Quote:
Originally Posted by Trexller
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Saddam could not have been left in power... Dude was making life suck for everyone, including his own people, whom he shelled, tortured and gassed. Also didn't play by the middle east community oil rules (OPEC). Yep, the truth is often hard to swallow, but truth it is.
Chemical weapons are the second no-no after nukes. I don't even agree that CS gas can be deployed on American citizens, when its use in war has been outlawed internationally.
|
Saddam ruled a collective of violent sects the only way they knew how to be ruled-- by force. They ended up being shelled, tortured, and gassed anyway... by each other, then ISIS, then each other again. At least Saddam provided some modicum of stability to the region in the post-Kuwait years. He likely would have been taken out during "Arab Spring", or at least bitterly contested, like Assad. Our intervention accomplished nothing, further destabilized the region, and cost us trillions of dollars we could have spent on any number of things from infrastructure to healthcare or whatever the fuck else.
So if chemical weapons are so bad and Saddam couldn't be left in power, why aren't we in Syria taking care of Assad and bringing democracy to the heathens? Because it's a stupid fucking idea and it's 2020 and even card-carrying House and Senate Republicans can admit it in the current year, yet you can't?
07-26-2020, 09:27 PM
Hybrid Mode
