If anything else, I would have seemed to have lost my humanity after this one. But above all else, this is realistically speaking:
I heard/read that quote somewhere but I forget where (I think it was an argument on whether we should sympathize for the emperor's cause in 'Hero').
Anyways, we captured Saddam because we obviously disagree with that quote.
But the same could be said for any other world power. Regardless of "whomever", would killing thousands of people be justified?
Honestly though, why should the US, as an international actor, even care if Saddam kills his own people???
If we were really on a morally righteous path, why didn't we help out in Sudan earlier on, now that peace is coming after leaving 300,000 people dead and 2.4 million people in exile? http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=10358
Honestly, in the international system, why do we give a damn whether we set up a democracy in Iraq? Morally, it's the right thing to do. But morality has nothing to do in the international system. Hell, we only went into Germany after millions of Jews were killed. We only cared for Cuba after the missile crisis and that we lost business' to Cuba after they nationalized them. So why did we go into Iraq in the first place? WMDs? And if we ever did find those WMDs, so what? They couldn't be armed on ICBMs (and Iraq doesn't have the capability to posess and launch an ICBM) so there was no direct threat to the US. If they threatened Israel, let Israel fight their own battle, we arm them anyways.
To say that we went into Iraq to set up a democracy and find WMDs has no value to the US as actors in the international realm. Actually, the only value was to mask the real purpose of the invasion and to feed the publics fear on WMDs in order to get more support for the aquisition of oil.
I just want to hear that the US went into Iraq for oil and not for good samaritan purposes. And that if we were to be prepared for war against North Korea, it would be for the sole purpose of protecting our overseas US commercial interests.
And if you say it wasn't oil, then what was it? WMDs? Setting up a democracy? Capture an criminal committing crimes in his own country? Or establish US bases in the region so it's easier to launch an overwhelming aquisition of oil from the surrounding nations in the region?
Supporters of the war, a war that is still raging on despite official statements, will argue the notion that we wanted to help the people of Iraq & rid Saddam's WMDs.
Setting up a democracy should be an internal issue and be none of our business. If there's a majority in Iraq who have the passion to overthrow the government, they'll do it. If the majority doesn't exist, that means major doo-doo, I mean insurgency, against any foreign presence trying to mark an impression.
Iraq's WMDs posed no direct threat to the US, if any.
I heard/read that quote somewhere but I forget where (I think it was an argument on whether we should sympathize for the emperor's cause in 'Hero').
Anyways, we captured Saddam because we obviously disagree with that quote.
But the same could be said for any other world power. Regardless of "whomever", would killing thousands of people be justified?
Honestly though, why should the US, as an international actor, even care if Saddam kills his own people???
If we were really on a morally righteous path, why didn't we help out in Sudan earlier on, now that peace is coming after leaving 300,000 people dead and 2.4 million people in exile? http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=10358
Honestly, in the international system, why do we give a damn whether we set up a democracy in Iraq? Morally, it's the right thing to do. But morality has nothing to do in the international system. Hell, we only went into Germany after millions of Jews were killed. We only cared for Cuba after the missile crisis and that we lost business' to Cuba after they nationalized them. So why did we go into Iraq in the first place? WMDs? And if we ever did find those WMDs, so what? They couldn't be armed on ICBMs (and Iraq doesn't have the capability to posess and launch an ICBM) so there was no direct threat to the US. If they threatened Israel, let Israel fight their own battle, we arm them anyways.
To say that we went into Iraq to set up a democracy and find WMDs has no value to the US as actors in the international realm. Actually, the only value was to mask the real purpose of the invasion and to feed the publics fear on WMDs in order to get more support for the aquisition of oil.
I just want to hear that the US went into Iraq for oil and not for good samaritan purposes. And that if we were to be prepared for war against North Korea, it would be for the sole purpose of protecting our overseas US commercial interests.
And if you say it wasn't oil, then what was it? WMDs? Setting up a democracy? Capture an criminal committing crimes in his own country? Or establish US bases in the region so it's easier to launch an overwhelming aquisition of oil from the surrounding nations in the region?
Supporters of the war, a war that is still raging on despite official statements, will argue the notion that we wanted to help the people of Iraq & rid Saddam's WMDs.
Setting up a democracy should be an internal issue and be none of our business. If there's a majority in Iraq who have the passion to overthrow the government, they'll do it. If the majority doesn't exist, that means major doo-doo, I mean insurgency, against any foreign presence trying to mark an impression.
Iraq's WMDs posed no direct threat to the US, if any.
