Nothing can’t be justified with double standards. If there is, we just create a third standard.
Unlike the other discussion about nuking Japan, this isn't even a debate.
The same Amazon guy was defending this war so hard. After 3 days and +100 posts I decided to stop responding to that psychopath. Who the hell defends killing and torture of civilians. Almost 200.000 deaths for nothing and he justified it as “Justice”.
Blind is not most americans.
War is never ideal. In this case it was very valuable to the strategic interests of the US. Don't forget we put Saddam in power (American educated) and took him out when he failed to hold down Iran. There are lots of dynamics and it is not a simple good or bad argument. Many of the benefits and consequences are still undetermined and may not be fully realized for several decades.
Feels a bit unfortunate for civilians when a nation keeps putting people in power just to later overthrow them? This constant destabilization from West in Middle East is horrible. I bet they wish they didn’t have that oil.
Agree Santa - but civilization has been doing this since Cain killed Abel... I'm not so sure current society is any better than any other time, just different rules and power structure s.
It depends. It was shortly after 9/11, Iraq was considered a state sponsor of terrorism and was included as an enemy within the global war on terror. If they had nukes then that is absolutely justified to deal with them due to the possibility they would sell them to various terror groups. However nukes were never found and I think most Americans would say absolutely it was not worth it to invade due to the war completely destabilizing the region. But the alternative is unknown. There was a lot of justified fear and hysteria at the time over the extent of terrorism. Worst case scenario was that Iraq sells nukes to someone like Hezbollah or Hamas who then attack Israel. That could have been the start of world war 3
Didn't Saddam have Cyanide when we found him to commit suicide? Also, all the chemical weapons we're sent to Syria most likely, but yeah no smoking gun.
So why is US cooperating with Saudi Arabia if they are so concerned about terror? Wasn’t 90% of 9/11 attackers from Saudi Arabia?
This is a country ok with shooting children in schools. A war in a foreign land, destroying entire generations, creating children with broken arms and limbs and dead parents is means nothing to most Americans. This is very unlike postwar Europe, Japan and China or Indian subcontinent where entire generations have lived through the repercussions of war, symbolize war with destruction (not victory) and shame their ancestors. America has days of mourning for ancestors who destroy the world.
I think most Americans, once they are informed, then they'll disapprove the War. But there's just SO much propaganda, that most are drowning in it.
That's laughable. People in this country are concerned with their own ass only. How can you expect people who don't care for their own families to care about some starving children in Mogadishu "after they are informed?" Whaaaa?
Stuy if you beleive this country is so bad why be here? I think most americans disapprove of the war... hindsight is 20/20.
What else would we do with all that money?
Americans know nothing of war. Asking a white run of the mill American about what war means is like asking a polar bear about quantum mechanics. To pragmatically answer your question. Yeah, it was justified. It made a lot of people a lot of money. War is business and the business is booming.
Yeah, it’s not like white people are less than 100 years from the two bloodiest wars in human history. Trying to inject race in this just shows how fucking stupid you are
The results speak volumes. Hindsight vision is always 20/20.
Well I’m curious to see how many more people that light heartedly can feel that “casualties of almost 200.000 civilians were necessary”.