What did Saddam do?

[chequita guevara]

Because many of them are dictatorial themselves. Turkey is only barely democratic. Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all dictatorships with bad records on human rights. I could go on, but we're perfectly happy with most dictators on this planet, as long as they tow the line. Saddam's problem isn't that he's a murderous bastard, because he is. It's that he doesn't do as he's told.

Burma is carrying our real genocide, and it's completely off everyone's radar. In fact, when local governments in the US, including the state of Massachusetts decided to stop doing business with companies that do business with the Burmese dictatorship, the US government (under Clinton) sued them in court to stop them from doing so.

[notyoueither]

No, Saddam's biggest problem is he wants to set himself up as the next Kim, and he is sitting in the Persian Gulf doing it.

Being a brutal dictator comes up because some of the people who want to leave him alone to get there claim that war will be bad for the Iraqi people. It can reasonably be claimed that a short war now will not be worse for the Iraqi people than 5 or 10 more years of Saddam.

What other governments do elsewhere is not relevant. What is relevant now is the future of an area of the globe that is critical to the future of a large part of the world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why should the US attack regimes friendly to your administration(s)? Is being stupid required to be good?

If we were trully moral and good, these regimes would not be our friends, now would they? This is where people become cynical and decide to take potshots at Americans...we say we are great and care about democracy while selling weapons to people who torture others. Please explain why a third party should not become cynical and see the US as a bunch of self-serving arrogant lying bastards? At least the French don't claim they do what they do for Freedom, they just do it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
If we were trully moral and good, these regimes would not be our friends, now would they?

You are confusing international relations with internal politics. You don't often get to choose the leaders of the various regions of the globe, but your country has to deal with them, as does mine.

The very thing you argue against is the thing you seem to support. Changes to 'better' regimes. Either that, or you think the US should ignore vast areas of the globe, because your sensibilities are offended by the governments there.

This is where people become cynical and decide to take potshots at Americans...we say we are great and care about democracy while selling weapons to people who torture others. Please explain why a third party should not become cynical and see the US as a bunch of self-serving arrogant lying bastards? At least the French don't claim they do what they do for Freedom, they just do it.

Right... the French are not basing their resistance on any grounds other than French self interest and they declare that? I think you are mistaken.

Aside from that, the purpose of military action is to defuse a very dangerous situation for the entire world. That being a dictator of Saddam's viciousness, in the Persian Gulf, seeking nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter if he has them now, it matters that he wants them very badly, and if left alone he will eventually get them.

The crap about democracy elsewhere and other such silly sh*t is brought up by the opponents of military action. Then when the proponents respond that maybe military action would be good for Iraqis themselves in the long run, people like you go into hystercis about cynicism and hypocrisy.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm astounded at the ignorant misrepresentation of Amnesty International as a bunch of "leftist idealogues." Many people around the world owe their lives to this organization.

Of course, the folks who complain about AI are likely the same ones who don't understand the ACLU and would like to see it gone.

[GePap]

The very thing you argue against is the thing you seem to support. Changes to 'better' regimes. Either that, or you think the US should ignore vast areas of the globe, because your sensibilities are offended by the governments there.

I don't support the notion of creating better regimes by force. Nor do I think the US should ignore regimes: there is a great amount of space though between attacking and being allied, and I do think that alliences with obviously authoritarian regimes greatly undermines the "we are for freedom message fo the US". Canada and the UK are not allies of Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, selling them billions of dollars in weapons,so obviously there are alternatives.

The crap about democracy elsewhere and other such silly sh*t is brought up by the opponents of military action. Then when the proponents respond that maybe military action would be good for Iraqis themselves in the long run, people like you go into hystercis about cynicism and hypocrisy.

I don't givce a damn about what is good for Iraqis..I am not one. What I ask myself is, what is best for the US, our allies, world stability and general peace, which then filters down to Iraqis. And yes, hypocrasy is just the word..all of a sudden the suffering of Iraqis matters, how convinient. I didn't see you caring much about the Iraqi people in 2001, now all of a sudden you and supporters of the war care so much? Oh, but the people of North Korea, well, that should be solved diplomatically.

War for freedom is a universalist aim, one which should only be espoused by those that actually believe in it and not people using it cynically.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't givce a damn about what is good for Iraqis.

That's worth framing.

[GePap]

Yes, and you care SO MUCH that you post such views on a Civ related site forum. Oh, what a humanitarian!

No, I do not care, nor can I , care more for people I do not know, have never known, will never know from the ME than I can for people I have never met, will never meet from Angola, Burma, Usbakistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra leone, Liberia, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, the DRC, Sudan, Colombia, China, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ireland, so forth and so on, and so on.

So NYE since you are such a humanitarian who cares for all the people of the world deeply..whats the last time you voluteered to do some NGO work in some of the world's hellholes?

At least I am not arrogant enough to fantasize that I could do somehting so alien to people and willing to be honest with myself and others.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't givce a damn about what is good for Iraqis..I am not one. What I ask myself is, what is best for the US, our allies, world stability and general peace, which then filters down to Iraqis. And yes, hypocrasy is just the word..all of a sudden the suffering of Iraqis matters, how convinient. I didn't see you caring much about the Iraqi people in 2001, now all of a sudden you and supporters of the war care so much? Oh, but the people of North Korea, well, that should be solved diplomatically.

War for freedom is a universalist aim, one which should only be espoused by those that actually believe in it and not people using it cynically.

You and those on your side of the argument are the ones making this crap up. It's not a war for freedom, and it never was intended as one. It's pretty clear to most people that Iraq is about Saddam and nukes... and some other possible actions later against states sponsoring terrorism.

The people of Iraq enter into it when people opposed to the war have the imagination to invoke suffering for the Iraqis as a reason not to go to war. I'm sorry, I don't see a short, sharp war as being worse for the Iraqi people than what the next 5 years has in store for them under the status quo.

[Kramerman]

His persuit for WMD's is irrelevent. As the Gulf War had shown, he has demonstrated that he will not use them if there isn't international sanction behind their use. The fact that he's a murderous bastard might be relevant if our gov't were more responsible.

In the Gulf War he merely demonstrated that in that circumstance he would not use WoMd directly against coalition troops, nothing more.

He can still very well use 'em against his neighbors for expansionist goals (wich could have innumerable consequences, especially on the world economy, considering the regions influence in oil), and can use them to cover his ass, holding Israel or someone else hostage with them so no reprisals from the international community can be made.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, and you care SO MUCH that you post such views on a Civ related site forum. Oh, what a humanitarian!

No, I do not care, nor can I , care more for people I do not know, have never known, will never know from the ME than I can for people I have never met, will never meet from Angola, Burma, Usbakistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra leone, Liberia, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, the DRC, Sudan, Colombia, China, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ireland, so forth and so on, and so on.

So NYE since you are such a humanitarian who cares for all the people of the world deeply..whats the last time you voluteered to do some NGO work in some of the world's hellholes?

At least I am not arrogant enough to fantasize that I could do somehting so alien to people and willing to be honest with myself and others.

Where are you going with this drivel. I've said already this is not about the Iraqi people. It is about the dictator with the oil money to buy nukes sitting right smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf.

Hello.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Where are you going with this drivel. I've said already this is not about the Iraqi people. It is about the dictator with the oil money to buy nukes sitting right smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf.

Hello.

And we've got no evidence whatsoever he has ever attempted to do such a thing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You and those on your side of the argument are the ones making this crap up. It's not a war for freedom, and it never was intended as one. It's pretty clear to most people that Iraq is about Saddam and nukes...

Oh, yeah, the nukes he will get from his no longer existing nuclear program. I wonder why one of the six benchmarks the brits asked for wasn't for iraq to come clean about its nuclear program..at the same time we were demanding they come clean about some toy ariplanes. Oversight on the part of Blair? Not bloody likely.

The people of Iraq enter into it when people opposed to the war have the imagination to invoke suffering for the Iraqis as a reason not to go to war. I'm sorry, I don't see a short, sharp war as being worse for the Iraqi people than what the next 5 years has in store for them under the status quo.

You think the short war will be the only thing that will happen? You don't expecty that after 70 years of repression in a land divided by religious, ethnic and tribal faultlines everyone will shake hands an dmake nice cause the US told them? You don't expect any bouts of revenge, terrorism and all the other things that could happen? Why? And you think all our eneimes in the region will just sit back and do nothing..like they did when we sent troops into Lebanon in 1983?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm astounded at the ignorant misrepresentation of Amnesty International as a bunch of "leftist idealogues." Many people around the world owe their lives to this organization.

Of course, the folks who complain about AI are likely the same ones who don't understand the ACLU and would like to see it gone.

Agreed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


And we've got no evidence whatsoever he has ever attempted to do such a thing.

Aside from the Iraqi defectors who confirm it.