Quote Originally Posted by The_Lurker View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

If you feel this way, why did you vote for him twice?

There was already plenty of criticism of the Iraq War by the time the November 2004 election rolled around.

Regardless of what you think of Bush and the war, there is no denying that Saddam was unpredictable/unstable, pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and attempting to dominate/conquer the region. The decade-plus leading up to the war proved that time and time again. Remember, the first Gulf War was because he invaded Kuwait just because he felt like it.

So you can argue that perhaps we should have just stayed out of it, or that the money/human toll wasn't worth what we could gain, but you can't really argue that Saddam was doing just fine and we attacked him for no reason.

I voted for him the second time because I WAS a conformist sheep.

As for Suddam being unpredictable/unstable, this no justification for killing that many people. Maybe we should invade the poor people of North Korea because their leader is a fucking wack job. Who cares how many people die, their leader had it coming.

How would you feel if any member of your family was killed because of any violent action.


This has nothing to do with "was it worth the price" this is about wrong and right.
The problem was that inaction could have been even costlier in lives than action.

Saddam was pursuing WMDs for over a decade and attacked a neighboring country simply because he wanted its oil.

He also killed about 500,000 of his own people during his regime.

He wasn't a reformed citizen in 2003. More of this was coming if someone didn't stop him.

Was it the United States' job to stop him? That's worthy of discussion, but painting this war as causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people based upon incorrect/false intelligence simply is not accurate.