Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Saddam was running a kleptocracy, and things were never going to improve for the Iraqi people. As long as he was in power, sanctions or no sanctions, Iraq was going to get poorer and less educted. This in turn was making it more and more difficult for a future stable regime to ever take power and then hold power. Therefore, a stable democracy was never going to happen on its own, and the chance of creating a stable propsperous democracy in Iraq was diminishing every day Saddam was in power. Taking the chance of creating a prosperous Iraq was not only the moral thing to do (because it was good for the Iraqi people), but in the long term interests of the United States.
|
Very few people think Saddam is a good guy. Most questioning is not whether toppling Saddam was a good idea from a moral perspective, but why, in light of a) our tolerance of his existance for a dozen years and b) the existence of other threats, we chose the moment we did to invade. Without a plan on how to control the country after we got in. Taking a chance on invading Iraq to make it a more prosperous place might have been the moral choice. But doing so in such a manner so as to minimize the chances of that prosperity (by not having a plan to establish control and order), is absolutely unmoral. And not in the long term interests of the US.
