POPULARITY
Out of context: Reply #70
- Started
- Last post
- 73 Responses
- chilaquil0
vespa,
kudos... it takes some balls to admit that. I've found myself suddenly swayed by smooth speech or manipulated news... then I snap out of it. I live out of the U.S. but I'm visiting relatives in the U.S. now, so I find myself watching U.S. news and media. It is soooo different than what you see in other countries. I have to admit, the news are biased everywhere. Sometimes to one side, sometimes to another. It's hard to find balanced objective information that doesn't border propaganda.
I don't necessarily consider myself a pacifist, but I have been against this war from the beggining. However, I have asked myself one question. And even though we may never know the answer, I still wonder about it. If back in '91 (I think it was) the people that opposed Saddam would've been helped by the U.S. as promised (instead of just leaving them hanging out to dry); and if these people: The people of Iraq, were to take out Saddam on their own (with some help) . Would that have maybe derived more civilian casualties than this war? I mean, what would've been worse, a civil war that probably would last years, or what's happening now?
The violence either way, would've been inevitable. Whether it happened 12 years ago, or now. So what would've been less bloody? It probably just comes down to the lesser of two evils.
Any thoughts?