I think Saddam was a toolbag,
but I'm not sure if what we did was the way to go about it. Despite what Amnesty International would tell you, I'm
not sure if it's any of our business to butt in on other countries' activities. I believe that that's what caused
the attacks in the first place, and we responded by attacking other countries. I find it ironic, actually.
Bush
and others simply hated the government and Saddam since Bush Sr.'s day and wanted them out of the way. They had an
excuse---I mean opportunity, and they took it.
I think it's none of our business until we actually have a
threat from a country. Having WMDs is not a threat. Hell, we have WMDs and you don't see anyone freaking out about
it. Thinking about the possibility of constructing/buying WMDs in the future for the purpose of maybe using them
against their enemies in the future is not a threat. To be a threat, you have to have a motive, and to attack the
strongest country in the world, you have to be suicidal. A few people who somehow connected to a terrorist
organization were suicidal and have a motive, but Saddam was not dumb enough to actually pose a threat to the United
States.
I don't know how that answers the question. The regime was bad, so getting rid of it was good. None of
our business, so sticking our nose in was bad.
I guess that makes me a "no" because not liking a country
doesn't give you the right to attack it.
I think I could sum up the decision in three words:
It's hard
work!
Bookmarks