You're both correct in certain ways. Although I felt strongly that the mere presence of 'WMDs' was a shaky/nebulous reason to make the GARGANTUAN kind of step like invasion/occupation. Saddam was a stabilizing influence on the region. Yes, he was a terrible person, and I really feel bad for how the Kurdish people have been treated all the way back to Churchill's era and even before. But in 2002-2003, was Iraq really worth targeting? To be blatantly honest, Pakistan, Sudan, and Syria ALL had either WMDs/Radical Terrorists, or both, to a degree that the relatively stable borders of Iraq didn't compare to.
And if you're going to invade, at least do it right. I remember when the Neocon political establishment shit-canned Eric Shinseki for giving an honest military answer : you need 500,000 or more personnel to occupy and stabilize Iraq. Dummy Rumsfeld & Co invaded with a fraction of that. And of course the result was that tons of infrastructure was destroyed, and unguarded weapons/ammo were stolen by people who turned around and used them against the coalition forces and on their own people.
I wish that was the end of the stupidity, but we then disbanded the Iraqi army instead of training them. Almost nobody was in Saddam's army (outside of Republican Guard) who was any kind of diehard Saddam loyalist, they were there because it was a steady paycheck, and ironically because they thought it was a safe place to be (Saddam had behaved himself after the first Gulf War overall).
Result? We took the income and security away from nearly a million men, in a nation of chaos, so they took their weapons and became easy recruitment targets for terrorist groups.
The invasion of Iraq should have never happened, as there is virtually zero good, and IMMENSE bad that came from it.
But hey, at least Halliburton and KBR got those big sweet contracts, am I right?
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
