"Ought for not" or not, Iraq had to be fought ...

Submitted by kman (United States), Oct 25, 2011 at 19:37

... If not just for the sake of ridding the Middle East of a very destabilizing influence (Saddam) whose Hitleristic plans of domination in the region would have had catstrophic effects on world oilbased commerce. Saddam had to be taken out. Not that far more couldn't have been accomplished andd should have.

With the anemic American will for accomplishing anything of worth anywhere in the world, further expenditure of military lives appear pointless - I agree with that. We are doomed to fight many wars here on American soil, but the unspoken wars are already well in progress and much ground already lost. Even the Muslims recognize the gutless and self-indulgent mindset of our population precludes much more necessity for militant action. A little faux terrorism goes a long ways today and manages to keep Americans anemic and compliant with compromise on all fronts - political, Islam, drug cartel activity, homosexuality, atheism, etc.

We're a doormat nation now.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".