If I had my way, Saddam would still be in power

by lastcall 50 Replies latest social current

• 

  lastcall

  was it the purpose or intent of the founding fathers (as they call them) when framing and adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to be the policemen of the world?

  No, I don't think so.

  But I also don't buy into the idea that we are bound to the intent of the founding fathers.....I mean their not th GB

  I think we use their evident intent as a point of reference., but the constitution is a living document. I think it was their intent to provide security for Americans. There lies the crux of the argument..was this war really about protecting Americans?

  LC
• 

  jayhawk1

  The reason we have not gone after N. Korea the same way we have gone after Iraq is N. Korea could bring about WWIII. Sadam and Iraq has no allies. I mean, who would support them? Iran? No, Iraq fought a decade plus war with them. Saudi Arabia? No, the Arabians want Saddam gone. Jordan? Probably the closest Sadam had to a friendly nation, but certainly no hope against a military as strong as the USA and allies. Russia? Russia can protest all they want politically, but they can't keep it together in their own nation, so there is no way they could come to the rescue of Saddam even if they did like him. So who does that leave, well nobody in Saddam's corner except a few crazy men after the heart of a man like Bin Laden.

  N. Korea could potentially have China in its corner if push came to shove. I don't think the rest of the world would want an army 100,000,000 strong to get restless. A cold war and sanctions is the only way to get N. Korea to crumble. It is just a shame to let thousands of people suffer for some crazy dictator.

  Just my few cents and it probably does not make any sence any way.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  We took out Iraq before they could become another North Korea. Taking out Kim Jong ILL will bring about the death of 100's of thousands...maybe millions, due to his Nukes. Should we have waited for Saddam to come to that point?
• 

  Abaddon

  Saddam was obviously a bit of a turd but he kept the extremists in his country in check, what we have done now is allow hardline muslims to step into the power vacuum and Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists and anyone with an AK47.

  Saddam was an extremist, Einstein... gesh, what part of gas bombing Kurds and mass graves don't you understand?

  The charcterisations of the threat to the West presented by Bushy and Blurry were incompetently made or intentionaly deceptive. He didn't really present a threat to the West, only his own people.

  But that doesn't mean it's bad he's gone - pity you've joined the '$uck 'em, wrong colour, wrong country, wrong religion, who cares' party. Would you be so heartless about mass graves if they were filled with white Christian Canadians? You might not think you're a racist, and I'm sure 'some of your friends are black', but the implicit double standard is floating just below the surface of your argument like an unflushable bowl movement.

  If we hold the freedoms we have in the West in any way valuable, we have to regard them as being important to other people too. If the West continues to explicitly or implictly deny the developing world the freedoms and opportunities people in the the West have, then those dictators and despots responsible for denying people those rights, any Western policies which contribute to the denial of those rights, will have reprecussion that will STILL effect the West..

  People who are comfortable and have a hope for a decent life in the future are very unlikely to blow themselves up. Allowing despots and economic policy to feed fires of extremism as it means we can put off problems to another day is dumb. If we deal with problems now we avoid bigger problems in the future?

  We've taken an oppressed but stable country and turned it into a haven for terrorists, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan is still rumbling on. If being a totalitarian dictator wh kills your people were reason enough for us to invade then why isn't anything being done in Zimbabwe? Is it because they don't have oil?
• 

  Dansk

  I'm wondering what the Muslim terrorists now think of suicide bombings. Those Arabs interviewed are disgusted that Saddam didn't kill himself as he, no doubt, expected of others. Will it now make potential suicide bombers think twice before answering the call? I hope so. There are still suicide bombings going on now, I know, but Saddam's supporters are having to come to terms with the fact that the man they looked up to let them down. He didn't die the martyr's death that was expected. If Bin-Laden can now be captured alive that would be another thought-provoker for the suicide bomber. It's all right giving the orders, it's an entirely different matter carrying them out oneself. Here's hoping.......

  Ian
• 

  asleif_dufansdottir

  Don't worry, Lastcall...I'm sure right at this very moment the U.S. government is supporting some other tyrannical, sadist, psycho dictator, just like we originally supported him...and it will turn around and bite us in the ass too.

  BushCo (formerly known as the U.S. government) doesn't give a rat's ass how evil, psychotic or sadistic any other nation's leader or dictator is, as long as he doesn't damage U.S. corporate interests or happen to get in between a U.S. corporation and the potential for profit (in which case he's roadkill).

  How many hundreds of thousands of people have been and continue to be raped, tortured and murdered without the US saying or caring jack sh*t about it?? Pretending that our foreign policy has any shred of humanitarian reasons for doing what it does, is a crock. Any benefit to the average citizen of either the U.S. or the other countries in question is purely coincidental.

  HOWEVER, let me state unequivocally that, while I am contemptuous of the morals and motivations of the leaders of this country, I have no doubt that the average military person really is idealistic and has good motives.
• 

  asleif_dufansdottir

  Also, foreign policy is not a simple matter of getting rid of naughty foreign leaders and then all will end happily ever after.

  I had the opportunity, as an undergrad, to take a 'History of US Foreign Policy' class from a retired US Ambassador, who had, at one time, been ambassador to Afghanistan (the class was right before 9/11...boy did he get busy). I'll never forget the lecture where he talked about the fact that Jimmy Carter's taking the Shah to task over human rights issues was a key component of the toppling of the Shah's government and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeni. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

  An anthropology prof mentioned that, years ago, anthropologists who had studied the social organization of 'warlord societies' like Afghanistan and other similar places, tried to tell the State department that if they got rid of one bad guy, another (probably a relative or a member of a rival faction) would just rise to take his place and nothing would really change. She said they never were able to convince them...they couldn't shake "Western" notions of government...
• 

  expatbrit

  If we hold the freedoms we have in the West in any way valuable, we have to regard them as being important to other people too. If the West continues to explicitly or implictly deny the developing world the freedoms and opportunities people in the the West have, then those dictators and despots responsible for denying people those rights, any Western policies which contribute to the denial of those rights, will have reprecussion that will STILL effect the West..

  Brilliantly put, Abaddon. Finally I get to enjoy agreeing with you!

  Expatbrit
• 

  Satans little helper

  Saddam was an extremist, Einstein... gesh, what part of gas bombing Kurds and mass graves don't you understand?

  He's was killing his own people, so why aren't we using that as an excuse to invade Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast or Liberia? Is it because they are black or because they are poor?

  If we hold the freedoms we have in the West in any way valuable, we have to regard them as being important to other people too. If the West continues to explicitly or implictly deny the developing world the freedoms and opportunities people in the the West have, then those dictators and despots responsible for denying people those rights, any Western policies which contribute to the denial of those rights, will have reprecussion that will STILL effect the West..

  I'm sorry but that's absolute arrogance. You think democracy is great so it must be the ONLY way people should be governed and live? The US government has used the patriot act to remove many of the democratic freedoms it so loudly praises, do you think we in Europe should invade and show you how it should be done?

  Oppressing the people in Africa through restrictive trade practices is wrong and is adding to the gap between poor and rich nations and you are right, we should stop it and give these poor people the chance to make a decent living. The Common Agricultural Policy in Europe, and the agricultural subsidies the US gives to it's farmers keep many farmers in developing countries poor and unable to compete. If they were given the chance to compete on a level playing field then they would have the chance to make a decent living and would not be so indebted to the west. That doesn't mean we have the perogative or the right to invade whoever the hell we like and effect 'Regime Change'. The ultimate irony and intense hypocracy lies in the fact that the US made Saddam the leader he was and gave him finance and weapons to carry out his rule and his oppression - because it fitted in with US foreign policy.
• 

  heathen

  Some good points being made . I also consider the fact that the US went against a democratic vote in the UN as being evidence that a democracy turns into dictatorship when there is personal wealth and power at stake . The people in the middle east are conditioned from a young age to hate the western ways of freedom and civil rights , the only unity they adhere to is that of hating people with different opinions and religious beliefs . I just can't see a bright future in this picture . When dealing with the terrorist gorilla tactics it will continue to cause casualties that will likely lead to a US withdrawal from the region anyway . I just cannot see picking a trustworthy regime and arming them to enforce civil laws .