Originally posted by mkgino
Sorry, I hate american foreign policy as much as the next guy, but I have to disagree with you here. I dont feel that an unstable country like Iraq should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Regular weapons to support its territorial integrity is fine, it is a country after all that has to protect itself. But no nukes, I do fear them using the nukes. N. Korea is not an unstable country like Iraq, and neither is Russia. Also as far as middle eastern countries go, I do think they need a change in the way they think. Im sorry but western society is better than a society where women dont work and political opponents are killed on a daily basis. I think a country that treats everyone equal and doesnt exterminate a race is better to live in than Iraq.
See the problem for the states is that they are not going into Iraq for these reasons, and that is what I dont like, they are going in to exploit resources. If they really were going for the good and noble reasons they say they were then that would be fine, but they lie.
That's true, very valid points. However, I was debating what gives the right for American's to have full control over this situation? But like you said, if Saddam is as unstable as you say he is, then someone needs to take control. But I dont' see an end to this, once you take everything away from Saddam he will just become even more ruthless and possibly become a terrorest himself.