I don’t know if anyone would agree with me at all- but this is how I am feeling now.
Saddam Hussein, and his gang of Ba’athist thugs deserve to be obliterated, and in particular the Kurds and Shi’ites should be delivered from their oppression, and our troops need 100% of our support. The fall of Hussein will be a joyous occassion - and whatever hastens his fall is to be applauded.
Bush and company are motivated by greed for Iraqi oil, and the need to assert American force in the Arab world. The benefits of destroying Saddam’s tyranny and bringing greater freedom to the Shi’ites and Kurds are rather incidental in the view of the current American administration to the main internal objectives they have in Iraq.
Am I a hypocrite? I suspect this is probably what Tony Blair’s (remaining) Labour supporters and a lot of the other “Coalition of the Willing” people (especially the ones that are ‘in the closet’ like King Abdullah) hold as well. And it seems many people out there find that position to be very unprincipled. But in reality, positive outcomes can result from less than positive motives right?
You mean Bush doing a good thing for a bad reason?
I don’t think anything positive will come of this war, when you consider that it was Bush snr who set up Saddam and furnished him with weapons in the war against Iran.
Its a bit like saying ok, I put a guy in hospital, but now I’m going to pay for his treatment because I just found out he knows my boss!
(Does that make sense? My analogies tend to suck…)
#1 has some elements of truth (though I don’t think you can count on Iraqi “joy” due to the horror and destruction of war itself, dislike of foreign occupation, and distrust of the regimes to come–especially from Kurds). #2 isn’t nearly sufficient to expain Bush’s motives, which are largely personal and ideological, and, still less, their lacks. In particular, there is no attempt here to address what many perceive to the main problem with Bush’s war: that it doesn’t serve American interests, and still less the interests of regional stability, and international cooperation.
So I don’t think you’re a hypocrite but I do think that you’re oversimplifying a very complex historical event. My advice: leave the good vs. bad rhetoric to Bush and his cronies. That kind of black and white thinking seems to have emotional appeal to Bush’s base, but it is entirely inadequate as a way of analyzing the world.
Cite? One showing US arms exports to Iraq during the relevant period, preferably compared to French and Soviet exports. Then, we can decide who really set Saddam up.
One thing you might want to do is research Jimmy Carter, who’s history as POTUS, I’m sure, would surprise you given his history as an ex-POTUS.
O think the OP pretty well reflects a common position. Fwiw and as a general proposition, I rather think Tony Blair - and maybe Colin Powell - share it. And, broadly speaking, I do, as well.
close your eyes as to the means and just open 'em again when the psychotic fruitcake falls.
I’m with London_Calling on this. There are going to be good points like the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam, coming out of this war.
Yet, that Bush started the war, even without UN support, destroyed his credibility in my opinion. I just want to see Bush leave the office and then the international relations he damaged can be mended.
Yer 2-fer-2 today. How did Bush Senior “set up Saddam,” when Bush was President from 1989-1993, and Saddam came to power in a coup in 1969 and assumed the Presidency of Iraq in 1979?
Anyway, as for the OP, I’m in agreement. I’ve been riding along with Bush because I’ve been strongly in favor of the intended result for years. While I don’t agree with your characterization of Bush’s motives, those motives are irrelevant to me.
When this is over, I’ll thank him and vote for his opponent in 2004.
Well, Sam, in syncrolecyne’s (and my) defense, Bush hasn’t stated/emphasized my reasons for supporting this war (and, I assume, syncrolecyne’s). His stated reasons have been, basically, “if we don’t get him, he’s gonna give nukes to terrorists to kill all of us 'Mericans!” His talk of spreading democracy and humans rights have come late in the game, and appear to be in response to criticism.
Further, given that the primary area in which the Bushies have singularly failed to provide evidence is the purported connection to terrorists, it is forgiveable (IMO) for people to suspect Bush has hidden motives.
The most popular “hidden motive” theory is thirst for oil. Personally, I think this is ludicrous, as it makes neither economic or political sense, but most of the fault for people suspecting Bush’s motives lies with Bush himself.
Nothing official here but I do know personally that there are Kurds who have been grated asylum in Denmark that are currently rejoicing over the war and the future they believe eliminating Hussein will provide. They are in fact some of the very few in Denmark , along with the politicians, supporting the war.
You’re a resident in a small town. The town has a resident – Saddam – who’s reknown for being rude, abrasive, foul-mouthed, and generally unpleasant to be around. People avoid him whenever possible.
One night, George, another resident of the town, gets drunk at the local bar. Leaving the bar in a bad mood, he spots Saddam walking on the streets at night. While driving under the influence, Bush speeds up his car and runs over Saddam, killing him.
Do you applaud George for taking out Saddam? Or arrest George for DUI and manslaughter? Or both?
(The analogy isn’t perfect; if it were, there would be a bit about how George ran over Saddam, then took several thousand dollars out of Saddam’s wallet and put it in his own. But it’s a start.)
The resident, Saddam, beats and kills members of his family regularly and has attempted to burn down the houses of three of his neighbors, causing severe damage to two of them and minor damage to a third. The police keeps issuing him citations and threatening to do worse if he doesn’t behave. In response, he stops burning down his neighbor’s houses, but keeps on beating and killing his family members.
The police say, “well, it’s his family. So long as he doesn’t burn down his neighbor’s houses, what he does with his family is fine.”
BTW, why is Bush drunk in your analogy? What is the basis for that or the relevance of that, or were you just being pissy?
Sua, I respect your modification to the analogy, but you didn’t complete the story.
[analogy]
The police arrest the family killer, it goes to trial, and while the prosecutor was still collecting evidence…
The biggest, meanest dude in the community, whom this family killer never threatened, takes matters into his own hands (behind a small mob), and rids the community of this family killer. Afterwords, many in the community talk about how the community is safer without the family killer around.
Others are concerned about the biggest meanest dude, even those in the small mob.
[/analogy]
But where’s the vicious dog he keeps in the yard in either of your analogies? You have to have one of those, ya know, right, Scylla?.
Meanwhile, there’s another guy in the neighborhood who guided a few of his friends into ramming a car into your house and killing some of your family, while burning down part of it. But he’s hard to find, and after a while you get tired of looking and tired of hearing the rest of your family complain about it, so you decide to go after one of the many other of your neighbors who beats his kids with the garden tools you yourself have given them over the years, “coincidentally” the particular one with the crippled arm he got from going after another neighbor who asked for and got your help. Meanwhile you tell the family that it’s all really his fault that the car got rammed into your house and killed their siblings.
What do you mean? I haven’t changed my position one iota on this issue in at least the past 15 years - the use of military force that ends and punishes genocide and oppression is the moral duty of the possessors of that military force.
AZCowboy I didn’t complete the analogy because I was trying to correct rjung’s analogy - and the concept rjung was presenting, that Bush was a drunk who runs over Saddam, was beyond the capacity of my imagination to salvage.
As for your analogy, what’s the real-life analogue of Saddam’s arrest?
Essentially, the period after Iraq “burned down” Kuwait, and the UN coalition acquired the cease-fire. He was then “bonded”, and operating under restrictions awaiting the disposition of the trial.
It is as if the prosecutor said, “OK, if you shape up, get rid of all your gas cans [materials related to starting fires among your neighbors, not an oil reference], we’ll let you be. But if you screw up again, we’ll be on your ass. We’re watching you.”
I merely wanted a situation where George did a welcome act (running over Saddam) while engaged in an illegal activity (the DUI). Bush’s past history of alcoholism was merely a coincidence.