Iraq used WMD on their own people. Why the hell should we care and what does that have to do with OUR security

Question

Uhm, let the retards blow themselves up.

It would be doing the world a favor!!!!!

What I wanna know is who made us the world police and who cares if Saddam blows up Kurds?

Was Saddam committing mass murder when the inspections were going on?
When exactly is the last time Saddam committed mass murder?

And by the way, who cares!?!?

Answer 1

We shouldn't and it doesn't

Answer 2

I find it interesting that you asked this question. Take a look at history. People asked roughly the same question about Hitler. Look what he did. People like Saddam and Hitler only want to control the world. Think for a minute and see how you would like it if it happened here in the USA. Then what would you say? As I see it, The USA is trying to prevent another WW2 Disaster. As history has shown, many countries have assumed the roll of world protecter, at this time we (USA) have this roll. I would not want another historic episode like WW2 to happen again. We must not allow ourselves to become complicent in these matters and must never allow ourselves to think we are better than any other country. We must help other countries when we can. As far as Saddam commiting mass murder while the inspections were going on, I think not. Not sure about this part. He committed mass murder all the way up to our invasion of Iraq. He was murdering the Kuwait's while his troops occupied their country.

Answer 3

This is an excerpt from the National Security Archives. It has lots of great information with links to documents. And a picture of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam. Note, even then, they chose to protect the oil. Kurdistan in Iraq has no security concerns or danger and is developing luxury hotels and ski resorts. Really.

"By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26]."

Answer 4

America over the past century has taken up an aggressive foreign policy. If we see injustices in the world, often times we feel motivated enough to go do something about it. I would personally prefer a more isolationist policy.

Answer 5

Here's why:

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

according to the Democratic party.

Answer 6

Ooooo, aren't you being a typical liberal and not caring about anyone but your own butt.

You know that sean is looking for a new butt buddy and I think he has eyes for you.

Answer 7

A true Isolationist! That's exactly what they said right before WWII, except that when we were attacked, then, we actually believed as a country that we should fight back.

Answer 8

I thought that Iraq didn't have any WMD.....that's what the news medias say. Like they tell the truth everytime.

Answer 9

I hope your parents don't now you are skipping class, or you must be attending a liberal west coast college.

Answer 10

Get educated, do research before you ask a question.

Answer 11

Three thousand people died on 9/11.

The next time it might be 1 million.

Then you'll ask yourself "What was I thinking",
beyond that ...........enjoy your day.