And yet, what you fail to recognise is that Iraq and Afghanistan would be peaceful nations if it werent for US foreign policy. As such it cannot be asserted that either of the two countries are any less peaceful than the US. I think you will also find that many western nations would still be fighting over territory if it werent for a backlash from the populace. Remember who the most imperial nations of the 20th century were. The US and Britain.
yes why was iraq like that in the first place, it was because of america,
I think youll find the central reasonm has less to do with Saddam Hussein and more to do with protecting the interests of the Israeli state and, of course, oil.
i) Iraq had no weapons of mass-destruction or the capability to create them.
ii) The US attacking Afghanistan and Iraq has, in fact, further proliferated arms in many nations. I mean, why wouldnt you want to arm yourself after seeing the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan. Non-UN backed. Pre-emptive. Etc.
regarding iraq...first of all, saddam was executing hundreds of thousands and there was genocide. how is that peaceful, exactly?
and if the point of Iraq was oil, then why is America getting NO BENEFIT of oil? prices for gas have increased significantly.
Here's why the U.S. went into Iraq... (and i'll say now...bush handled much of this horribly)
After 9/11, the threat from terrorism has been focused on. it was very clear groups like al-queda would be looking for more ways to attack the u.s., and a weapon of mass destruction, be it biological, chemical, or nuclear would be a clear next step up. At that point there were some regimes that very likly might turn a nuke or some other WMD over to terrorists...North Korea is unpredictable and was threatening the U.S. with nukes at that point in time, and Saddam has had weapons of mass destruction in the past, wanted them again soon, and has a history of supporting terrorism.
Of course, the door was still open to get rid of Saddam. The Gulf War never officialy ended, and on top of that, Saddam was very clearly defying the UN, with weapons inspections that should have taken a few months being stretched into taking years due to non-compliance. Plus, by getting rid of Saddam, the message was able to be sent "don't mess with us, or you will regret it"
Saddam was removed, and the country now has been having elections, which i think everyone can agree is very good for te future of the country, because they've got control. I agree that there's some other stuff in there that isn't good...just that going from no elections to elections is good. Now, beyond that, North Korea sort of shut up about having nukes and Libya TURNED OVER a weapons program that they'd been denying they had. When the Cedar revolution happened in Lebanon, Syria pulled out troops. Syria's normal plan was to level a town prior to that.
It created a fear, to some level, that if you look like you're working with terrorism or oppressing people and generally becoming a threatening country, then the U.S. will make you regret it. The U.N. has refused to act, so some countries have opted to instead.
and to add, i was VERY opposed to the war as of 2003 because I wanted more honesty from Bush about reasons (or better reasons, one of the two) and I felt that there were better countries to focus on. Though I think removing Saddam is a very good thing. However, now that there are forces in there, the focus should be on repairing the country so its self-sufficent...continuing to debate "IF" does nothing to help Iraqis, and simply pulling out troops before the infrastructure is ready will just leave the country to be controlled by terrorists. A unified front to get rid of the terrorists in Iraq means that foreign forces are out of Iraq sooner as well.
