Quote from Intelinvestor:
Isn't the Saudi King more tyrannical than Saddam?
Don't forget among the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001, 18 were from Saudi.
Should U.S. invade Saudi first?
Isn't a free, democratic, and peaceful Iraq
a good objective? Don't you care about
that?
Isn't Kim Jong Il more tyrannical than Saddam?
Should U.S. remove Kim Jong Il first?
Isn't a free, democratic, and peaceful Korea
a good objective? Don't you care about
that?
Let me tell you, it is not worth hundreds of human lives(if not thousands) to remove a tyrant. If you don't like tyrant, let it be. Will you risk your own life to free those countries? If you are not willing to sacrifice your own life, why inst·gate others to risk their lives?
Life is once for everyone. Don't be fooled by your government or anyone to sacrifice yours for their benefits.
I'm not the one who's calling priorities, our elected Government believes that they chose right. North Korea is a big problem too, but, apparently, not so pressing. Iran may come first. Wrt Saudi Arabia, they have a cruel system but the vast majority of their people seem able and willing to deal with it and prosper under it - it is not unpredictable and capricious, just very, very austere.
Now, whether it's worth American lives to remove a tyrant, I can't answer because I'm always against war. But, I also believe that an American life is not worth more than an Iraqi life, or an Iranian, Israeli or Kenyan life. If there's something we can do to help the troubled parts of this world, we should do it, hopefully through peaceful means.
I also do believe that, unfortunately, we, Americans, tend to be more warlike than we should be, although, most of the time, it is our desire to help others that gets us in trouble.
Clinton fought in Kosovo - why? Bush senior led the first Iraq war - same reason. Now, Hillary, who voted for this war, says that she doesn't support it - nonsense, THAT's a bigger lie, imo.