Because, 5-HT, you missed a couple lines. More like this:
Prez: Nuclear waste is bad
people: agreed
Prez: We need to get rid of it
people: cool. Let’s think of a good way to do that.
Prez: NO. WE MUST ACT NOW. FIE ON THOSE WHO WOULD OPPOSE US IN SETTING OUR NUCLEAR WASTE ABLAZE. WE HAVE NO TIME TO WASTE.
people: uh…
The analogy of nuclear waste is yet another thorn in my side, considering I live in Nevada and all that crap is coming here despite the fact that nobody, not even the Republicans in Nevada, wants it here…but George W. said yes, and dammit, whatever W. wants, W. gets.
But speaking as yet another anti-war poster…
I don’t recall any anti-war protester saying Sadam was a nice guy. Of course he is a brutal asshole. Even other Arab nations agree. There are even worse things that have happened in Irag during his regime.
That is totally missing the point as to why this war is wrong.
But that is not your OP, so I will leave that to the Great Debates.
Now drifting into the hijack zone, but it still amazes me how people claim we acting too quickly in Iraq. As posts in this very thread point out, the United States spent twleve years trying to convince Saddam to straighten up by lesser means. When is the line drawn? How many decades is a brutal dictator allowed to act before someone says “enough”?
Of course there’s two sides to every debate. After all, if we had only been reasonable and given Hitler a few more years, the world wouldn’t be having any problems involving Israel now.
So, at what point can we all call Godwin’s law on this whole stupid debate? :rolleyes:
Correct me if I am wrong, but Hitler was marching through other countries.
When Saddam tried to march into Kuwait, the free world was, for the most part, in agreement with Desert Storm.
Do you just not see a difference between Desert Storm and this debacle?
Wait until the US tries to explain to China that they shouldn’t go into Taiwan…or North Korea decides South Korea should be liberated, or India decides to liberate Pakistan, or…
My point is that Saddam was an evil man. I have very little respect for Bush, but I don’t care what his motives were for overthrowing Saddam. I don’t care if he did it to impress chicks. It’s made the world a better place.
I didn’t compare anyone participating in this thread to Hitler. I compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler. A fair analogy in my opinion.
So what? Is it okay if Saddam only kills people in his own country and doesn’t threaten anyone else? Saddam deserved to be overthrown for the crimes he was committing against Iraqis, regardless of whatever other threats he held.
To use your own question, do you not see a difference between these acts and the invasion of Iraq? The fact is that China, North Korea, and India have had hostile intentions against their neighbors that long predate any American involvement in Iraq. If any of these countries decide to invade, it’ll be because they want to and because they think they can get away with it, not because the US invaded Iraq. In fact, maybe, when they’re weighing the possible consequences of invading a neighboring country, the fate of Iraq after it invaded Kuwait might enter their mind and deter them.
Thank you for so aptly describing George W. Bush’s view of world politics.
Well, I do want to know what Bush’s real reasons were, because they’ll have a lot to do with whether this makes the world a better place or not.
If Iraq is the first step in toppling Middle East governments left and right, as some well-connected neocons have publicly proposed, then the world may get a lot worse before it gets better. If our humanitarian mission in Iraq has the same deep underpinnings as our humanitarian mission in Afghanistan (we said we wouldn’t forget them this time - what a joke!), then who knows what Iraq will look like in two years? Right now, Afghanistan is basically ruled by the same warlords whose violent abuses opened the way for the Taliban. Only now they’re our buddies.
So I think Bush’s motivations, and his attention span (if I may be so blunt), have a lot to do with how this turns out. A year from now, Iraq will not be the first thing on his mind, in all likelihood. He’ll have moved on to something else, because nation-building is boring, and doesn’t exactly put one at the center of big, dramatic events. What happens then? We don’t know.
Admittedly, this does explain last year’s invasion of Canada. I’ll concede I supported that war at the time but, like most thoughtful observers, I think the massacre of the ethnic Albertans was uncalled for.
I have. He was a human shield and on CNN he stated quite clearly that he did not think that Iraq was better off without Saddam. Cite.
Yes, and that is why his existance has been so convenient for the neoconservatives now in power in Washington. These people want to reshape the entire political landscape of the Middle East and the nature of the government of Iraq provided a very convenient issue to exploit.
Only the most gullible people could believe that the US government, which has allied itself with some of the most infamous butchers of all time, would expend the financial and political capital it has simply to remove a evil dicatator and bring freedom to the oppressed people of Iraq.
Now you hear rumblings in the Chaney administration of action against Syria. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.
I agree with Tuckerfan - there are a few pro-Hussein protesters out there. However, among the “mainstream” protest movement, or as I Know Lots calls them, “your average ‘anti-war’ types”, they are rare or nonexistent. At protests, I have seen such statements as, “Saddam Hussein is a horrible, ruthless dictator with no respect for his people, and George Bush is well on his way to becoming the same.” So, despite pro-Hussein protesters and mainstream anti-war protesters both having “protester” in their appellation, I am very reluctant to place them both in the same group.
snortIf this war had had the side effect of granting all humans eternal life, eliminating the national debt, creating a rational government in Washington AND giving us all a blow job, the anti-war idiots would STILL be opposing it. You know why? Some people just don’t have the strength of character to be able to say “hey-I was wrong”.
That being said, remember 2 things:
A:} The war isn’t over yet
B:} The hard part is yet to come. Unlike those who seem to have their personal identies wrapped up in this debate, and thus can’t stand to admit that some good has come of this war so far, I am willing to wait and see what happens without declaring the whole thing an abject failure before it even starts.
Not a bad idea, considering that it’s been dysfunctional and murderous for decades.
And yes, the U.S. had alliances with dictators of ill-repute back in the Cold War when there were only poor choices to be made. We [ii]are* trying to move ahead.
I’m no fan of they way the US government has behaved in the past. In fact, since the late 1940s they have always had a scitzophrenic tendancy to be the world’s greatest benefactor, greatest supporter of democracy and counterweight to the USSR on the one hand, and, similtaneously on the other hand, to have a nasty double-dealing approach as geopolitics and the insatiable demands of big business dictate. Given the fragmented nature of the US government, and the different forces operating on a liberal democracy existing in a Hobbesian world, this should not
suprise us.
However, I’m a big, big believer in end results. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason? Sounds great to me, as long as the right thing gets done. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason? Forget it. If the war had not happened because the goody two-shoes forces of pacifism and international law succeeded over hypocritical American expediency, we’d still have Saddam dipping people in acid and trying to reach the magic two million mark on the genocide-o-meter. And that’s that.
I’m moving this to Great Debates.
Blimey, we’ve been promoted!
In other words, the ends justify the means?
Try that one in a court of law.
Well, if I were arrested for beating a man up in the street, and it turned out that I was, in fact, stopping that man from dragging a child into his car, I should expect that my violent and illegal action would not be prosecuted (and if it was, there would be public outcry).
The “moral” alternative in that scenario would be to attempt to argue with the man on a moral and legal basis about the wrongness of his action… while his car zooms off into the distance, leaving me standing on the pavement like a fool.
But if it had been possible to stop him without being violent - say, if you could restrain him because you were twice as big as him - do you still expect to get off?