Oh? Did I miss the news report where Saddam Hussein threatened to attack the United States? Did I miss the “smoking gun” from the CIA that finally linked Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Did I overlook the hordes of Iraqi commandos who attacked American cities, American embassies, and/or American bases?
I mean, sure, George W. Bush has talked a lot about how Iraq might someday be a threat to the United States, but that’s all speculation. You can’t invoke the self-defense clause unless there’s an immediate threat or outright attack, last I checked.
Given US might, one could argue that a President’s inaction - say, the failure to intervene in Gulf War I, or nonmilitary action - say economic policies or withdrawal from certain bi- or multilateral pacts/organizations, might be a greater threat to world peace than any affirmative or military action within the capability of a nation such as Iraq.
It seems to me that the Bush administration has pretty consistently undermined international organizations. As I personally believe INCREASED multilateralism will be vital to world peace in the future, I could imagine that part of his longterm legacy will be consistent with increased global unrest/conflict.
I hope I am wrong and that we enjoy living in the pax Americanus.
Many people see Bush as a dangerous man. Not as dangerous and most definitely nowhere near as evil as Saddam. Nevertheless he does rank as the most dangerous of all the democratically elected world leaders (giving him the benefit of the doubt!) in the eyes of many.
This war does not only affect the US and you cannot deport those of us who live in other countries. A silly solution to a serious issue.
Perhaps genetically recreating John Wayne might be another great solution to go along with the deportation.
The comparison is obviously totally bankrupt. The only reason the anti-bush people feel that way is because they’ve never actually had to live under Saddam. The sad thing about this war is how it has made liberals into caricatures of the worst kind of conservatives. Whenever I hear how Bush is “unelected,” I just remember how people like Rush used to say the same about Clinton, and how mad it made me then. Yeah, the election sucked, but I’m sure I wouldn’t have had a problem with it two years later if the Supreme Court had gone with Gore. When people say Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Saddam, someone who has been sanctioned by the world community many, many times, it just reminds me of how Tom Delay said the same thing: Clinton is more dangerous than Milosevic. How Ann Coulter said Bill Clinton should be assassinated. How conservatives called Janet Reno a jack-booted thug and a Nazi. It’s a simple mentality that treats Bush, Powell, Ashcroft like too much of the right treated Bill, Hillary, Reno, among others.
The funniest thing is how “pro peace” activists will criticize Bush for his simplistic “good vs. evil” mentality, and then hoist their “bush=hitler” signs. It was empty trash when it was about Clinton and it is now that it’s focused on Bush. Every marginalized side has to go a bit rabid in order to shore up its ranks and get organized, but too many liberals are going into G. Gordon Liddy/Noam Chomsky land.
For those of you not in America who see us as imperialists, I must say that if you wanted to work with us diplomatically, there should have been an option at the security council to marry diplomatic pressure with the threat of force – the only possible way to deal with dictators. Of course, the French said they would veto anything with an explicit deadline, so they killed the diplomatic process. I’m not saying Bush handled it well, but to put the albotross of failed diplomacy solely on his shoulders is obviously biased.
Here’s a test to see if you are still a liberal: if in the coming days when you see crowds of Iraqis cheering their liberators, when you see evidence of torture chambers and human rights abuses, when you see defunct chemical weapons facilities – if then you dismiss it all as propaganda to conceal imperialism, I think it will be then that you’ve traded everything that is progressive about liberalism, and exchanged it for worthless nihilism and Ann Coulter-style rabble-rousing.
France didn’t kill the diplomatic process, the Bush administration did with outrageous suggestions. After all, the “diplomacy” you mention was centered around a blessing to what they are doing anyway.
France most certainly did kill the diplomatic process. It it certainly true that Bush could’ve handled it much better, but exactly is “outrageous” about setting a deadline by which Saddam had to demonstrate compliance? You say we would go to war anyway, well, the fact that Saddam never faced a united council, passing a resolution with teeth in it – that’s the most outrageous part. The security council never stepped up to the task of trying to make our world secure. Bush’s mistrust of the security council may have been a self-fulfilling prophecy, but surely Europe’s mistrust of Bush was as well.
No. As was previously stated, the difference is not who is the more evil person, but who is more likely to make the world a more dangerous place.
Iraq has 24 million people, a $60 billion GDP, and spends $1.3 billion on its military.
The US has 280 million people, a $10 trillion GDP and spends $300 billion on its military.
So, even if Saddam tried his very hardest to comprimise world peace, he would have a hard time at it. In comparision, Bush just needs to be inept and he could cause WW III.
1979 Support for the oppressed under apartheid. Cessation of the nuclear arms race. Israel to desist from human rights violations. Inquiry into the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied territories. Protection of developing countries’ exports. Push to improve human rights and fundamental freedoms. Call for a UN conference on women. Rights of developing countries in multinational trade talks to be safeguarded.
1980 Support for the oppressed people of South Africa. Programme of action for UN Decade for Women. Non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. Development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1981 Negotiations to prohibit chemical and biological weapons. Education, work, health care, etc, are human rights.
1982 Shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier condemned. Apartheid condemned. Setting up of a world charter for ecological protection. Support for a new world information and communications order. Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons. Development of international law. Protection against products harmful to health and the environment. Development of energy resources of developing countries.
1987 Israel to abide by the Geneva conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians. Cooperation between the UN and the League of Arab States. Prevention of international terrorism.
1990 UN to send observers to the occupied territories.
2001 UN to send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. UN to set up the international criminal court.
2002 UN to renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
I heard someone call Bush a “vigilante” today. It certainly seems to fit. Whos next, Iran?
Heck, if he should be attacking any country, it is N Korea. They’ve already got nukes, and will soon have a way to lob them into the US. In the meantime, they’ll be selling them to terrorists all over the world.
And a couple of guys named Gunter Grass and Nelson Mandela say that Bush is a threat to world peace. What do they know, they just won a couple of Nobel prizes between them.
A question ‘which leader is more evil’ would have been a no brainer and anyone who says Bush has no validity off the bat. but the question ‘which leader is more of a threat to world peace’ is hard to say.
Saddam has invaded Iran & Kuwait. His refusal to obey UN resolutions has led to war and he has bombed Israel.
Bush is actively starting a war he knows may result in more terror attacks, which will destabalize our relationship with Europe, the UN, NATO & the anti terror coalition and which may harm our international reputation.
I’d say Saddam is the bigger threat to world peace because he could have ended this coming war at any time and choose not too. The US & UN have given too many last chances. Just because the cops tell someone to ‘get out of the car’ 30 times before they start firing doesn’t make them the aggressors.
I’m not sure about 1-3, i’d say they are grey areas. But how can you say that about no. 4?
Saddam came to power in 1979 & Iraq has 22 million people.
In 1980 he started the war with Iran. 150k died in the iran-iraq war
In 1990 Iraq starts the gulf war. The Un says 'leave Kuwait in 3 months or we will invade 110k soldiers & 10k civilians died in the Gulf war that Saddam started.
Thats not even including all the other deaths due to gassing (which may have been partly Iranian), government sponsored murder, or all the other deaths.
So in total, in 24 years of leadership the iraqi government has killed at least 750,000 Iraqis. The first gulf war killed 10,000 civilians and 110,000 soldiers. So it is obvious Saddam is the bigger threat.
Pencil Pusher:
I love your argument: whoever has the greatest destructive capacity is by definition the greatest threat to world peace. So a United States with the Mahatma would be a greater world peace than an Iraq with one nuke headed by, say, Charles Manson. Brilliant! Bush and Saddam are totally irrelevant to this entire thread! Pencil Pusher, if you accept the UN inspector’s position: that Saddam has not accounted for literally tons of poisonous material; and if you accept that these materials in the hands of terrorists, however they get there, could be horribly horribly destruction to the world; then if there is even a chance of that scenario happening, how can you continue to avoid taking it seriously?
PS. Obviously only two of the anti-U.S. criticisms you’re raising happened under Bush jr., which is who this thread concerns. Secondly, questioning whether or not the U.S. has a 100% record of making the world a safer place is ridiculous, a standard of perfection no nation could be held to. The real question is whether it is doing so now with it’s Iraq policy. I think that if you are serious about the issue of world security, as you claim to be, Pencil Pusher, you have to address the real issue of an Iraq with WMD, you must defend the ugly, ugly reality of a continued sanctions regime, and you must address why 12 years of inspection and resolutions have brought such minimal progress.
I don’t believe I can win everyone over to my side; I just want to attempt to show to everyone that Bush has made a case that should be taken seriously, and not just explained away by unprovable and lazy conspiracy theorizing like he’s an imperialist, or the father-son psychology, or other such twaddle.
And I love Gunter Grass and Nelson Madela, but they don’t have to do the unpleasant job of writing off terror attacks as implausible, or defend the sanctions regime; they have the luxury of just venting their anger at Bush, and that can be the end of it for them.