I wonder every day now about the folks like december who are passionately devoted to the idea that we simply * must * go after Saddam * now. * Is this something that has been keeping you awake nights for years? This wasn’t even on your radar screen a year ago, and now it is absolutely imperative.
Watching hardcore propaganda in action, and its effect, is amazing. I no longer wonder how Hitler managed to move the entire German populace from one end of the spectrum to the other. Just say it often enough, and people will start to really believe that they really believe. Extraordinary.
Wow. Now we’re comparing Karl Rove to Josef Goebbels?
My, the rhetoric is getting thick in here.
I guess is hasn’t occured to you that we just disagree with you, huh? Or is it that anyone who doesn’t share your enlightened beliefs must automatically be a dupe and a victim of insidious propaganda?
I was curious to see exactly how the White House “signaled its impatience”. Did it stamp its foot and stand there with arms folded, going " :rolleyes: " at the Security Council and muttering, “Can we get ON with it, already?”
Or did it merely stand there looking at its watch ostentatiously, and sighing heavily?
I can’t speak for anyone else favoring removing Saddam from power, but yes, I’ve been devoted to the idea for years (though it hasn’t been keeping me awake, I’ll admit). I would like to see the U.S. and the rest of the world remove every leader who achieves or maintains power through the oppression and/or murder of his subjects. And Saddam has been close to the top of my personal “get rid of that evil fucker” list for a long time.
Unfortunately, I’m way out of the mainstream on this issue. On the rare occasions that I see a swing around to may way of thinking concerning a particular despot, I get very excited.
Since we aren’t invading Iraq in order to plunder its resources, we’re ok then.
Regarding the matter of wanting to go to war now, rather than later, I have two reasons, both stemming from my belief that a forceful removal of Saddam is our only viable course of action at this point:
If we are going to remove Saddam, then sooner is better than later. It lessens the chances of him having the time to finish developing weapons, fortify his armies, form strategies, and such.
Certainly, not every president we could have would be as forceful as Bush with regards to getting this over and done with. I firmly believe that Gore, for example, would not touch Saddam with a ten foot pole. There’s no guarantee that the president in 2004, should Bush lose, will share this administration’s hard-line stance against Iraq. It’s thus important that we get this done now, rather than put it off a few years.
Wow, Stoid, if that’s the best you can do in the way of a rebuttal, I must’ve made a pretty good argument. [pats self on back]
I think what was meant, Chumpsky, was that if you’re basing the decision of whether to go to war strictly on the net number of lives saved, then we must go to war, as that is the way to minimize the number of deaths.
So it’s immoral to send US soldiers into battle to die, but it’s perfectly alright to send a much larger number of Iranians to their chemical-ly demise? What kind of f**ked-up Dr. Suessian moral logic is that?
Oh, and DDG, as usual your post was both informative and funny as hell. Please don’t ever stop posting to the SDMB.
Jeff
and this, essentially, is the argument you rejected in the aforementioned thread on ‘gay bashing dems’. Some of us tried to 'splain that a male who is a hairdresser, may in fact just be a hair dresser, when you insisted that no, no, no, it must be seen as a reference to homosexuality.
Was Saddam at the top of your list in the 1980’s, when Saddam was a favored friend and ally of the U.S.?
The problem with having the U.S. remove leaders who maintain power through oppression is that the U.S., more often than not, supports brutal dictators, as long as they serve Washington’s interests. The U.S. even supported Saddam, until he committed the one unpardonable sin, namely the sin of disobedience.
For example, the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran and Arbenz in Guatemala in the 1950s and installed brutal military dictators, overthrew Patrice Lumumba in Congo in 1961 and installed the bload-soaked Mbutu, overthrew the quite lively and vibrant Chilean democracy in 1973 and installed the bloody, Fascist dictator Pinochet, and so on…
The list of brutal states that the U.S. has propped up, with military and diplomatic support is too long to go into here, but includes the “Death Squad democracies” in Guatemala and El Salvador which killed over 200,000 in the 1980’s, Suharto’s Indonesia, which brutally massacred 500,000-1 million in 1965, and invaded East Timor in 1975, proceeding to kill over 1/3 of the population, the successive dictatorships of South Vietnam, the family dictatorships of the Middle East, and so on…
The fact is that U.S. foreign policy is not, and never has been, motivated by humanitarian or democratic impulses. It is motivated by power and greed, and the never ending imperialist impulse. A U.S. takeover of Iraq will simply whet the appetites of U.S. imperialists, leading to a never-ending global war of domination.
Since all of the reasons given by the Bush administration for invading Iraq are obvious lies, we have to make educated guesses at their real motivations. Control of the second largest oil reserves in the world, and regional dominance seems a pretty likely reason to me, but perhaps I am missing something.
wring, I was posting on a message board. The Democrats were running sleazy attack ads on TV and in mailings. Furthermore, I submit that the word “efffete” is exactly descriptive.
Look at this thread. One group of Europeans imposed inadequate sanctions, other Europeans evaded the sanctions, and the first group of Europeans criticized the second group. Meanwhile thousands of Zimbabweans are dying. That approach is well-described as depleted of vitality, force, or effectiveness as well as marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence.
If there has ever been a war of aggression in history that has minimized the number of deaths, I would like to hear about it. Perhaps the best candidate would be Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1979 (condemned by the U.S. for ending the rule of the Khmer Rouge), but even this is questionable.
At any rate, it takes some pretty imaginative calculating to argue that a U.S. invasion of Iraq will save more lives than it will take. As the situation stands now, Saddam cannot make a move without being instantly annhilated. But, if the U.S. goes into Iraq, the immediate toll will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of deaths. Modern warfare being what it is, the overwhelming majority of casualties will be civilians. That is a lot of blood that will be on our hands.
The aftermath of the war could be even worse. You see, most of the world does not believe our propaganda. The poor of the world see through the lies of western hypocrites, and understand that power is at the root of militarism. An invasion of Iraq will only increase hatred of the U.S., possibly uniting the Muslim world against us. We could see the destabilization of the U.S.'s family dictatorships, which in itself wouldn’t be such a bad thing, but thrown into a war and occupation of a country in the middle of the whole thing could create total chaos. The Middle East is teeming in weaponry, mostly supplied by the U.S., U.K. and France. If you throw a U.S. invasion of a Muslim country into the mix, we could see the most deadly war since WWII.
And, in the end, there will be no democracy in Iraq. This is out of the question, if the U.S. has any say in the matter. Democracies have an annoying tendency to try to keep the nation’s resources in the hands of the population, which is anathema to western imperialism. One form of dictatorship or another will be installed in Iraq. It is almost inconceivable that this would be accepted by Iraqis without strong resistance.
No. What I am saying is that if the U.S. is being honest about what it wants in Iraq, then the best way to achieve these goals is to support an Iranian invasion of Iraq. The fact that this is unthinkable just shows that all of the reasons given for the invasion are lies. I am against aggression in principle, so I would not support such an invasion. The scenario is a thought experiment to determine if the administration is being honest, which it clearly isn’t.
Geez, when is this tired cliche going to go away? Is it so hard to understand that our choices aren’t always between supporting Mr. Nobel Peace Prize and Mr. Evil Dictator? Sometimes - quite often, in fact - we have to choose between Mr. Evil Dictator and Mr. Really Evil Dictator.
In the 80’s, there was a power struggle between Iran and Iraq. They were both awful, awful places. However, Iran was marginally more awful, and presented more of a threat to the area, and to us. In addition, Iran was poised to win. We didn’t want that to happen, so we held our noses and helped out Saddam.
Flash forward to 2002. Saddam is still pretty damn evil. Iran, left to its own devices, may just be able to acquire a democracy, given time. Why is it so wrong to want to get rid of him?
But ignore that for a moment - pretend the US was stupid and evil and self-serving in the 80’s, and Reagan supported Iraq because he liked watching Kurds get gassed. How does that have any relevence at all to the question of whether or not to get rid of Saddam today? Because it’s hypocritical? Please, I’m eager to hear your answer here.
Jeff
“Death and destruction” has many varying degrees. In a case where causing 1000 deaths was necessary to prevent 5000, then the situation would be justified. Its often referred to as “greater good” or “lesser of two evils”. The U.S.'s use of the atomic bomb on Japan is an example of this. I believe removing Hussein is another example. This regime change will cause less death then Saddam will over the next 10 or 20 years.
A blockade is an act of war. JFK blockaded Cuba in 1961 to prevent nuclear missiles. That act of aggression cost no lives and may have saved many.
In 1981, Israel made an unprovoked bombing attack on Saddam’s nuclear reactor. The attack cost one live IIRC (a janitor who was working at night), but it may have saved hundreds of thousands, since it kept Saddam from getting atomic weapons.
Before they were defeated, the Taliban had been killing thousands and thousands of Iraqis. Furthermore, mass starvation was looming. America’s rapid victory undoubtedly saved the lives of a great many Iraqis.
No, we often have to choose between self-determination and U.S. puppetry, and it is puppetry that is preferred.
The point is that U.S. foreign policy is motivated only by the interests of those who run the country, and these interests involve keeping the populations of the Third World impoverished and unorganized, so that their resources can be plundered by the west. Despite the claims of U.S. imperialism to always be supporting “the lesser of two evils,” it is the case, more often than not, that we support the much more evil of two evils, as long as the evil is serviceable to U.S. (i.e. corporate) interests.
I mean, do you think the Shah was better than Mossadegh? Was Pinochet better than Allende? Were the Guatemalan generals better than Arbenz? Was Mbutu better than Lumumba?
For one thing, because many of the very same people who were supporting Saddam in the 1980’s are now running the U.S. war machine. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bush’s dad, etc., all were quite cozy with Saddam. So, clearly, this has nothing to do with Saddam’s brutality. At the very least this shows that the Bushites are lying about their motivations.
Secondly, what it shows is that the plundering of Iraq is not going to have anything to do with helping Iraqis. That is a sick joke that nobody believes outside of the U.S.
Thirdly, what it shows is that the upcoming invasion has nothing whatsoever to do with the threat Saddam poses to the west. Saddam was much more of a threat in the 1980’s, and he received plenty of support from the U.S. and U.K., even after the Iran/Iraq war.
Incidentally, I do think Saddam should be removed, but by the people of Iraq. The U.S. has no right to make “regime changes,” an act that has been outlawed by international law for over 400 years, since the Treaty of Westphalia. If we had any interest at all in the welfare of the people of Iraq we would lift the economic sanctions, which hurt only the people while strengthening Saddam’s grip on power, and keep the military sanctions in place. Take the boot off the neck of the people of Iraq, and let them sort out their own country.
DEFEND IRAQ AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALIST ATTACK!
How do you figure? The U.S. prevented Cuba from defending itself against U.S. aggression, thus allowing it to continue its terrorist attacks on Cuba, killing many thousands of people over the years. If Cuba had been allowed to defend itself, perhaps the U.S. would not have initiated such large-scale terrorist attacks on the country.
The jury is still out on that one. U.S. bombs killed a couple thousand civilians, and closed humanitarian aid to the country, probably killing somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 through starvation. Whether the country will be rebuilt remains to be seen, but so far the U.S. has done nothing to help the country, and other nations have reneged on their promises.
Welcome to the board, Chumpsky. It’s nice to have a new, active poster. Howewver, this board is not the place to simply spout slogans. You’re supposed to be able to offer proof.
Evidence for this POV?
You seem to believe that there’s some sort of ruling oligarchy. But, our democracy has been governed by many different people from many different backgrounds.and these interests involve keeping the populations of the Third World impoverished and unorganized, so that their resources can be plundered by the west.
Possibly. He certainly was better than Iran’s current government.
No doubt about it. It’s true that Allende was elected, but his regime was destrying the country.
This is a strange accusation. Within the last 50 or 60 years, the US has or has had a military presence in many countries. Afghanistan, South Vietnam, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, and Iraq come to mind. Which of them has the US “plundered?”
So, why didn’t the US take over Iraq in 1991; they had just as much oil then.
I think it should rain food in Zimbabwe. The fact is, the people of Iraq don’t have the wherewithall to overthrow Saddam. Actions in the real world look less pure than fantasy.
On preview I see you have written, “so far the U.S. has done nothing to help the country [Afghanistan].” Considering the enormous amount of food aid we provided, the security we are proiding, the help we (and other western nations) provided in setting up a democracy, your statement is just unreal.
That wasn’t the question. The question was regarding Mossadegh and the Shah. If you think the Shah was better than Mossadegh, then I fear we will have nothing to discuss, as we would have no common basis of understanding. Mossadegh was a democratically elected representative of the people of Iran, during its brief experiment in democracy before that was ended by the U.S. in the early 1950’s. Mossadegh made the fatal error of nationalizing Iranian oil fields, foolishly thinking that the wealth of the country should benefit its citizens, as opposed to Wall Street. For this error he was ousted in favor of the Shah. The Shah ruled with an iron fist, with a flood of arms and support from the U.S., to keep the people down and ensure that the oil fields remained firmly in control of the west.
:smack:
It is amazing how Allende was able to destroy the country before he took power! You will recall that the U.S. acted to prevent Allende from coming to power in the first place, after he was elected in 1971. Immediately after he was elected, but before he was confirmed by the congress and before he took power, the U.S. began plotting on how to remove him. Plans were made to assassinate General Rene Schnieder, the conservative but constitutionalist head of the Chilean military. After Schneider was murdered, plans for the coup went forward, and Chile was plunged into a nightmare of violence, disappearances, torture, assassination, etc., but with the benefit that labor unions were crushed and markets were opened to exploitation by multi-national corporations.
For one thing, the international coalition was only maintained with the explicit promise that Saddam would not be overthrown. The only mandate the U.S. had was to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Of course, it did much more than this, for example destroying water treatment facilities in Iraq, which caused tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of deaths.
Nobody in the U.S. predicted that the Shah would be overthrown in 1979 either, but he was. Unfortunately, years of brutal repression left only the most extreme elements able to survive, and thus take power.
If we take the boot off the neck of the Iraqi people, there will be two possible benefits. For one thing, we will stop killing thousands per month. If that isn’t a benefit to you, then there could also be the benefit that the people of Iraq could gain power and overthrow their leader. At any rate, what right do we have to meddle in the internal affairs of another country?
:smack:
What democracy? I haven’t heard of any votes. Are you referring to the “election” of the U.S. puppet Karzai? Or perhaps you are using “democracy” in the technical sense used by the U.S., to mean control by a regime obedient to Washington?
As for the food aid the U.S. provided, surely you are joking. Do you mean the despicable propaganda act of dropping a few packets of food over the country? This happened after all humanitarian supply lines were cut, causing vast amounts of misery. The packets of food the U.S. dropped could only have fed the hungry for one meal. This was nothing but a cynical propaganda ploy, capitalizing on the suffering of people in Afghanistan.
The U.S. and USSR tore the country apart in the 1980’s, with the U.S. doing by far the bulk of destruction, pushing the country into the stone age. In the 1990’s, left the Afghans to fester in internicine warfare, implicitely supporting the rise of the Taliban. If history is any guide, the U.S. will do nothing to help Afghans, giving minimal support to regimes that are obedient to Washington.
