Why should I? I’m not a Democrat. I don’t care that they were wrong too.
If this was all about Saddam being a bad guy, why hasn’t the U.S. invaded the Sudan? They’re just as bad as Saddam ever was and are killing folks at a higher rate than he ever did.
Where under international law does it state that one state has the right to invade and overthrow the government of another sovereign state because we don’t like that government? Doesn’t that make the invader state a “rogue state”?
SH was an Evil Bastard no doubt. But, it is wrong to invade Soveriegn nations that are no threat to you,( and who are not attacking your allies) *even *to remove an evil bastard.
BrainGlutton, yeah, and Mussolini “made the train run on time”. But actually Il Duce was a failure when it came to train timetables as he was in everything else, and so was SH. Iraq didn’t work, you can just page back here in time to the period pre-invasion, where all the BHL were whining that the Oil Embargo was starving the Iraqi citzenry and preventing them from getting fresh clean water. :rolleyes: :dubious: And Iraq, what with several insuractions,and Kurdistan being in nigh open revolt, wasn’t all that stable, either. True, SH brutal tactics was keeping a lid on things, but the cure was worse that the disease.
SH was an Evil and incompetent dictator. The world is far better off with him dead.
A quibble. The world is better off with him out of power. The provocative manner of his death and its likely repercussions makes “with him dead” a bit more problematical.
This OP is very nice example of how some people don’t even bother to actually get the real opposing viewpoint, and only hear strawman versions of it from the likes of Limbaugh.
With even a tiny bit of effort, it should have been obvious that few to zero people were against the war because they didn’t believe Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds.
So are you saying that Iraq is a better, safer place to live in now than it was five years ago?
He specifically wrote “the cure was worse than the disease,” so I don’t think he’s saying that at all. Just that Saddam was a bastard.
I read “the cure” in that passage as refering to Sadam Hussein being in power, but maybe I misunderstood.
I appreciate you bringing the news to my attention. Frankly, just like the uproar over the fact that Bush was misguided or lied about the WMD threat I never came across any proof that Saddam actually used chemical weapons against the Kurds. But to hear of an audio tape supporting that the event was being contemplated adds credence to the perspective that the event actually occured.
I’m now comfortable that these stories actually occured. So what?
As much as I’m cocerned about the constutional rights of western citizens, the plight of those in poverty, aids, the treatment of minorities in the job market, access to abortion and contraceptives, and the well being of western homosexuals, my concern for the life of the Kurds and the black people of Darfur pales in comparison to any desire to rectify the situation if it requires the life of an American or Canadian or a European. I don’t think that attitude is cool but it prevails and I understand it.
Partially, I speak with tongue in cheek. Mostly I’m confused, because I understand both sides of the issue. Mostly I’m confused because I think that our attitudes including mine reflect not racism perhaps, but a different accounting for the value of human lives depending on which culture they are in. I will say this. If Canada suddenly became under the control of a dictator who authorized the gassing of Quebeckers and the murder Newfoundlanders, the vast majority of citizens of both countries would have no problem with an American invasion of Canada despite the cost of the lives of several thousand Americans. Just like WWII.
Which would arguably have justified an invasion of Iraq… in 1987.
Now suppose Canada had gassed Quebeckers back in 1987, but today Quebec was under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. What’s left of Canada is a nasty dictatorship but a relatively stable state and not really a threat to anyone else. Would it be okay for the United States to invade it, kill tens of thousands of civilians, destroy the economy and infrastructure, thereby causing mass poverty, suffering and death, and unleash a horrible civil war that kills tens of thousands more? Oh, and by the way, they could only sell the war by pretending Canada had nuclear weapons but then later it turned out they didn’t.
Well, of course that wouldn’t be okay.
And I gotta tell you; if in doing all that the U.S. killed someone I loved, would I join the insurgency? You bet I would.
I had heard both Iraq and Iran blamed for Halabja, and I don’t know if this deals specifically with what happened there - but if so, it would clear that up.
I have no doubt that many Iraqi exiles said the same to the American government, because they certainly believed Iraqis would welcome them. It might be slightly more true of Canada because of the culture the two countries share- but on the whole I doubt it.
I never said he was no threat to anyone. I said he was no threat to the US. Ever since the pro-royalist Gulf War I of the first President Bush, Saddam pretty much minded his own business.
He also seemed to no longer be a threat to the Kurds because we were protecting them with a safe-haven and a no-fly zone…and that seemed to be working quite well.
Right. If we weren’t protecting those areas, who knows - maybe Al-Zarqawi wouldn’t have wound up in there.
Hey Don. Your biting invective would be even that much more powerful if you added the rolling eyes smilie after your elipses. Try it! :rolleyes:
Just curious. Would it matter how your loved one died? If, for instance, they got caught in crossfire? Or if he was in a building the enemy was known to occupy? Or one of a hundred other scenarios?
In my case no. None of those scenarios would have happened witout our invasion; even if no American is involved in, say, a shootout between two factions, the fact that the shootout is happening is the invader’s fault.
http://100777.com/node/648 None of Saddam’s sure things are without question.
Okay. Based on that though, can I assume that if a home with people you loved was blown up, that you would blame it on the “invaders” even if the other side blew it up? Because if the invaders weren’t there, no bombs. Is that right?
http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html There are questions . Just do not believe everything they tell. As a matter of fact practically none of it. I do not know what happened.