Post by galactapuss on Jul 3, 2009 6:59:22 GMT -8
www.wbbm780.com/Saddam-said-he-had-WMDs-out-of-fear-of-Iran--Hid-o/4728061
So...Saddam didn't have WMD's. He just wanted Iran to believe that he did, in order to not appear weak to Iran. He would have used them against us in 2003 if he had them. Trillions of $ later and we have...oops.
If we hadn't invaded, then we would be a few $trillion better off now and our economy (indeed, the world's economy) wouldn't be in the crapper (at least, not as badly). So that would have been good. On the other hand Saddam would still be in power and, over the last 6 years, have killed goodness knows how many thousands of his people.
I suppose it depends on one's priorities. We could say that, because of the war, fewer humans died (Saddam wasn't around to kill more of his own people or start another war with Iran) than died in the war, so it was a good thing. Or, we could say that, whatever may have happened to people we are not responsible for, our ability to provide and care for our families is in jeopardy due to the economy going south, so the war was a bad thing.
I think...I think the question is how responsible we are for people a certain distance (geographically, relationship-wise, and culturally) from ourselves? Yeah, my primary responsibility is to protect the lives of my immediate family, then the lives of my fellow Americans, then the lives of other people. But should I risk my ability to provide for my family (let's say, by protesting the war in such a way that costs me my job) in order to try to save lives (by protesting, to possibly help stop a war)?
It's not that I don't care. I just don't want to have to deal with it. I realize there are times (WWII, rise of Hitler, etc.) when I would want to deal with it and I should deal with it, but what I really want is to be left alone, do my job, go home to my family, and have a nice, quiet life. If it's time to fight the good fight, then let's do it. What I don't like having to deal with is when it's more than something I would probably not care about (one punk dictator replacing another, with no relative change in relations with that country) but less than the good fight (ex: WWII). I don't like having to deal with maybe-fights.
From the 'protecting my family' or 'protecting my fellow Americans' standpoint the war might have been a good thing because Saddam's gone and we have a hopefully stable democratic government in Iraq that will sell oil (which we use to drive our cars, go to our jobs, and provide for our families) to us. Or, the war might have been a bad thing because, instead of Iraq and Iran spending so much effort fussing with each other, we now have an Iran free to spend more of its time fussing with us.
I am definitely glad that I don't have to make decisions at the strategic level.
So...Saddam didn't have WMD's. He just wanted Iran to believe that he did, in order to not appear weak to Iran. He would have used them against us in 2003 if he had them. Trillions of $ later and we have...oops.
If we hadn't invaded, then we would be a few $trillion better off now and our economy (indeed, the world's economy) wouldn't be in the crapper (at least, not as badly). So that would have been good. On the other hand Saddam would still be in power and, over the last 6 years, have killed goodness knows how many thousands of his people.
I suppose it depends on one's priorities. We could say that, because of the war, fewer humans died (Saddam wasn't around to kill more of his own people or start another war with Iran) than died in the war, so it was a good thing. Or, we could say that, whatever may have happened to people we are not responsible for, our ability to provide and care for our families is in jeopardy due to the economy going south, so the war was a bad thing.
I think...I think the question is how responsible we are for people a certain distance (geographically, relationship-wise, and culturally) from ourselves? Yeah, my primary responsibility is to protect the lives of my immediate family, then the lives of my fellow Americans, then the lives of other people. But should I risk my ability to provide for my family (let's say, by protesting the war in such a way that costs me my job) in order to try to save lives (by protesting, to possibly help stop a war)?
It's not that I don't care. I just don't want to have to deal with it. I realize there are times (WWII, rise of Hitler, etc.) when I would want to deal with it and I should deal with it, but what I really want is to be left alone, do my job, go home to my family, and have a nice, quiet life. If it's time to fight the good fight, then let's do it. What I don't like having to deal with is when it's more than something I would probably not care about (one punk dictator replacing another, with no relative change in relations with that country) but less than the good fight (ex: WWII). I don't like having to deal with maybe-fights.
From the 'protecting my family' or 'protecting my fellow Americans' standpoint the war might have been a good thing because Saddam's gone and we have a hopefully stable democratic government in Iraq that will sell oil (which we use to drive our cars, go to our jobs, and provide for our families) to us. Or, the war might have been a bad thing because, instead of Iraq and Iran spending so much effort fussing with each other, we now have an Iran free to spend more of its time fussing with us.
I am definitely glad that I don't have to make decisions at the strategic level.