re: #134 Tigger2005

I just find it difficult to be completely, totally and utterly opposed to a war that took out someone like Saddam, to find it absolutely, 100% immoral. Saddam was massacring and torturing his people and using chemical weapons on his own population, and engaging in the usual horrific oppression that brutal dictators engage in. How long would it have continued? It’s easy to measure the costs of a “hot” war, but how to measure the costs of a shadowy, silent war, waged beyond the reach of the cameras, of a totalitarian government against its own people? I realize this could be seen as an excuse and justification to use force to topple any and all dictators by force rather than via economic sanctions and the like, as well as an “end justifies the means” argument. That isn’t my intention, it’s just to say…I can’t find a war that DOES topple such a dictator 100% immoral.

Saddam was as horrible as it gets and he will not be missed. My problem is that we invaded another country based on easily disprovable bullshit rumors, and managed to further destabilize an already unstable region of world. The invasion also managed to fuck up our operations in Afghanistan, which was in theory much more important to our security.

And, quite frankly, if Saddam were running a nation that didn’t have massive oil reserves, we wouldn’t have given him a second thought.