3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq? (view source)
Revision as of 21:49, March 11, 2007
, 21:49, March 11, 2007→Comment
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:28, 23 January 2007 (EST)
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:28, 23 January 2007 (EST)
== Comment ==
I don't believe that we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Although Saddam Hussein was a terrible, evil man, was it really our place to remove him? All of these alleged crimes were done before, and during the Gulf War, yet we didn't bother to call him out on them until now. We even allied with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.
I also raise the point that many gruesome dictators are allied with us, and we wouldn't think of invading their countries. We helped bring Augusto Pinochet into power, and we are close friends with Pakistani dictator Pervez Muscharraf. Why is Saddam any different? Removing Sadddam upset balance in Iraq. With him, the people were miserbale. Without him, the people are still miserable, and the risk of death has increased dramatically.
I do not think democracy is possible in Iraq. Whether or not you think so, Iraq IS in a Civil War. The Sunni and Shi'ite militants couldn't commit all of these attrocities with Saddam Hussein in power, as he would crush any form of insurgency almost instantly. With him gone, there are militants and suicide bombers spawning at speeds too rapidly to stop. They are recruited faster than cockroaches are born, and we can never crush them completely. Sending more troops in will merely add more guns to the fight, and more killing. It might be different if we were fighting a war. But we're not. The militants do not follow the traditional rules of combat, and use guerilla tactics that allow only two people to take out an entire platoon.
We can't invade other countries and force democracy on them. It will not work, and it will make us seem like bullies and cause the rest of the world to hate us. We should have left Iraq alone.