From the Horses Mouth? (political thread)

[Thespis]

To give some background information, I found this tidbit on the forum that I discovered OP9. The guy posting below is someone I've know for a couple years, and he is fairly liberal, somewhat of a liberterian. He hates Bush, and until recently he vehemently opposed the war in Iraq. He also firmly believed (for his own reasons) the liberal media's version of the imagined debacle taking place there. I personally do think it has been handled poorly in many respects, but I also personally am glad we're there, for my own reasons. Posted below is his "epiphany" in coming to believe Saddam really had or was trying to obtain WMD of some kind.

So, I got into a long talk with my friends that are in the military. The ones that Bukow called an arbitrary number I pulled outta my ass, but whatever.

After a long talk with two of the 5 friends I have in the military, both of which have spent the last 18 months in Iraq, my outlook has changed. One guys job was to hunt and capture terrorists that were mixed among the normal populace. He said he was pretty good at it, and had GRIPS of photos from Iraq to back up every claim he made. I'm not sure how illegal it is for him to keep pictures of the terrorists he caught and such, so I'll just leave it at that. He backed up EVERYTHING he said with pictures and video, not one claim left untested.

The other one had no proof, it was guaranteed illegal for him to have any evidence of the stuff we talked about, and I'm not even sure what his job truthfully was, he dodges around the subject quite a lot now that he is out of the military, but after our conversation, I am convinced Saddam Hussein had Bio/Chem weapons and there are still stockpiles in Iraq. I won't go into detail why, but will say he made a very convincing arguments, much more than the jackbooted, pro-christian right wing nutriders on these boards.

Ya'll are really fucking clueless and are using blind obedience to believe what we're doing in iraq is right. I doubted up until the point the evidence (hearsay or otherwise) proved one viewpoint or the other. I still have one friend and one family member in Iraq right now, and they'll agree. The friend and I didn't get around to iraq the last time he was in town before being redployed to Bahgdad, and no one in my family has heard from my cousin in a few months since he was pulled out of Afghanistan and sent into dangerous parts of Iraq. He's special forces and is actually combatting the terrorists personally, not capturing them either.

But, truth be told, I now believe Saddam, whether he got them from us or reverse engineered the stuff we gave him, had stockpiles of the stuff. It doesn't change my views about Bush being a worldclass asshat, but it does change my view about why we went there. It justifies the war in my eyes, but the aftermath is still a whole other ball of wax. We went there for a reason and realized that reason was a much bigger bite of shit than we could safely chew. That's the facts, and we're pretty much stuck there. the world will be a MUCH more dangerous place if and when we leave Iraq.

This isn't a post I made to 'had you all' or anything, it's truth. I'm not saying what 'it' is that changed my mind, but it was something heavy and overwhelming in terms of evidence. I went to the source for answers and got them in spades.

[Deadhead]

One guys job was to hunt and capture terrorists that were mixed among the normal populace.
The only 'terrorists' in Iraq are ones who have started after Americas invasion and because of it (Hell, if a foreign imperialist power bombed the hell out of my relatively stable country, and bungled the rebuilding, I would consider being a terrorist myself).

Saddam Hussein was vehemently opposed to Islamic extremism, and Iraq has never been a base for Al-Qaeda.
Funny thing though, of the top 3 Al Qaeda supporters (Saudia Arabia Iran and Afganistan) only 1 of them has been invaded. Looks like it was A: The most openly supportive and B:The one with the least oil.

As for the WMD, I think its perfectly feasible for Saddam to have had Chemical Weapons (witholding judgement on bio). Why? Because we sold them to him in the 80s.

I disagree with his statements on the aftermath though. I fully believe that we first ousted Saddam the Iraqi people were happy (he wasnt the greatest ruler, though he kept the government stable). Maybe they looked at the fates of the last countries we rebuilt, Japan and Germany. We did a damn good job there, and with the oil Iraq has we should have been able to do a good job there too. Then we slowly started screwing up more and more. It became apperent that we didnt know what the hell we are doing (At least they had running water and electricity with Saddam) and people started to get pissed.
As of now, its completely out of control. I would much rather live in Saddams Iraq than the warzone they have now.
Stable Dictatorship is way better than a stone age psuedo-democracy.

[Thespis]

Where in the above post was Al Quaeda mentioned? This has nothing to do with Al Quaeda. The oil argument is weak at best. If we were there to take oil, our gas prices would not be sky rocketing as they are, especially considering the nation's experts contemplating this (coal transformed to oil / fuel)... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050825/pl_nm/energy_montana_dc ...which I think is definitely worth pursuing. His WMD were basically taken away from him when Bush Sr went in to defend Kuwait. It's plausible though that there were some undiscovered and kept hidden and were stuff we sold him. However, it would be foolish to think he wasn't trying to reverse engineer them.

Stability in and of itself is not a goal to seek when it requires tolerating the numerous documented attrocities that were being perpetuated in Iraq.

[Deadhead]

Many people think of Al-Qaeda as synonymous with terrorism, and the way the original post was worded it was very ambigous.

Also, There are a hell of alot more things causing the oil prices right now than Iraq, and saying 'the war was for oil' does not mean 'the war was for low gas prices'. Alot of our oil doesnt come from the middle east, and problems in other parts of the world is on of the major things causing the current spike (as well as record U.S. consumption, and the rising amount of oil China is buying).
International oil companies are reporting really high profits right now.

Stability and economic growth are what people want from a government, and they are willing to look the other way suprisingly often to get them. Look at Nazi germany, although the populace did not know about the Death camps, it was apperent that minorities were having their civil liberties removed and shipped being shipped away. Still, Nazi Germany had the support of most of its populace because it took Germany from a country whose money was worthless into a major world power.

Although most people wont come out and say 'A stable government able to deliver economic growth is more important to me than civil liberties', thats what history has proven.
Like I said, I would much rather live in Saddams Iraq than today's.

[Roxie]

He won't say why he believes this all of a sudden!? Then what good is it?!

[Rogue_7]

Maybe they looked at the fates of the last countries we rebuilt, Japan and Germany. We did a damn good job there, and with the oil Iraq has we should have been able to do a good job there too. Then we slowly started screwing up more and more. It became apperent that we didnt know what the hell we are doing (At least they had running water and electricity with Saddam) and people started to get pissed. .

It took many many years for Japan and Germany to recover economically from the devestation of WWII. Nations are not reconstructed overnight. Not even over a year or two.

[Deadhead]

No, but Japan and Germany in 1948 were alot better than Iraq in 2005. Its obvious to anyone who is paying attention that the situation is not going well.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Germany and Japan also surrendered. Iraq hasn't laid down its arms.

Your friend sounds like a liberal -- not a libertarian. Libertarians and liberals are quite different beasts. The post is also pointless as it provides second-hand (well, since you're quoting him, third-hand) anecdotal evidence with absolutely no proof. I could make up a post from my military friends about how all the soldiers over there are just using civilians for target practice, and developing burqa-rape fetishes. It would have about the same impact.

[CNagy]

The oil argument is weak at best. If we were there to take oil, our gas prices would not be sky rocketing as they are, especially considering the nation's experts contemplating this (coal transformed to oil / fuel)... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050825/pl_nm/energy_montana_dc ...which I think is definitely worth pursuing.

http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13165&postcount=23
Rather than just copying and pasting, I already addressed this in another thread.

I will say though, as an addition to the statements I made there, that it is wishful thinking to hope that an oil company would pass on its savings to their customers despite a proven trend of consumption.

[Deadhead]

Iraq as a country has laid down its arms, individual resistance groups continue fighting.

Still, there wouldnt be nearly as much resistance if we hadnt fucked up so badly in the beginning. We didnt encounter this sort of thing in Japan and Germany because we had a good plan to rebuild their countries in 1943, and were ready for it when it happened.

[KKF]

Germany and Japan also surrendered. Iraq hasn't laid down its arms.

How is Iraq supposed to surrender? The Army is not fighting a war in the conventional sense. They are fighting groups of individuals that are against us being there. Shrug, I know nitpicking.

Your friend sounds like a liberal -- not a libertarian. Libertarians and liberals are quite different beasts. The post is also pointless as it provides second-hand (well, since you're quoting him, third-hand) anecdotal evidence with absolutely no proof. I could make up a post from my military friends about how all the soldiers over there are just using civilians for target practice, and developing burqa-rape fetishes. It would have about the same impact.

Nod, even better this guy is saying Saddam had WMD. But the kicker is we can't find them anywhere. You'd think people would realize its not that easy to hide WMD. :confused: :eek:

[Pierrot le Fou]

It really wouldn't be that hard to hide a vial of smallpox. Honestly.

And I don't expect Iraq to be able to surrender. I never said that I expected them to be able to. I just was stating that Japan and Germany did, and it makes it a lot easier to rebuild when people aren't shooting at you.

[StormShadow]

Even if we can't find WMD, that doesn't mean they weren't there. Remember back in 98? When Saddam kicked out the weapon inspectors? Clinton did strategic bombing of possible sights that were suspected. From the book "GERMS", so so you know I'm not pulling this out of my ass, back after the first Iraq war Saddam would always give the inspectors the run-around, taking them here instead of there, and soforth. There was one plant which had the equipment to produce Bio-weapons, and everytime the inspectors questioned what it was for the Iraqis gave differant answers. Remember that pipeline going to Syria that was discovered? If that wasn't known about, whose to say that other things besides oil couldn't have been shipped out? And to deadhead, saying that most of the insurgants are iraqis, most are coming in from Iran.

[delen]

i think we are forgetting that wars are bad because killing people is bad

doesn't seem so complicated

[PopCulturePooka]

i think we are forgetting that wars are bad because killing people is bad

doesn't seem so complicated
Wars occasionally are a necessary evil.

I can't imagine any other way to have freed the Afgahni people from the Taliban for instance.

[StormShadow]

If killing is bad, then how do we deal with the bad people who kill? Remember, Saddam was not a nice person, especially not to the Shi'ites or the Kurds. Do we go over and say "Saddam, pretty please, with sugar on top, walk away and stop hurting others." I remeber watching the history channel, it was a week long segment about not nice people like Saddam and Noriega and Escobar, and it was said that during Saddams free time, he liked watching gangster movies, and watching video footage OF OPPONANTS BEING TORTURED! WTF!

[stillbornsinger]

i think we are forgetting that wars are bad because killing people is bad

doesn't seem so complicated

But as unfortunate as it may be, war is often a necissary evil. One which we should avoid if at all possible and until all other resources and options have been contemplated or exhausted.

If it comes down to killing someone before they kill my family...

Count me in

[delen]

See, I would never kill someone for any reason. Killing only leads to more hatred and more killing in my opinion. But I could see how others would think differently.

[StormShadow]

I wonder how the Emporer of Japan would have responded to that analysis back in 1945?

[PopCulturePooka]

See, I would never kill someone for any reason. Killing only leads to more hatred and more killing in my opinion. But I could see how others would think differently.
Ok, how would you have stopped the Taliban?
Or Robert Muagbe's violent criminal regime?
Or the groups in the Sudan cause millions to die?

Ask them REALLY nicely to stop?

[delen]

Ok, how would you have stopped the Taliban?
Or Robert Muagbe's violent criminal regime?
Or the groups in the Sudan cause millions to die?

Ask them REALLY nicely to stop?

I would do my best to stop them through non-violent measures. But, if someone really wants to kill you then it's very hard to stop them even if you promote violence. If you manage to kill them first their friend will take "revenge" and so on as it becomes a downward spiral. Why do you think so many people hate the US?

[StormShadow]

What non-lethal measures would you take? The UN employed embargos on Iraq, no fly zones, oil for food. What would you have done differantly that would have passed the smell test and ousted Saddam?

[delen]

You misunderstand, I am not here to say that I have thought about these issues for a long time and here are the exact measures I would take. I am simply saying that this is the way I would try and handle the problem. It is not an easy issue by any means and not something that I could come up with solutions to without a large amount of time and effort with other people and many resources. I'm just stating my point of view.

[PopCulturePooka]

I would do my best to stop them through non-violent measures. But, if someone really wants to kill you then it's very hard to stop them even if you promote violence. If you manage to kill them first their friend will take "revenge" and so on as it becomes a downward spiral. Why do you think so many people hate the US?
For groups like that, non violent measures only hurt the very people you try to protect from the evil bastards you wat to stop.
Trade sanction them and its the people who don't get food. And it'll be the most outcast people that get the least.

The only thing people like Mugabe, Jong Il or the Taliban will listen to ever is force of arms.
Its unfortunate but true.

For some people there are no non-violent means.

[StormShadow]

Oh, ok. But with that then I would respond that the UN had dealt with Iraq for years in a peaceful manner. The only thing that could realy be interprette as not peaceful, is that when American planes flew overhead, Iraq would shoot at them, so America would spacfically target that anti-aircraft site and launch a missile at it.

Don't get me wrong, I wish for peace and peaceful solutions to everything as well. My brother lost a lot of friends in the 3 ID in the sandbox. But sometimes you can't do things peacefully anymore, and action must be taken.

[delen]

For groups like that, non violent measures only hurt the very people you try to protect from the evil bastards you wat to stop.
Trade sanction them and its the people who don't get food. And it'll be the most outcast people that get the least.

The only thing people like Mugabe, Jong Il or the Taliban will listen to ever is force of arms.
Its unfortunate but true.

For some people there are no non-violent means.

I do not believe that you can say that all non-violent measures would hurt the cause just because some of the measures the UN has taken in the past might have done so. Also, I am not trying to argue with you. This is not something that is really going to change. Some people feel that killing can be justified and some do not. Is anything you or I say going to change that? I would think not, but who knows.

[PopCulturePooka]

Oh, ok. But with that then I would respond that the UN had dealt with Iraq for years in a peaceful manner.
The UN has tried to deal with Mugabe and Jong Il.
So sure in their own power, their own dominion over thir people, these despots laugh in the face of the UN.

'Peacekeepers', Aid workers and charitable organistations in the Sudan are constantly threatened, attacked and shot at by groups protected by the sudanese government. They have been in some cases raped and murdered.

Mugabe and Jong Il won't even let the UN or Aid groups in to help the starving and opressed people there.

The Taliban did similar.

When Peacekeepers from the UN tried to intervene in Bosnia, the Yugoslavs quickly realised that the Peacekeepers were toothless and continued their atrocities in plain sight of the Peacekeepers, who were prevented from taking action.

The Diamond, Oil and Land wars continue to kill millions each year in the Congo, even though Aid workers, charities and the UN have been there for at least a decade trying to prevent deaths and bloodshed peacefully.

Non-violent intervention works on rational people and groups. Many fo the worlds most evil people and groups are not rational however.

[StormShadow]

Dude, did you read what I wrote? I was saying that what the UN had done hadn't worked. Delen said he couldn't come up with peaceful measures without a lot of time and a large staff, and I was illustrating that the UN, which has both of those, came up with the measures that failed. At the end of that post I said " But sometimes you can't do things peacefully anymore, and action must be taken." I'm not arguing the point that oppressive regimes laugh in the face of the UN, or that the UN's measures most often fail.

[PopCulturePooka]

Dude, did you read what I wrote? I was saying that what the UN had done hadn't worked. Delen said he couldn't come up with peaceful measures without a lot of time and a large staff, and I was illustrating that the UN, which has both of those, came up with the measures that failed. At the end of that post I said " But sometimes you can't do things peacefully anymore, and action must be taken." I'm not arguing the point that oppressive regimes laugh in the face of the UN, or that the UN's measures most often fail.
Ahhh mucho apologies dude.
I saw your post directly after mine and the bit I quoted sounded like it was in reference to what I said.

No harm no foul?

[StormShadow]

We're still cool. I love that phrase, no harm no foul. i also like the phrase "That doesn't pass the smell test". Man, I should come up with stuff like that. you know, catchy phrases that are very self explanitory

[PopCulturePooka]

I like 'Doesn't pass the Drop test'.

Long story.

[KKF]

What non-lethal measures would you take? The UN employed embargos on Iraq, no fly zones, oil for food. What would you have done differantly that would have passed the smell test and ousted Saddam?


It wasn't the UN's job to out Saddam. Where did you ever get that idea? Shit, why would you have wanted to out him he was the only thing keeping that nation together. And don't say that bullshit about him being evil. Their are a lot worse people out there than him.

[StormShadow]

The UN's job was not to take him out. I never said it was. But controling him should have been the job of the UN. The UN invaded in the early 90s, the UN was the regulating Oil for food and controled the embargoes. The UN was the one trying to get rid of his WMD's. True, there are many worse people than Saddam. But they listen to the UN. They don't fire on US planes as they go overhead. They don't kick out or threaten inspectors. The UN should have done something, otherwise, what's the point of having rules if they are not enforced?

[KKF]

The UN's job was not to take him out. I never said it was. But controling him should have been the job of the UN. The UN invaded in the early 90s, the UN was the regulating Oil for food and controled the embargoes. The UN was the one trying to get rid of his WMD's. True, there are many worse people than Saddam. But they listen to the UN. They don't fire on US planes as they go overhead. They don't kick out or threaten inspectors. The UN should have done something, otherwise, what's the point of having rules if they are not enforced?


THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING! Where have you been? They had inspectors back in, oh and others just plain don't let the UN in. And the funny part is that in the end he really didn't have WMD.

[KKF]

It really wouldn't be that hard to hide a vial of smallpox. Honestly.

And I don't expect Iraq to be able to surrender. I never said that I expected them to be able to. I just was stating that Japan and Germany did, and it makes it a lot easier to rebuild when people aren't shooting at you.


Very hard actually if they want it to be worth something later down the road. Its not like this stuff is easy to "hide" or move around and still be viable. It leaves trails that can easily be followed if you know how to look. And I think our men down there proably know what to look for.

And I agree on the second part. :p

[StormShadow]

That's crap he didn't have WMD's. There there! Don't let Micheal Moore pollute your mind with his lies. The US felt the evidence strong enough to bomb him in 98. Why do you think he had the sudden change of heart? He found religion? If there is an oil pipeline leading out of Iraq and to Syria that was unkown about, who's to say stuff didn't get out that way? While Bush had to play the political game and give Saddam tme to move things, whose to say he didn't utilize that time to shift some things? Back in, I think it was 94, he finnally admitted that he did have a bio-program. That was only because a family member defected, and he wanted to get the news out before the relative could. That tidbit came from the book GERMS. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence

[StormShadow]

Dude, to make smallpox from a vial, all you need is chicken eggs, an incubator, a syringe, and the small pox. It is not as easy to locate or make as you might think.

[KKF]

Dude, to make smallpox from a vial, all you need is chicken eggs, an incubator, a syringe, and the small pox. It is not as easy to locate or make as you might think.

And where would you get smallpox?

[StormShadow]

If you already had a vial in the country. He already had a bio program. He had admitted to that. He gassed his own people. He had the means and the desire.

[KKF]

That's crap he didn't have WMD's. There there! Don't let Micheal Moore pollute your mind with his lies. The US felt the evidence strong enough to bomb him in 98. Why do you think he had the sudden change of heart? He found religion? If there is an oil pipeline leading out of Iraq and to Syria that was unkown about, who's to say stuff didn't get out that way? While Bush had to play the political game and give Saddam tme to move things, whose to say he didn't utilize that time to shift some things? Back in, I think it was 94, he finnally admitted that he did have a bio-program. That was only because a family member defected, and he wanted to get the news out before the relative could. That tidbit came from the book GERMS. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence

First off why are you bring in Micheal Moore? Second of all you do know inspectors have been in Iraq after 98 and were working on taking out his weapons? You aslo know that if any sign of WMD were found in Iraq, and I mean any, Jr would be on TV faster than you could look up porn on the internet on a lonely night. Again its not that easy to transport these things around. Or make them without being caught.

[/img]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/14-350h.jpg[img]

[KKF]

If you already had a vial in the country. He already had a bio program. He had admitted to that. He gassed his own people. He had the means and the desire.


That stuff does NOT last forever you know?

[StormShadow]

I'm aware. Lets say it was anthrax. That can last decades. Lets say it was a number of things. Who says it specifically has to be smallpox? The issue remains that producing germs is not a difficicult process.

[KKF]

I'm aware. Lets say it was anthrax. That can last decades. Lets say it was a number of things. Who says it specifically has to be smallpox? The issue remains that producing germs is not a difficicult process.


It is a diffucult process because you need certain chemicals and labs. Especially if you want to produce mass quantities of it. Think for a second do you really think Bush would of let ANYTHING like this slip by him before the war? All the satellites over Iraq wouldn't of caught something like this? Or the fact that these chemicals DO leave a trail?

[StormShadow]

No you don't. You need chemicals and labs if you want to Erosolize a germ, or if you want to get it into powder form. But for purely making germs, not to difficult. I could do it if I had a starter culture.

You can't watch everything, everywhere, all the time. And when you say "would bush let something slip by him?" Do you think he personally analyzes every picture? A staff does that. he doesn't personally do it. And what kind of a trail is this? Is it like in cartoons with a toxic liquid, spewing forth a green gas?
"Hey Jimi, that's our guy"
How do you know tom?
"Look at the trail, Jimi."

[KKF]

No you don't. You need chemicals and labs if you want to Erosolize a germ, or if you want to get it into powder form. But for purely making germs, not to difficult. I could do it if I had a starter culture.

You can't watch everything, everywhere, all the time. And when you say "would bush let something slip by him?" Do you think he personally analyzes every picture? A staff does that. he doesn't personally do it. And what kind of a trail is this? Is it like in cartoons with a toxic liquid, spewing forth a green gas?
"Hey Jimi, that's our guy"
How do you know tom?
"Look at the trail, Jimi."

What is effective for warfare? Get my point?

Bush does not but the personel in the FBI, CIA, etc do. No they leave chemical traces. Read up on the subject before you try making jests about it.

[StormShadow]

Dude, i have read the subject. AND NOT ALL ON THE INTERNET. Even the inspectors agreed that there was gaps in what Iraq said it had HAD, and what it had DESTROYED. Meaning, they had something, and they said they didn't. What's effective for war? What's effective to give to terrorists? If you've got a pipeline to Syria, how much does a person need to carry into a Subway to kill 200 people. Remember that group in Japan that made Sarin? Not all war is fought on the battlefield.

[Thespis]

Yeah pierrot, I understand about the evidence, but the evidence wasn't the point of this topic. The point was that a guy I know who was formerly very against the war and our supposed reasons for going there has changed his mind because of what people he trusts have told him and shown him. He isn't the kind of guy to change his mind easily. He even sometimes stubbornly sticks to a particular view. What impressed me because of what I know of him is that he did change his mind when he did not wish to change his mind.

[Thespis]

Uhhh, wow, what happened to signature formatting?

[kiev33]

See, I would never kill someone for any reason. Killing only leads to more hatred and more killing in my opinion. But I could see how others would think differently.

Having been a soldier, I have to address this.

Nobody in their right mind wants to kill others. But, sometimes, just soemtimes, it is necessary. Especially between countries, where people who have somehow managed to get in charge have an entire nation's funds and military to back up their insanity and evil.

Nobody wants to kill, but when some other guy is trying to kill you, or your buddy, you damned well better believe I will kill him first if possible.

I don't want to, but I would rather see him dead than me or someone I know.

Kevin

[kiev33]

And don't say that bullshit about him being evil. Their are a lot worse people out there than him.

This doesn't make him any less evil, just because others were worse.

Kevin

[StormShadow]

This doesn't make him any less evil, just because others were worse.

Kevin

Damn straight. You could have a Hitler/Jane Fonda spawn child, but I would rather get rid of a evil person like Jaque Cheroc if they posed a danger to the U.S. Evilness plays a factor, but ability to harm Americans also has a strong factor in a war.

[KKF]

This doesn't make him any less evil, just because others were worse.

Kevin


But then you can't use the reason that he was evil as a reason to attack. Cause then you would have to start attacking every other "evil" person out there. It's not a valid reason.

[KKF]

Damn straight. You could have a Hitler/Jane Fonda spawn child, but I would rather get rid of a evil person like Jaque Cheroc if they posed a danger to the U.S. Evilness plays a factor, but ability to harm Americans also has a strong factor in a war.


Saddam couldn't attack the US. Let me find some links later been very busy of late.

[StormShadow]

Even if Saddam himself coukldn't attack, why wouldn't he give the ability to those who could?

[kiev33]

But then you can't use the reason that he was evil as a reason to attack. Cause then you would have to start attacking every other "evil" person out there. It's not a valid reason.

Truth to tell, I think that is the only valid reason to start a war. Economics? National interest? (read: economics) These seem to be the only reasons wars are actually started and I think that is stupid. Saying we went to war in Iraq because of terrorism is dead wrong. I fully believe we only went there because Bush and his puppet masters and cronies thought we should.

And no, I wouldn't have a problem with invading China, North Korea, or any other dictatorship if we needed to. There's a reason why there are so many Nazis in games and movies. They were bad, and everybody can hate them with a clear conscious. Nobody wants to hate an Iraqi (if they are rational about it) because Iraqis aren't necessarily evil.