I often see it argued, by the left and the right, that our aggression against Saddam was foolish─
That it turned the area into a bloodbath, that it created our modern terrorism, that the belief he held WMD's was a malicious lie, and so on.
There are false statements; oversimplifications spread by the uneducated and the plotting to glorify their own position. Saddam's overthrow was not only right, legally obligated, wise, and necessary, but it was also deeply overdue, and the terrors during our aggression and after his removal could have been enormously prevented if we had not left him to his evil devices years earlier out of greed and self interest.
To begin with, life on the whole was vastly more dangerous, by volume of civilian death, under Saddam's rule; and even that is only considering the deaths we can count or estimate. His secret centers for torture and vast undocumented executions are innumerable. Multiple reports by those lucky enough to simply be driven out of Iraq under Saddam, and interviewed on their experiences, shared the same elements: people dragged off for simply accidentally damaging a picture of the leader. Whole families killed for "insults," people tortured to death and their own families forced to clap as it happened. Look up anything about Saddam's crimes. The area was already a systematized bloodbath. You only see the most exciting or heinous tapes and reports of the fighting and assume it to be so much worse now because it appears more chaotic on the surface.
What you see as terrorism was not created by our invasion or involvement in any way. These groups were grabbing for power and spreading their message with great success before we were involved in such a direct capacity. Zarqawi is a perfect example of this, acting and gaining power for years before we overthrew Saddam. Read the declarations of Osama, who felt that we would again not involve ourselves greatly in the middle east, and that he could build modern terrorism very easily due to that; he felt that we were nothing to fear because we would not care until it was too late. He was, thankfully, wrong.
Saddam was arranging the purchase of WMD's with north korea during our invasion, which is well known; at least, he was attempting to do so. This is the arrangement that we know of; it is fact that he possessed such weapons in the past, and had used them without hesitation. He had harassed our allies in the past and continued to do so comfortably. Why would we ever let this man sit idly until he could re-equip himself with such dangerous weapons? We were thankfully wrong about him being in possession of them at the current time, but he has had them, and he was in the processing or having them again. He had to be stopped.
Leaving Saddam in power would have been a disaster far beyond what you see today. He was a ticking time bomb of international catastrophe and our invasion was the only reasonable course of action.
And shame on you, liberals and humanists, who say we should have let this hell on earth persist because it kept the region "stable." What a wicked and uneducated stance to take.
>>73927079
You're so uneducated and probably a shill.
>>73927079
Sure toppling dictatorships is good.
But if that was our goal why not start with Cuba or the Saudis?
>>73927269
Did you even read my post?
Were Cuba or the saudis attempting to reacquire WMDs, with a recent history of attacking our allies, being a hotbed of serious violent terrorist groups, etc.?
Not like Saddam, certainly. They are incomparable.
It's not about being good. You can't topple them all, sadly.
Being good was only a part of it.
He posed a real and present danger to us and our allies, objectively speaking. Being good was only the icing on the cake.
>>73927170
Do tell.
A plus post
>>73927079
>To begin with, life on the whole was vastly more dangerous, by volume of civilian death, under Saddam's rule;
yeah, stopped right there. Saddam killed at most a few hundred thousand, over 5 million have been killed or displaced in Iraq and Syria since 2003.
>>73928307
This is pretty much completely unknowable purely considering civilian deaths and lack of proper records. No one knows for sure, it's about what estimate you think is most reasonable. Saddam could have killed from 200000 at lowest to millions at highest.
Kike shill thread
sage and move on
>>73927648
>saudis attempting to reacquire WMDs, with a recent history of attacking our allies
The US government practically admits these days that 9/11 is a Saudi false flag operation.
>>73928979
9/11 is a tragedy, but not comparable to outright military action against our allies.
>>73929255
Is it not outright military action when significant elements within a nation's government finance and aid proxy warriors?
>right, legally obligated, wise, and necessary
>WMDs
>evil devices
>He had harassed our allies
>He was a ticking time bomb of international catastrophe
>what is Saudi Arabia
>what is Israel
Nice copy pasta shill
>>73929340
No, 9/11 is not direct military action.
>>73929343
They are shady and wicked nations often times, but not so warranting of or open to invasion and overthrow as Saddam was.
>>73927079
Iraqi Freedom wasn't as successful as Enduring Freedom Afghanistan. Yes Saddam was a terrible dude, but after we toppled him, the people only suffered worse. Al Qaeda flooded in to Iraq, and our focus in Iraq allowed militants to regain strength in Afghanistan. At least Saddam had a good infrastructure, which we rekt with our invasion. The medical condition worsened unlike Afghanistan, as the amount of radical mudslimes increased leading to doctors being killed and abducted and fleeing. Hussein's authoritarian state reigned multiculturalism under control, and with the toppling Sunni and Shia death squads are everywhere. Many Christians have fled, and radical mudslimes of different sects have sent people of all religions fleeing. These militias target the middle class, leading to their departure further ruining the nation. Orphan rates have gone up, as well as poverty, malnutrition, lack of drinking water, and etc. Over all it was simply a bad decision based on fear and without our benefit of hindsight.
>>73929535
>No, 9/11 is not direct military action.
So if instead of attacking Kuwait many a year ago, Hussein had instead been behind 9/11 and was supporting Al Qaeda, it wouldn't be moral or legal to attack him?
Oh wait, Cheney made just such a claim.
