Saddam is well known as a despicable butcher who'd torture people speaking out against his regime, slaughter Kurds with mustard gas, was raising an army bent on murdering every last Jew in Israel, etc., etc. Despite the world having some knowledge of this, the only nations with any guts to take care of him were the good ol' USA and allies. God bless 'em!
That's right the good 'ol USA took care of that butcher all right. We gave Saddam munitions, including that very mustard gas he used on Kurds! Heck, Rumsfeld gave him the weapons with a smile, and when Saddam gassed those kurds he told people angry with Saddam to get bent.
You do realize every hack cliched opinion you expressed in your post has already been shot to hell in this thread?
Yes, I know war is hell, but sometimes it's the only way. Look at Hitler -
Yes, look at Hitler and Saddam and BinLaden... they all believed that war is hell, but sometimes it's the only way. That's why people have to think different from them to preserve peace in this world.
The fact is no one was in a position of appeasing Saddam, ala Chamberlain. International forces (real international forces) kicked his lame tyrannical ass out of the country he tried to take over. No one was giving him territory.
It might be noted that he only attacked that country because the US had granted him so much power and essentially a greenlight to do so (Bush sr really fumbled on that one).
Grand Munchausian dreams aside, please tell me what actual threat Saddam posed to any country? What was the necessary reason to end peace, and wage war against that country at this time?
He was contained and diminishing in power, and unlikely to aid Islamic extremists UNLESS we went to war.
Now that we have thrown him out of power by killing over 10 thousand human beings, at least 5000 of which were completely innocent, and had no plan to protect the Iraqis in the aftermath of war--- so stranding them without basic utilities and humanitarian services--- please explain why this war was so good for anyone.
To have made the claims you made before the war would at least have been excusable, at this point it is extraordinary. Crafters of the war (except Bush politicians) are admitting this war was a fiasco, and probably unnecessary.
There is no question Iraq has been destabilized and even the "good 'ol USA and allies" are unable to dig ourselves out of the mire we jumped into.
This is without question.
No joke, your entire post looks like some German in late 1944 saying how wonderful Hitler's strategy was, and how necessary it was for peace an prosperity in the world.
Can't you read the writing on the wall... or at least the newspapers?
Or was this just a post that finally showed up, 4 months late?
Ahhhh, back from lunch and I realized I had a bit more to say.
However, the Iraqis were much worse off under Saddam. They actually wanted the war in order to obtain freedom. One 'human shield' in Iraq got a shock when he found out that the common Iraqi roundly loathed Saddam and wanted war to take him out.
Have you heard about the shock soldiers (aka the involuntary "human shields" of Bush foreign policy) got after the invasion? They found the common Iraqi roundly loathed the invasion and occupation by Americans, though they are glad Saddam has been pushed out, were not in favor of the method employed, and feel this has left them worse off.
My question to you defender is since most Iraqis are definitely of the opinion that they hate the American occupation, and can point quite easily to the dead, injured, and distraught Iraqis that US forces have created-- and continue to create--- does this mean some other country can now invade to cast off OUR regime?
After all, as long as the new invaders kill less Iraqis than we did, and repair infrastructure faster, according to your formula that would makes them righteous. If these new invaders happen to be Islamic than they would certainly have greater support than American forces.
My guess is you will only apply your logic in half measures.
By the way, I'm aware of the irony that I find myself defending some basic Xtian principles by a poster with the nic defenderofthefaith. Exactly what faith are you the defender of?
[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-09-2003]
I realise that Saddam wasn't threatening any other country - yet. But there's also Saddam's population to consider. A human shield in Baghdad was surprised when one Iraqi taxi driver told him he wanted a war - because Saddam was about as bad as Hitler for a leader. Of course some will complain about the war, and rightly so - everything has a dark side to it. But staying under Saddam would have been far worse. The dictator wanted peace protests and human shields. Why? Because as long as everybody stayed safe at home and at peace, no one would disturb his comfy iron grip on Iraq. If we're going to criticise a government, we should concentrate more on Saddam's Ba'ath party, or perhaps French President Chirac, who sol Iraq weapons and a nuclear reactor for oil.
BTW: I am a defender of the Christian faith, and speak out for my Lord Jesus Christ.
Except that Saddam's treatment of his people wasn't the reason we went to war. You can't retroactively re-justify your decision when your initial justification appears to be looking sickly.
I agree that things will probably be better in the long run in Iraq without Saddam in charge, although I could be wrong we don't know how bad things are going to get there after all. But this war wasn't fought for the humanitarian interests of the Iraqi people, it was ostensibly fought to reduce the danger of rogue or terrorist actions against America and its allies and especially to reduce the risk of WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists or being deployed by Iraq. It seems doubtful whether it has done any of these things apart from reducing the risk of Iraq, as a sovereign state, deploying whatever WMDs are or were in the country which there is no evidence they would have done anyway given Saddam's pragmatic attitude to pretty much anything that would keep him in power such as appearing to obey the UN when it suited him.
P.S. Don't pick on the French, its like shooting fish in a barrel.
Like the 10,000+ Iraqis lying dead, and the millions of Iraqis suffering to even greater degrees than they had under Saddam?
I notice you never answered my question. Your formula would excuse anyone, including the French, from rolling in and attacking us.
Of course some will complain about the war, and rightly so - everything has a dark side to it. But staying under Saddam would have been far worse.
For the 10.000+ dead, or the millions of suffering Iraqis who say they want us out now? Most Iraqis say they are worse off now than before.
And who are you to speak for them? You wrote complaining about your terrible NZ government which is about to oppress your people by taxing the farts of cows. So should the US decide to get on that and "free" your people by dropping bombs all over your houses, taking over the government, and then shooting anyone who says they don't want the government we'd install?
The dictator wanted peace protests etc... Because as long as everybody stayed safe at home and at peace, no one would disturb his comfy iron grip on Iraq.
That's the first correct assessment you have made. Saddam was all about staying in power for himself. NOT directing Islamic fundamentalist attacks against the US, or any other attack which might rob him of his empire.
And the answer to a man like this was to bomb the innocent population he was dominating, and put ourselves in his place?
At this point don't you get part of the reason he was so domineering? He was using an iron fist, as we are now, to impose one government on an extremely divided nation, and preventing Islamic fundamentalists from botching up the works.
In fact that's the reason the US armed him. And by the way France was no bigger ally of Saddam than anyone else. They recently had more oil contracts. Gee, after bombing Iraq futher back into the stone age now we do.
Guess who had more contracts with the Taliban? **cough** Dick Cheney**cough cough**. Maybe that's why we nailed Saddam harder than BinLaden. We already had financial control of Afghanistan.
What's really stupid to me is none of you get that even when a true Iraqi government is installed, according to our models, that doesn't mean jack.
Didn't any of this interest you enough to pick up some history books, or do some digging on the net? This has all been done before.
Lawrence, as in Lawrence of Arabia fame, helped the British destroy the "horrible" Iraqi government about 100 years ago. They even used planes to "shock and awe" Iraqis into submission. Heck, they even installed a good 'ol puppet government.
Guess what? It didn't work then and the Iraqis eventually overthrew that government which was going to be the model of governments in that region forever. Then the long years of strife between all ethnic and religious divisions, gave us Saddam.
I'm trying to figure out why anyone thinks they are about to be better off any time soon. Is the money suddenly going to be spread to everyone? Or the few we put into power? Are they going to continue having socialized medical, or will we strip them of that to match the great capitalist medical system the US has (and then sell them healthcare)?
As it is, we have broken international laws by saying their oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. BY LAW an invading and occupying power must assume all costs of reconstruction. That means we are stealing from the Iraqis and their future.
That means they get a less rosy future and much more poverty, so we don't have to foot the bill for the damage.
This said, Saddam's removal did present an OPPORTUNITY for change for the better. That I will freely admit. But we had no plan on how to maximize that opportunity to benefit Iraqis (for god's sake we have even housed our headquarter's in Saddam's palaces), and unless a less biased organizing structure comes into play, I don't see how it's going to play any different than when Britain "freed" them 100 years ago.
By the way I don't know if you heard that during this invasion, some Iraqis who were happy to see US forces actually tried stoning British forces, because of their lingering feelings of hostility from the British occupation. And that was like 100 years ago!
I really hope the international community can rescue this fiasco, because the Iraqis deserve better than the treatment they've had for a long long long time.
I am a defender of the Christian faith, and speak out for my Lord Jesus Christ.
With very few exceptions, most major Xtian leaders pronounced this war unnecessary and against the teachings of Christ.
Do you know something they don't know? How is slaughtering people to install a new regime and ensure OUR regime stays in place (that's what we are doing now) any better than what he did? We don't use as cruel of methods to kill the ones we need to eliminate?
I agree that criticizing the French is shooting fish in a barrel
Actually this is a reply to both wounded king and MrHambre. I simply chose H because he was the last person to say the above, and since I have always been in agreement with him (and love his writing) I am curious about this departure.
I do not understand why criticizing them is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Historically they are no more or less guilty than any other nation, specifically with regard to Iraq.
What's more, the position they took on Iraq was the most intelligent position championing peace and rule of law, over the fallacies of war and chaos, that I have seen in some time.
The speech that Villepin gave at the UN (which resulted in one of the only standing ovations by any speech given at the UN) was brilliant. And it wasn't just a showpiece.
They have maintained a consistent course which has actually made me turn from being a French-humbugger (In a tour of Europe I actually avoided France), to wishing I was from France. The statements and positions the French have taken made Powell and Bush look like scared yokels picking off anything that moves in their neighbors yard because they're afraid of an invasion from mars.
Perhaps the best word I can use to describe their action is... sane.
Kofi Annan has also impressed me with his ultra-cool head in the tactics of debate and coalition building (more so than the French). But the reasoning on approaches to the world's problems... sanity.
Maybe I missed something. What have the French done, other than inventing mimes, and being cranky and a bit pretentious that makes them in any sense guilty of something worthy of ACTUAL criticism?
I might remind some of the rightwing true patriots that without the French we wouldn't have a United States at all.
I was actually wondering when all the lunatics renaming fries and pouring out wine, were going to realize the statue of liberty was French. I thought it would be an apt sign of the times if we tore it down and sent it back to them out of spite for not agreeing with us. And then of course spitting on all the founding fathers for being French-lovers.
quote:Maybe I missed something. What have the French done, other than inventing mimes, and being cranky and a bit pretentious that makes them in any sense guilty of something worthy of ACTUAL criticism?
I'm not going to make Jerry Lewis jokes, considering how much worse the Reign of Terror was by any estimation. And the fact that the French Revolution produced that paragon of liberty, fraternity, and equality named Napoleon does bring the French down a notch or two in my admittedly biased book. Zut alors!
------------------ I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall
Sacre bleu, I remember Napoleon, but exactly how much worse was he to other Europeans than our "democratic" government was to the Native Americans?
If anything at least the French can say they got swindled by a singular power hungry madman. Who can the Americans point to but themselves for what amounts to a nearly successful genocidal campaign against the "savages" of whose very existence our forefathers lamented.
In fact, didn't we go on our little genocide after buying the lands from Napoleon? I don't remember the US trying to stop him either.
So what it looks like to me is that at the same time we were pals with Nap, we were commiting the same exact atrocities he was... only by fighting a relatively unarmed opponent we were much more successful.
I'm not an apologist for French history, it's bad and bloody. I'm just trying to figure out how it can be so easy to pick on them, given our own "savage" history.
On a side note--- I hope this debate isn't souring things between us MrH. If I seem too harsh in a response, just let me know. I think you are quite brilliant and witty and don't want to risk accidentally offending you over some trivial topic like France.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-11-2003]
quote:Except that Saddam's treatment of his people wasn't the reason we went to war.
And if I recall correctly, when Clinton proposed going into the Balkans because of their treatment of the people (and Muslims at that), there was a huge outcry that that wasn't why we have a military. If the Balkans are having an internal crisis, then it wasn't our business, the US isn't the policeman of the world, etc., etc.
Hmmm...why is it that the proponents of this war were so against this sort of justification when Clinton was on his warpath?
And people wonder why some people think that the reason we go to war in Iraq has something to do with oil....
I wasn't suggesting that criticising the French was like shooting fish in a barrel because the French were a particularly easy target for criticism, but because they are so generally prone to the humbuggery attitude that you yourself admit to. Consequently because they are so generally criticised people do not think twice before levelling a variety of fairly unjustified criticisms at them which are frequently accepted at face value and not critically evaluated. I was suggesting that just blaming the French was a cop out diversionary tactic, not that the french were obviously culpable.
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-15-2003]
I was suggesting that just blaming the French was a cop out diversionary tactic, not that the french were obviously culpable.
Ah that makes more sense to me. And yeah I still have the normal kneejerk American giggle at the cultural idiosyncracies of the French. But I've become a lot more sensitive of claims they are cowardly or into things just for the money.