Originally posted by Flatwoods
You obviously don't care about the security of America and it's allies. Nor do you care about democracy, because if you did you'd support our
brave soldiers who are fighting and dying in the name of freedom. Do you think Iraq would be better off under Saddam Hussein? Would you rather have
Iraq become a new home for terrorists?
I too care about the security of America and its allies. But I only care only about democracy wherever it suits the interests of ether the West or
Iraq is plagued by "religious idiots"; anyone can see that; go to biased Fox news and you will still that. (Well, occasionally anyway).
I think Iraq would be better of under Saddam because the reality is 7000 people died in between May July 2006:
You see I care about the troops; and I don’t want them dying so that Muslim fundamentalists can rule. I believe troops should be used for projects
that help the interests of the world or the West, and I hate it when they die for projects that harm these interests. Under Saddam Iraq had a very
stable society; so stable that it’s taken a long time for things to get as bad as they are now.
Saddam had got rid of his weapons of mass destruction and was not a threat to us. U.N sanctions should have been lifted; and Iraqi’s would then once
again enjoy the living standards of pre 1991.
Even though the war is illegal; I understand it will not be politically possible to return Saddam to power. What we need is someone 99% like him. A
new dictator of Iraq who will ether be an undemocratic Muslim fundamentalist, or a dictator (popular with the Secular).
Under Saddam Iraqis had social stability.
The Kurds were a tribal people that Saddam had tried hard to negotiate with fairly; way back he had even offered the Kurds oil and autonomy, but their
war like leaders were under the influence of cash from neighbouring Fundamentalist Iran.
In this way the Kurds made themselves the enemies of Iraq; and though killing civilians is wrong, it happened during a time of war with Iran. No
country kills anyone to aid nothing for nothing
; the Kurdish people were part of an armed rebellion corrupted by an enemy, and what could be worse
than Muslim Fundamentalist Iran? That’s why it was done.
Killing Kurds might be bad but if we are on the subject of leadership; then there has been no better recruitment sergeant for Osma Bin Laden (and all
that he represents) than Tony Blair and George Bush.
This is because under them, Muslim fundamentalism has been unleashed-spread and this is somewhat linked to the fact living standards in the same bits
of Muslim world have decreased. This is what I call a waist of our troops, more importantly it’s a waist of many more other people’s lives; it’s
a waist of good will and “hearts and minds”.
It’s your own argument that does not support our or our own country. It is not capable of delivering safety to our troops, or to sacrifice them for
a functional cause. Giving Muslim fundamentalists; liberation from (very basic) secularism is a terrible thing. It’s no wonder the country is
tearing itself apart; and I would be with resistance if someone told me to go to church (let alone (if I was a women) put a veil around my face. If
someone tried to force me to do something like that I would want to put a bullet through their head (or possibly) blow up their shop. The trouble is
people are naturally both willing (and also (arguably stupid) enough) to do these sort of thing (i.e. to follow out their wants of resistance). Yet
some people remark at how the apparently civilised Sunni are fighting an apparently medieval war against the Muslim Fundamentalist. Well it’s no
surprise; it’s to do with people fighting against being made to do things. Because of the nature of terrorism I do not support the Secular Sunnis
violence, but simultaneously I happen to sympathise with the reasons behind it. Freedom after all is a human right; by removing Saddam’s
of secularism we have been fighting against freedom.