posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:10 PM
The Conspirator, I agree with quite a lot of that post
Ive always maintained that invading Iraq made things worse, not started terrorism. Thats the issue here though. Why did we invade Iraq when the
negative aspects outweighed the benefits. i.e. did the theorhetical risk of Saddam providing Islamic militants with WMDs outweigh the very real
motivation and breeding ground that the Iraq invasion created?
I think something that is quite overlooked is that we all know how idealogical Al-Qaeda is. They want to bring death and destruction to American and
her allies because we are infidels. But people forget that Saddam ruled a secular
nation and was considered an apostate by even moderate
Al-Qaeda would of sooner detonated bombs in Baghdad than cooperate with an apostate. There could of been a chance of Al-Qaeda trying to over throw
Saddam Hussein, but absolutely minimal chance of them cooperating.
This makes me take the view that Tony Blair acted foolishly and didnt weigh up the pros and cons of invading Iraq. He did it to make us safer and yet
it did the opposite. He prevented a theorhetical risk and delivered us a very real and forseeable actual threat
. He didnt create a problem when
he invaded Iraq, he compounded it. Either way it is gross incompetence and he has to go.
Also have you considered how vulnerable OUR governments are to radicals and criminals? We have a culture of acceptance when it comes to glaringly
obvious lies that our politicians are caught out with. We gloss over it and ignore it for the pragmatic belief that ousting a liar is much too much
trouble and would devide the nation. That is a breeding ground and a reciepe for our own governments to be taken over by radicals and criminals. But
the majority of us dont see it. We have just as much danger of getting tin-pot dictators as Pakistan and any other country on the globe.
[edit on 4/8/05 by subz]