the resulting refugees - the Iran-Iraq war and the Kuwait invasion. So why did it suddenly suit US interests in 2003 but not 1991, given the same situation presumably existed? Similarly, WMDs - all through the 1990s better evidence existed for WMDs in Iraq thanks to UN weapons inspectors. Yet the UN refused to back the US in 2003. Hmmm. All through the 90s the worst Iraq got were inspections, sanctions (which hurt civilians not Saddam), a no fly zone and sporadic bombing with attendant collateral damage. Did the US need to flex its military muscle again? If so, that's hardly a justification for the mess that nows exists, from which none of the initiating Coalition countries should withdraw.