“Putting mass-murderers in prison is the most sane thing we do”
Yeah,but at what cost?I dont see how it could be the best way through killing thousands.If we follow this way we may run out of people to actually look for mass murderers.You dont use a tank to kill a fly.
At the time, it was believed using atomic weapons to end the war with Japan quickly would cost the fewest lives. This is still widely believed to be the case, since the Japanese military leaders were not interested in surrendering.
Perhaps other countries only want nukes to protect themselves, and have no hostile intentions, but we cannot necessarily trust them.
The military action in Iraq may not be the best way to get rid of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, but it is the best way that anyone knows of. 
" The military action in Iraq may not be the best way to get rid of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, but it is the best way that anyone knows of."
Dont tell us you actually believe it.Thats the best way to fix all those businesses behind it not to find and bring one person to judge.Just look around whats happening now…all the countries are racing to whos gonna be rebuilding it:(.
Im not buying it and i suggest we all stop doing it cuz soon we may run out of people on earth to actually look for mass murderes.
Saying that killing thousands of people for a sake of capturing one man, puts the person thinking like that in one line with him.
How can civilizied country or countries for that matter still apply such methods???After centuries of wars and sufferning we didnt learn anything:(
But everyone should trust the allmighty USA? I hate it when other countries think they are better than everyone else and ontop of that force other countries to behave the way “USA” call the proper way.
But i guess they know what is best for us… sarcasm
And btw… I strongly believe that the IRAQ war was all about money… i really doubt it had anything to do with helping the iraqies… None of the “proof” of mass destruction weapons turned out to be true…
I still think it is nice that Saddam is gone though…
Well said.
I agree, the United States tackled this situation with all the strategy and grace of an ogre with a club, but were the civilian casualties truly unreasonable in stopping this tyrant from tormenting the country any longer?
I think their families should answer this question and all the rest shall listen
There are countries where there is injustice… but why dosent america do anything about it?? what about in Columbia how the drug lords pretty much run the country??
There are thousands of people dying every day from hunger and easiely preventable diseases… why dosent america have a strong interest in saving these people??
I cant wait for the day when America has compleate control… and i dont have to think very much cause i will have the media control me. yay!
U.S.A SURPASSES ALL GENOCIDE RECORDS!\
KUBLAI KHAN MASSACRES 10% IN NEAR EAT
SPAIN MASSACRES 10% OF AMERICAN INDIANS
JOSEPH STALIN MASSACRES 5 % OF RUSSIANS
NAZIS MASSACRE 5% OF OCCUPIED EUROPEANS AND 75% OF EUROPEAN JEWS
U.S.A MASSACRES 6.5 % OF SOUTH VIETNAMES & 75% OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Coming from an American: (who reads american textbooks and american TV)
It made us win the war. I need to read up more on WWII, but I believe we developed the Nuke just month(s) before germany would have, and if we didnt use the nuke, the axis could have won and the entire world would be under facist rule.
An interesting fact: The japenese did not surrender after the first atomic bomb, and only to the second when we said we had another one… we didn’t.
german scientist went to america… well the changed sides… something like that…
but i guess in the end u could say…
that that person stoll my chocolate bar so i am going to punch them in the face.
its funny how this weapon of mass destruction is “making peace”
As far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, think about how difficult it is for one country to trust another. Why should you trust another country? The United States has sent hundreds of thousands of its young men to fight and die in wars throughout its history and has liberated dozens of countries. Many countries in Europe and Asia would not be free today if not for the sacrifice of the United States. Yet the governments from those very same countries often distrust the United States. So how can you expect the U.S. to trust some ruthless dictator with nukes? Not easily.
The only way to get rid of a regime like Saddam’s is through warfare. The liberation of Europe and Asia by the United States and other allied nations in World War 2 cost the lives of many civilians in the very countries they were trying to liberate. But ask people living in France or Belgium or the Netherlands whether they would rather still be under Hitler’s rule in order to spare those civilians. Not likely. And they would have lost even more civilians than that under the rule of a bloody dictator. The same goes for Iraq, if he were still in power Iraq would have lost even more civilians than were killed in the bombings to free the country.
Everyone knows this. However, many countries feel a strong sense of guilt because while countries like the United States and Britain were sending young men into dangerous situations, their own countries sat back and did absolutely nothing. How do you justify this inaction? You must make up excuses. The common one is, “well, the United States bombed Iraq and it killed innocent civilians. You can’t kill innocent civilians, so we had to do nothing.” This ignores the fact that innocent civilians would be dying at an even faster rate in Iraq if Saddam were still there. So the media of these countries show nothing but gruesome images of civilians killed in the bombings, as a way of alleviating their own guilt for allowing these same civilians and more to be killed under Saddam’s rule.
Imagine if the American media did this during World War 2. “We’re sorry, we can’t invade France and drive the Nazis out of there, because some innocent people might die! We’d rather Hitler kill all of the innocent people. Better luck next time.”
Instead, the United States did liberate Europe, and some innocent civilians had to die in order for it to happen. But the world became a much safer place because of it, and most of the world’s countries had to do nothing but sit back and let the Allies take care of it for them. They didn’t have to raise a finger. The only thing they may have needed to do was make a few excuses for their own inaction and treat their guilt over it. 
Fear not, the United States spends millions in research and development of technologies for more and more accurate weapons systems to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. Long gone are the days when a country like the U.S. would need to carpet-bomb the entire city of Baghdad and hope they got some military targets while the whole city was destroyed.
But no matter how good the technology gets, there will always be at least one innocent civilian who is killed in the bombing. And all throughout Europe, that person’s image may be televised to explain to its people “this is why we don’t fight.” In the meantime, their television cameras don’t pan for one second over the mass graves left behind by the dictator.
What bothers most people is that it’s a disturbing precedent for the US/Britain to use transparently weak reasoning in order to initiate pre-emptive strikes against a country that posed no significant threat.
There’s also the hypocrisy, that the US should use as justification Saddam’s killing of his own people, despite having remained silent when he killed so many Kurds, despite the fact that the worst of his crimes were at a time when he was being sponsored by the west, despite the US having had direct involvment in the bringing to power of dictators the world over, despite having continued to sell weapons to countries at a time when they were engaged in similar actions. Never mind the fact that the US has the greatest number of nuclear weapons in the world and remains the one country to have used them with deadly force.
Apart from the fact that such invasions invariably lead to a destabilisation of the area and an escalation in terrorism, this kind of heavy-handed, militaristic method of enforcing our will is the kind of thing we’d condemn if it came from any other country. Hell, it’s the kind of thing we have condemned. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia to depose the Khmer Rouge the US condemned it as a violation of international law.
To invade a country that posed no threat when diplomatic channels were still open was both immoral and illegal. Yay for us.
Let’s nuke the shit out of North Korea next.
That is assuming Iraq posed no threat. For a long time, it has been believed that Iraq posed no threat, because what could Iraq possibly do to the United States? The U.S. and our allies have long operated under the assumption that terrorism is not a serious concern because the worst terrorist attacks against the U.S. were things like the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, with only a handful of casualties. Or the isolated and foiled attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in the early '90s. They might be a nuisance, but not enough to justify something that could really pile up the casulaties, like a war against Iraq.
It is my opinion that the unacceptable consequences of the 9/11 attack convinced world leaders like Bush and Blair that terrorist attacks can be as effective as a major military strike. After all, there were more casulties on 9/11 than during the attack on Pearl Harbor. I would not be surprised to learn that enemies of the U.S. without a strong conventional military have also had their opinions changed about the effectiveness of terrorism.
In any case, the Bushes and Blairs of the world believe that all a country needs now to truly endanger the security of their countries is to allow or fund large terrorist groups inside their own country. The terrorist groups needn’t be run by Osama bin Laden or be that sophisticated, they just need safe harbor in a country whose government won’t interfere with them.
The real problem is there are plenty of countries that fit this description, not just Afghanistan under the Taliban. Even the United States can’t possibly invade them all or force their leaders to start rooting out terrorism. But what the coalition can do is pick one target for maximum effect. Iraq was the obvious choice because of America’s past history with it, the unpopularity of Saddam’s regime in his own country, Saddam’s history of crimes and U.N. violations, etc.
Blair/Bush obviously hoped that overturning Iraq’s government would send a message to the other dictators and make them less likely to support terrorists, lest the same happen to them. If a stable, free democratic Iraq can be formed, it would also introduce democracy into the culture of a part of the world that has resisted it thus far and eventually re-form the region into a safer place.
Is it optimistic? I think so. But it’s not nearly as optimistic as hoping that the threat of terrorism will disappear if we do nothing.
i gotta agree with badcandlejack
Please dont bring Americas influence on getting rid of Hitler ,you had your share there but it was just a small help(appreciated but relatively small).
Secondly-who says only way to get rid of Saddam was through warfare?Just America and Britain.International inspectors were screaming out loud-theres no threat,we have no evidence.
Monitor-would you still approve this action if u were told your parents and your brothers and sisters gonna be dead for it?And that you will have no house or food after?Maybe this slight change of position would affect your opinion?
And lastly- why America deals with Korea diplomatic way even when they openly admit they are preparing mass destruction weapons and laugh at everyones face?
Why for years and years it looks at Tibet being invaded by China where human rights are being broken day by day?
Answer is as usuall-theres no business to be made:(
I dislike this humanitarian argumentation a lot
And after all- only stupid and hypocrytic person says “we need to kill to stop killing”.
Im surethat if America pumped enough money into education and living standarts of people in those regions there would be no need to kill anyone.But thats just not profitable.
I gotta agree with Monitor199a
Saddam may not have had nukes, but you can guarantee he was working to get his hands on them and use them. Saddam has used WMD when he gassed the Kurds. The risk of nukes in Saddam’s hands and him calling the shots is a threat to America.
The military action in the mid-east is about securing America and the World. Not liberation. It’s a nice by-product though. 
The ONLY way to eliminate all threats is to nuke every country 20 times every day for 2 weeks, including our own. (though the nuclear fallout would kill everyone anyways)
I think I find this an even more offensive reason for war than to liberate the people. To invade Iraq in order to dissuade other countries from engaging in terrorism when there’s been no proven links between Iraq and terrorism? That’s equivalent to punching a kid you don’t like because some other kid once threatened you. I’m not sure that knee-jerk schoolyard behaviour is the best model for military action.
We can’t (well, clearly we can, but I’d argue that it’s immoral) take action against countries due to some vague belief that they may pose us a threat in the future. We need hard evidence to justify military action, anything less is indefensible.
Surely the whole point is that we can’t guarantee he was doing anything of the kind. That’s the basis for the argument against the war. There simply wasn’t enough evidence to make this judgment, this has been made clear by Hans Blick, the leader of the group specifically employed to answer the question.
“He’s a bad guy so yeah he’d probably want nukes and maybe he’s trying to get them” just doesn’t cut it as justification for invasion. It needed to be beyond doubt.
The point of my post was that the WMD that Saddam has had before, he has used. I’m sure the innocent Kurd civilians thought of it as terrorism.
Please don’t rearrange my words and dumbify it by saying
It did go beyond that. He is a person that has used WMD on innocent civilians. Why wait for the bomb to get bigger?
Is that really what they teach you? America sent the money, ships, tanks and equipment that made Britain and Russia’s survival possible, while providing the army that made the invasions of Italy and France possible. America did not play a small role in defeating Hitler. Without the United States’ involvement in World War II, the Axis would have won.
Some people claim that there were other ways of getting rid of Saddam’s regime, other than war. But what were they? I guess you could try assassinating every member of his regime, but that would require a war.
It’s never been proven that Saddam played a role in 9/11, but his association with other terrorist groups is well-documented. It’s well known that he spent over $35 million since 9/11 solely in funding Palestinian suicide attacks.
Jack - the United States is, unfortunately not all-powerful. It cannot eliminate all of the dictatorships and tyrants of the world. As a result, it has had to make diplomatic arrangements with many of them, just as every other country in the world has had to. But when we do have the ability to remove someone like Saddam, it’s a cause for celebration.
Even if I and my own family were on the front lines in the Iraq war, it would not change the military necessity of the action. I am thankful that my family was not one of those either being tortured by Saddam’s men or being accidentally bombed by American planes. But even if it was, my own family is not more important than the security and freedom of the rest of the world.
Many different methods have been put to effect to change the way other countries are, even by sending billions of dollars to help with their standards of living and education, as you suggest. America has always been very generous in its giving. Unfortunately, we cannot spend money on whatever we want, because as soon as it enters another country, that money is under the control of the dictator who rules the country. The dictators almost invariably spend that money on building their own palaces and stocking their weapons caches.