We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. To liberate them from Saddam for what? To have them turn on each other, as they were bound to do, and lead Iraq down the road to complete disintegration? To create a real power vaccuum in the region that would embolden Iran and lead to a Sunni-Shiite conflict, along with a Kurdish-Turkish war? As I said before, "powder keg." Saddam was an evil man, but at least Iraq wasn't inviting regional conflict back then with him. Now, the Iraqi people are suffering even more, with the suicide bombers and the death squads. Do those things represent liberation? Is this what we sought to free them for?
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Preliminary U.K. election results: Labour to lose 43 seats in local, regional elections (Reuters)
from the article: The victory won't be American