Quote:
Originally posted by theking
Is it best for the global community that Sadam remain in power in Iraq?
|
It can be argued that it is better Saddam stay in power temporarily than for all countries to suddenly be allowed to attack each other without proper evidence or consultation with the United Nations. We haven't had a world war in quite a few years, and the United Nations is a big part of the reason for that.
Using Bush's logic, in fact, Iraq was probably justified in attacking Kuwait in 1990 because they might have done it to protect their best interests. After all, why should Iraq have had to prove to anyone else that they actually were threatened by Kuwait? Isn't it enough that Saddam said it, just like it's supposed to be enough that Bush says it?
Most of the people arguing against Bush aren't arguing for Saddam, they are arguing that what Bush is doing could very well cause more problems that it will solve. This is, in many cases, an argument about process more than it is an argument about Iraq specifically.
Do you believe that all countries should attack anyone they want anytime they want, without any reason that can be justified to at least a few other countries? Do you believe in anarchy and chaos, or stability in the world? Terrorism can cause instability, but so can unjustified attacks on other countries at random with no clear reasoning.
Bush was smart for framing this as "you're either with us or against us" because there are a lot of people in America stupid enough to believe it's just that simple. You either agree with Bush 100% or you agree with the terrorists, right? Anyone who takes a moment to look at the issues before chanting Bush-Bush-Bush is helping the enemy. Anyone who demands facts is the enemy. Anyone who thinks Bush is an wrong is the enemy. Anyone who thinks at all is helping the enemy. Don't think, just believe and do what you are told, or you are the enemy too.
Don't dare question anything, or you are helping the enemy. Scary stuff.