NationStates Jolt Archive

No bashing ofanyone, or any views, please, and no Bush bashing.

I will admit that I am a bleeding-heart liberal, anti-war (especially this war), and anti-Bush; but I will try very hard to keep an open mind.

Please explain your reasons for supportingBush, and/or the war with Iraq, and please provide solid facts to support your view.

Most importantly, please respect the views of everyone who posts here.

Thanks!

You see, before the war started, everyone thought Iraq had WMD. While this asumption may be wrong, most people agreedm pre-war, that there was WMD. Why else would Saddam want inspectors out?

Regardless of the WMD, Saddam Hussein is not exactly the type of leader I'd like to have. Nor really is any leader I have ever had, but that's another story. Should a nice, not very corrupt democracy erupt from the choas of Iraq, would that not be worth it? It is possiblem ,had someone not defeated Saddam, that he could have killed more of his citizens than soldiers we have lost. So, regardless of WMD a non-Saddam Iraq is good, just as long as Iraq becomes stable.

Even if Saddam wasn't exactly the best, I'd prefer him to some crazy extremist government; at least he is secular.

I find the issue in Iraq not justification but how the operation is going. Regardless of whether it was right we are there and we must fix our mess. Just picking up and leaving is not going to help anything. Think of who will get power if we leave and someone rebels against the new government.

Its simple.

Regardless of whether the main reason for going to war was given as WMD, I support taking out dictators everwhere - and thats what happened in Iraq. Simply allowing them to fall by their own accord, when we could've taken them out earlier, is putting needless deaths on our shoulders. Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer. There's no question about it. He was not turning a new leaf like Qaddafi is.

Of course, this will bring up the inevitable question : If Saddam, why not others?

Well, the fact of the matter is, every circumstance is different. North Korea and China both have nuclear weapons - meaning that if we invaded them, they could (and probably would) be used. That would not only create a devastating holocaust, but even wipe out all life on this planet, depending on how many nukes China has really, compared to its official numbers. Nuclear weapons are of a far higher class of life-killing potential than both biological and chemical weapons.

There are, of course, other bad dictators as well. Robert Mugabe, for example, in Zimbabwe. The Democratic Republic of Congo is having quite a bit of problems. Castro in Cuba is the worst leader in the Western Hemisphere.

All of these are legitmate points. If it was up to me, and I wasn't constrained by anything, I would take them out. In the real world, however, its different.

Saddam Hussein was universally unliked. The thought-of WMD stockpiles made him an even more legitimate target. Everyone agreed - even Hans Blix - that he was in material breach of multiple UN resolutions including the most current one. Not only that, but the war would be sellable to the American Public.

Practically speaking, it would be unreasonable to expect any politician, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or someone of another political stripe, to invade someone like Mugabe. The public simply wouldn't accept it. It would be political suicide.