10-22-2004, 01:29 AM
Blight Wrote:I don’t think it is really a matter of policing the world in Iraq’s case. It was more about Saddam not letting UN inspectors in even after the UN threatened them. When the UN weenied out and would do anything, people who would actually do something had to step in. I agree we do our fair share of “world policing” but in this case it was more about not looking like weak yellow-bellies, and enforcing the statutes that UN refused to. If we had done it, the crazy bastard may have eventually got some kind of weapon to use not against us, but his neighbors under NATO defense. I'm glad he's out of power; I think it will eventually help to stabilize the whole region and prevent future trouble.
Excuse me? The UN weapons inspectors were doing their job in Iraq months before the US invaded it. Time and time again they reported that they couldn't find any WMD. The US supposedly knowing where they were according to their supperior intellegence although they couldn't point the inspectors to the right place. Before Hans Blix could make his final report (which confirmed what we know now, no WMD in Iraq) they were pulled out because mr. Bush's patience was gone. They weren't allowed to finish their job BECAUSE of Bush, not Saddam. They did get cooperation from the Iraqi government. It wasn't perfect but enough. And who are you to decide that you are better than the hundreds of other country's that recide in the UN.
And you think this will stabilize the region. Have you watched the news lately? Terrorist attacks are spreading through the region (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and I believe Quatar).
What I wonder about is who is responsible for the false intel that said Iraq has WMD? Someone must be held accountable right? In my book the person who decided to go to war because of false intel (which he interpreted falsely) is responsible and thats mr.Bush.
Looking back at the legal side of things, what would be different between invading Iraq or France. Bush could just make up some lie about a french threat and take his army over there. It seems now that its ok for the US to go to WAR on false intel. In my country the pm would have quit his job and taken responsibility for what was done under his rule (which actualy happend after a mistake made in the Balkan war). The Us impeaches a president who didn't want to admit he was cheating on his wife but you want to reelect a president who goes to war on false grounds, a decission which costs thousands of lives. Just doesn't make sence to me.