Because they have nukes and a huge army. It's smarter to invade Saddam before he has nukes too, don't you think?
I can't believe I have to explain this, but apparently, some just don't get it. Iraq's well being has a dramatic impact on the well being of the United States, both from a national security standpoint (terror) and an economic standpoint (energy costs). Clearly, there is a much higher level of interest in Iraq than a place like Rwanda, which has no economic and little to no terror impact on the US. Why is this not obvious to some of you? It's like you are arguing simply to be difficult. Stability in Iraq promotes a higher quality of life in the United States (as well as Iraq). The same correlation is much weaker for Rwanda.
We had Saddam and Iraq in a box. They could have waited. Instead, you have North Korea seeing this as a chance, with us tied down in Iraq, to announce their nuclear status (in their typical, strange fashion) and start reprocessing uranium openly. Thumbing their nose at us. If we had stuck with Afghanistan, spent more resources trying to wipe out BL, the Taliban and their friends... hadn't spread our intel so thinly because of Iraq, moved a couple of carrier battle groups off the coasts of NK, moved openly to bolster our presence in the region, announced that we were moving "unnamed assets" to the area... in short, started scaring the hell out of them, then maybe... just maybe, they would have thought better of what they're doing now. And now we'll never know. Actions have consequences. Wars have unintended ones. Bush was a fool. Edit: Bush is a fool.
I don't think anyone is trying to make the contention that Saddam wasn't bad for Iraq. I'm glad Saddam and his regime no longer has the ability to actively murder people. I just don't understand how the war on terror goes from "smoking the terrorists from their holes" to "freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny." Don't you think our priorities have been manipulated just a bit? At the least I think the issue could had waited until we finished our business in Afghanistan. But now we've made an ambiguous situation worse by going into Iraq before capturing the main cluprits of 9/11. As bad as what Saddam's people did to those poor people in those videos we have a man on the loose that burned and crushed 3,000 people on American soil three years ago and people act like they don't even want to talk about Bin Laden anymore or his CRIMES against humanity.
I don't argue that one bit and I appreciate you being honest about it. I just wish more would argue that as well instead of crying crocodile tears for the citizens of Iraq.
So if you don't argue that, then you admit that you were simply being a obstinate when you were feigning ignorance as to why we don't invade Rwanda? Why did you ask for an explanation for something that you already knew? EXPOSED
I hope you're not referring to me. I've always argued that strategically Iraq is the place to begin. A stable, democratic Iraq will make bring peace to the middle east easier to accomplish. We had a clearcut reason on the table to go back into Iraq. Saddam invited us; he invited the U.N. too but they had meetings to go to.
We had Saddam in a box, yes, maybe we could have waited. But how long? 1 year? 2 years? We didn't know the extent of Saddam's nuclear program. What would have been the point of waiting? What if things had gotten worse in the Middle East? What if the radical element grew exponentially? A Middle East without Saddam in power could very well be the start of a more stable region.
You still don't understand. The Republicans can most certainly have sympathy for a tortured, oppressed people without having to lean on that for justification for the war. I outlined why that is the case above. Let's not lose sight of what we are discussing here, which is your wild assertion that Rwanda should have been as high on the priority list as Iraq. You have since backed off from this assertion after you were called our for feigning ignorance and asking for an explanation that you alledgedly knew. Oops, don't you hate it when you contradict yourself? Highly embarrassing. This is just more of your typical obstinate and hollow debating style. It is quite easy to expose, as I have just finished proving. TEARS
But when people have raised valid questions about the justifications given by the administration for the war, most Republicans turn to this card. It rings hollow to me, a liberal who supported the war, so I'm gonna call people out on it. If one is using getting rid of a murderous dictator as justification for a war, I want to know where one's outrage and demand for war was during the genocide in Rwanda that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Again, as far as your digs at me, I implore you to read the sticky at the top of the page.
I have no doubt that Saddam had control of WMDs. It is looking less likely that nuclear WMDs were available but no doubt they were in his plans-- hell, they're in everybody else's arsenal or on their wish list. The search isn't over. If the Iraqis get their freedom because we squash this tinpot dictator, so be it. Good for them. We should have done it a decade ago. Think how many innocent Iraqis would still be alive? It is possible for one course of action to accomplish two good deeds.
Myanmar? What direction do you want a discussion about Burma - Myanmar to take? If the suggestion is some type of <i>liberation</i> action, that part of South - Southeast Asia is generally considered in the Chinese <i>SoI</i> (<i>Sphere of Influence</i>) and China would not be happy with outside efforts for change in Burma - Myanmar.
ima_drummer2k I touched on this issue in the other thread. It is your ignorance foxnews if unfortunately trying to work on. Would you support a war against Parkistan? Because these sort of Sharia like tortures still go there. What about a war against Saudi Arabia? What about Nigeria? Lybia anyone? The list goes. Human rights abuse is a serious issue. And I will support Bush if he blanket sweep accross the globe and eradicate 'regimes' that encourage or perpetuate human rights abuse. And if you for a minute think that things will change (remember Iraq is still and will remain an Islamic state) and there will not be Sharia Law related 'human rights' abuses after Saddam's exit then I suggest you read a litlle more or better still travel around the world a little bit more to get more exposure.
OK, at least our guys didn't cut anyone's finger or head off, but some might prefer that to sodomy by broomstick.
for the sake of argument... why now then? why speed hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars now? why increase spending 30% when you cut your revenues? why does it feel like the only people who enjoy a higher quality of life are defense contractors and oil related companies? why was March 2003 the right time to make these choices? We weren't even done with the people who had actually attacked us.
