Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LedZepStu
yes, the US funded it. but its now their duty to rectify it. are you saying because its their fault they should just leave it. regardless of whos fault it was it needed to be sorted. even if iraq or more specifically saddam hussain wasnt to do with 9/11, the atrocities of that day bought terrorism and the need to make earth a safer place to the forefront of everbodies minds. hussains tyranny was definetly an opposition and the killings and terror needed to be stopped. plus they was the whole humdrum of did iraq have biological weaponry- a possible threat to us. and this point of america poisoning our public, they dont do it literally if thats what your implying. bit different to what happened in iraq.
|
The regime's "weaponry" was nonexistant, at least when UN inspectors arrived. But there's a bigger issue as to what they would do with those weapons- there's no proof now or then that they planned on aiding or contributing to terrorism.
Saddam was not much of a global threat in his dwindling days, he was to his own people for years, but in his latter days, he spent most of his time writing poetry and promoting hygene and frequent bathing. Not to say tyranny wasn't rampant within the regime.
But we can sit here all day going back and forth on whether Iraq war was appropriate. Either way, very few people point out that the war (whether necessary or not) was not a priority, long term nor short term. If we are fighting terrorism, we need to attack the core, not possibilities and secondary or tertiary contributors. The fact is, the "allied" forces had OBL and Taliban key players cornered, and decided to turn the other cheek and pay attention to Iraq, with a regime not any more dangerous than a handful of other governments. But terrorist groups are the big priority (because there are cells widespread throughout the East and West), not state governments-
most governments, no matter how tyrannical, are not stupid enough to directly harbor or sponser terrorism.