Saddam APOLOGIZES for invading Kuwait?!

[Arrian]

However shortly sanctions were imposed to keep him under control and with 10 years of sanctions 1 million people + are dead as a result.

The people who died are primarily Saddam's fault. I disagree with sanctions then and now simply because they don't work, but to blame the misery of Saddam's people on the US is unfair. A portion of the blame, yes, since I think we should have known better, but the goal was to "contain" him, as it was thought that outright invasion + toppling him was politically unacceptable to our allies in the region. Those allies, of course, include the Saudis, whom you addressed.

Well for starters get Saddam out of the area, at the time, stop supporting the Saudi Royal family, don't mess around, do the job and go home. But of course that would create instablilty in the area and a possible economic collapse at home so this is not an option, plus they are more dependant on us this way around + ignorance that we can beat everyone if we really have to. Well... now we have had 9-11 already, and I am wandering what is next, especially with the actions US is taking at the moment. At least they have not attacked Iraq alone, yet.

That's not an answer. You start by saying remove Saddam (by force, I presume?) and stop support for the House of Saud. Then you explain why that's bad.

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

As you said Iran did it and became US enemy #2 (after USSR)... well I guess it is not that easy to organise a succesful overthrowing of the current regime, and it was probably the easiest in Iran as it was the first one. On top of it all I do not belive that Khomeini is who most of Iranians really want, as they are all fundamentalist who took power than, the regime is melting down with time as it is evident at present, but it will still take a while to make them into a nation where people can really choose who they want, without fear.

Anyway did Osama come from Iran? No - he came from Saudi Arabia, where the anti-US perception is probably one of the stronger ones as they cannot get rid of the Royal familiy that is protected by US. Plus as you can see that by normal Muslims Osama is still precieved as a desparate face, others would want to have it the "normal" way, but can it be done, how and when, when Oil runs out and just the desert stays? There are people living there and they need solutions, one thing the west does is not giving the solution to them, but keeps the status quo that suits it.

it is normal than that the west and US as a biggest entity present is percieved as an enemy, as they see US as the first ones to move out, so that they can organise and do something on their own. Do we know how many coups, and potential organisations for change did US help destroy trough its intelligence in the past 50 years? And we know that the ones that are in power are there with the blessing of the US, apart from Syria which had the USSR blessing, and Iran and Lybia that are on the "axis of evil" list but are free of US dictated rulers.

I have no idea as the situation now is so tense, regardless of Iraq.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Darius871


So...... what's the problem? If I were to believe that they were the main factor in his rise to power initially (and I don't), my next question would be so what? He served our interests then and he is considered a threat now. Saddam isn't our enemy because he's a 'bad guy', but because of his invasion of Kuwait and his subsequent violation of U.N. resolutions and the ceasefire agreement. If we planned on removing Saddam because he's an evil dictator, then we'd be hypocritical for having supported him, but we're not.

If you don't believe than read the articles above.... should help believing, but that is not the point (didn't US support "evil" dicators many times over last 50 years? )

And Saddam is your enemy because of Kuwait - sure this was a good reason to thup him, and protect US interest in the gulf, from him and the others. As for the UN resolution breaches - Israel is top the list for those ... so they are not all that important, more like an excuse.

And Arrian - exactly - I say first why it should have been done, and second why it wasn't - which are still good reasons(at least in my opinion). However our good resoning and our involvement for our economey there, leaves most of their population wanting something more... and many of them sick of our support for their tyrants. So this is what we got.

However in my eyes it would have been the best if we let them be their own, and this is the right decision even tough we might have some oil supply problems for a while (more now if we let it go than we would have had before if we did it while the situation was not so heated yet), however the current administration doesn't seem to go in that direction still now or in the forseeable future.

edit: better that now than OBL nuke in NY harbour, or London.

[Darius871]

If you don't believe than read the articles above.... should help believing, but that is not the point (didn't US support "evil" dicators many times over last 50 years? )

My point isn't that we haven't supported evil dictators, of course we have. I didn't even deny it, all I said was that I don't believe we brought Saddam into power. We have of course 'supported' him, but we didn't 'create' him.

Anyway you ignore my question: so what?

[Sandman]

A democracy takes a long time to build, especially in a formerly totalitarian nation with no heritage of liberty, so it's a bit too early to say we've left Afghanistan out on its ass (we very well may have, but it's just too early to say). First you have either direct military occupation or a pro-U.S. oligarchy that allows capitalism and a free market, the country's infrastructure and standard of living improve, and over the years democracy spawns on its own. It's not possible for us to put a democratic government in place the very month that we liberate a country, it takes years of social evolution. The former Axis powers of WWII as well as South Korea are good examples of this.

By the time it stops appearing 'too early' it will be too late.

As for capitalism and the free market, what that means is US companies getting access to the country without any sort of competition process, and picking the corpse clean. How many Iraqi multinationals will be created?

If American government was in a mood to provide billions in aid to Iraq like the defeated Axis countries, in order to provide a bulwark against communism, then it might, just might be OK. But frankly, I don't see this happening. Bush certainly hasn't guaranteed cash to help rebuild Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

Anyway did Osama come from Iran? No - he came from Saudi Arabia, where the anti-US perception is probably one of the stronger ones as they cannot get rid of the Royal familiy that is protected by US.

OFITG, Just how do we protect the Royal family against the Saudi people?