Right, you’d think that Saddam would try to help his citizens out, but yeah, spending billions on his palaces is a much better idea.
Ummm, no. First of all, Saddam had ‘subjects’, not ‘citizens’.
We kinda knew how he felt about his subjects before Desert Storm. That he wouldn’t go out of his way to help ‘his’ people surely didn’t surprise us.
You’re right, I mistakenly called his peeps “citizens” when it is really “subjects”. However, the part about 100,000 people dying, wait, “An estimated 100,000 civilians died from lack of food/medical care/as a consequence of destroyed infrastructure in the years following Desert Storm”, do you think America is at fault for that? I certainly can’t when I see how much money was poured into Saddam’s palaces and not into helping his people survive.
There’s a lot of fuzzy thinking going on here.
The basic question is this: “Was this war a moral good?” Is the Earth a better place for this war having been fought? Are the citizens of Iraq better off today than they were a month ago?
The answer is unquestionably yes. Anyone who says no either doesn’t have a good understanding of just how evil Saddam’s regime was, or they’re letting ideology blind them to the evil that has been vanquished.
Whether George Bush lied about it is irrelevant.
Whether the U.S. is consistent in applying these principles is irrelevant.
Whether the U.S. did it for moral reasons or to grab oil is irrelevant.
None of these things change the fundamental nature of what happened, or the results of what happened in the lives of Iraqis.
For the record, MY personal viewpoint has always been based on the desire to rid the world of tyranny. And I think we SHOULD do more to get rid of other dictators, where possible and practical. That doesn’t mean invading China, because the horrible effects of that war would outweigh the good. And it doesn’t mean invading some of the lesser oppressive regimes, because their crimes are not as bad as Saddam’s.
But my personal belief is that dictatorships do not have the right to sovereignity, because they do not have the consent of the governed. Therefore, wherever feasible and practical, they should be ended. It doesn’t have to be military invasion - some can be coaxed though incentives, encouragement of economic liberation, etc.
Saddam’s regime was fairly unique, in that A) It (and North Korea) was the most brutal dictatorship on the planet, B) There was no hope of economic or political liberalization, and C) It was a pariah nation, in violation of many U.N. resolutions, and technically still at war with the U.S., which meant there was legal justification for forced regime change in the international community.
I’m glad George Bush ceased that unique opportunity and did something that made the world a much better place to live in. Especially for 24 million Iraqis, most of whom are very young and now can look forward to a new life in relatively prosperity and freedom.
I sincerely hope that the example of Iraq causes other dictators to get scared and think about reforming. If they don’t, they should be put on notice. If they don’t shape up, they should have the economic screws put to them. If that doesn’t work, use the military to toss them on the trash heap of history along with Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, and Hitler.
You know, this used to be the position of the left. It was the right that would coddle up to dictators because of the cold war. The left used to stand against this stuff (except of course for Communist Dictators). But now you’re AWOL when it comes to the world’s despots. Robert Mugabe? Saddam? Kim Jong Il? Bashar Assad? Castro? Arafat? You guys are SILENT. How can someone who claims to be progressive tolerate these people, let alone carry their banners or act as human shields to protect them? I find it baffling.
Nonetheless, the partisan rantings on both sides are a sideshow. A great thing has happened in the world, and I’m tickled about it.
**Not arguing this point. However, the jury is still out as to whether the Iraqi’s will be better off a few years down the road. If it ends up being another Balkens or Kampuchea, then you just might have to revise that assessment.
As to your relevancy points, well I’ll let someone else address those.
Why don’t we wait and see what happens before pronouncing everything a failure or a success? We don’t know yet one way or another, yet half of the folks are claiming that British Patrolium has already begun construction of new oil wells without Iraqi participation and the other half are warming up the printing presses to run of a zillion copies of Iraq’s new democratic constitution.
Lots of things could go either way, folks. As of right now, we do know that a brutal dictator is no longer torturing and killing his subjects.
That is a good thing.
Nonsense. at the moment they are obviously worse off. At least under Saddam the majority of people had food, water, power, basic security from looters and vandals.
Anarchy combined with urban population density is a killer, it’s far more deadly and degrading than Saddam ever managed to be. Freedom of speach is nice, but clean potable water is necessary.
Now, we certainly expect that the suffering that they currently deal with will be alleviated. And we expect that it will be fixed before it has a chance to do much lasting damage. But until it is fixed, it’s a lie to say that they are better off than they were.
I have an idea - let’s go ask the Iraqis if they’d like Saddam back.
What do you think their answer would be?
Or they don’t have your gift of being able to see into the future and be sure the Iraqis didn’t just end up going from the frying pan into the fire.**
To you.**
To you.**
To you.**
Note that the benefits haven’t really happened yet. Fear of being brutalized by Saddam is gone, but they’re not an independent, self-governing and sustaining state with secure borders and a good civil rights/humanitarian record. As far as I can see the life of the average Iraqi isn’t all that much better today than it was a year ago. Is there more food on the table? Better wages? Better working conditions? ALL that has so far been accomplished is the removal of Saddam as a threat to his own people. In exchange we’ve PROMISED to provide more food, better wages, etc, etc. You can’t eat promises. I will hold off calling this “a great good” and feel perfectly justified in doing so. If you wish to consider me “uninformed” or “blinded by ideology” you are free to do so. I’d also invite you to prove it in a substantial way or be sure to include the “IM(H)O” disclaimer on such a judgement.**
With you 100% through this entire passage.**
Change this to “they can hope for a new life in relative prosperity and freedom” and I’ll agree with this as well. I’m not a fan of assuming conclusions.**
I’m not comfortable setting the US up as judge, jury, and executioner of the governments of other sovreign nations. I may not like those governments, I may work to minimize their evil through sanctions or peacekeeping efforts to stop things like ethnic cleansing, but I think outright regime change is something that should be done extremely rarely, if ever.**
And I find it full of straw.**
I, regardless of any impression you may have formed thus far in the post, am also glad Saddam is no longer in a position to threaten the Iraqi people. I hope we can rise to the occasion and work to make Iraq a model citizen of the international community. Free, self-determinite, and mindful of its citizenry and the environment. I think the best way to help Iraq on the way to this goal is to carefully examine everything we do together and be as sure as we can that it is the right thing in each situation. Keep the big picture in mind and don’t be distracted by politics or greed. If egos start getting in the way they need to be reigned in. Caution and consideration for the Iraqi people HAS to be in the forefront of our minds at every step of the way. If I feel the administration is making a mistake or has not considered a certain point of view or I believe they haven’t given it adequate weight in the decision-making process I will certainly feel free to say so. I’m not trumpeting the end of anything. I’m preparing for the long road ahead.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview: Weirddave, and particular reason you replied to me instead of Sam? I don’t see my post as defeatist or negative. In fact I harbor great hopes for the future of Iraq. My point was that the realities of how we got where we are should not be glossed over with triumphant fanfare and people proclaiming “a great good” should stop and remember that the situation is more complex than “Saddam was there, now he’s gone.” This seems disrespectful of the people who fought and perished in the effort to remove him and the civilians caught in the crossfire. My message has been to remember the costs of this “great good.” Use the memory of the fallen to increase our determination to see this through and make the world a better place for any who survived them. Don’t repeat past mistakes.
However, we seem to agree it would be best to hold off a bit and see how it turns out in a few years. History will judge based not only on this moment(as Sam seems to be) but on this one AND many more moments which are yet to come. The ball can still be dropped. We must be vigilant.
Would we really care?
What’s the matter, Sam? Frustrated because you lost the argument?
Lost the argument!!??? I made a flippant response because I thought it was all that lame-ass argument merited. Let’s repeat it:
A country has been liberated from a brutal tyrant. A man who rounded up young men and had them shot en masse just for having the bad luck to be in the wrong place without ID. A regime so horrible that right now dazed survivors in the most brutalized areas are walking around looking down wells and gutter grates, trying to find the loved ones that ‘vanished’ one night after speaking out against the regime.
And you think a little looting, mostly of ex-government facilities, and temporary discomfort come even close to being as bad.
An astonishing lack of judgement like that doesn’t require rebuttal. It can lie there on the SDMB like a dead mackeral, stinking up the thread.
Then we have this gem:
And a giant volcano exploding in the middle Baghdad would be even worse, if it happened.
As of now, I don’t see anyone dying of thirst in the streets. People are not starving, they are pissed because the lights are out and they’re having to stand in line for food. Again, suggesting that the people of Iraq are currently going through anything nearly as bad as Saddam’s regime is ridiculous.
[quote]
Now, we certainly expect that the suffering that they currently deal with will be alleviated. And we expect that it will be fixed before it has a chance to do much lasting damage. But until it is fixed, it’s a lie to say that they are better off than they were.
[quote]
That’s like saying jumping out of a car with a deranged killer in it is worse than staying in the car, because after all, in the car you had a comfortable seat to sit on.
In no way, shape or form are the people of Iraq worse off today than they were under Saddam, other than those few people directly injured in the fighting, or Ba’athists who have lost their positions of power and privilege.
First of all, you neglected to mention that your comment was specifically responding to only that point. A lot of people have given good reasons why this war was the wrong course for our country, but you have stubbornly refused to consider any argument other than the one thing that YOU proclaim to be relevant: “Are the Iraqis better off?”. Forget that that wasn’t even the initial reason for going to war; forget that there could very well be serious repercussions in years to come; forget that they didn’t ASK for our help; forget that the U.S. took a huge hit on its credibility in the international community; forget all the people who died directly from U.S. bullets, and forget the consequences of defying the UN. No, with a wave of your hand, you declare all that to be irrelevant. As long as the bad man is dead, everything else is forgiven, huh? And if we don’t agree, it can only be that we just don’t know how evil he was. Your single-mindedness is exceeded only by Bush himself.
So you have tried to narrow the debate to this one single issue, and then when someone takes you on on this one issue, you get all flustered and sarcastic. We all hope that the Iraqi people do end up better off, but until the chaos is under control and a new government is formed that hopefully doesn’t become a brutal dictatorship like the old one, you can’t really say if they are better off.
But to me, that’s not really the point anyway; there’s a lot more to consider, which has already been dealt with at length.
I think this has been pretty well established already.
A) I never said that, and B) It wasn’t a “little looting”; the country was basically pillaged. Those who have seen the aftermath were nothing less than shocked.
A few people injured!!! I guess we have differing definitions of “a few”. And is there some reason you forgot to mention the dead?
Not that any of that is a stand-alone argument that we shouldn’t have gone to war. When I said you lost the argument, I was referring to the argument in its totality, not the narrow sub-point that you think is the only relevant one.
Well, to be honest, I’ve heard reports that Saddam has been looting the country’s treasury since he came into power. The looting going on now can in no way match what the ruler stole for his own uses.
Spooje, like I said, I think we’ve pretty well established that Saddam is/was evil, so I’m not sure what your point is, except to beat a dead horse. The fact remains that to call it “a little looting”, is a gross mischaracterization.
Let’s see… Do you think military action in Afghanistan before 9/11 would have stopped the terrorists flying planes into buildings? I don’t, because independent terrorist cells act on their own once they have made up their minds. It could even be argued that half-assed agressive action by the US led to the 9/11 attacks, and many people (including the former head of the CIA, who stepped down earlier this year after Bush indicated he intended to go to war) feel that the war in Iraq will increase terrorist attacks against US citizens.
Do I think Iraq posed any threat at all to the United States prior to the invasion? No, I don’t. And most of the world agrees with me.
Sam Stone, I hope you’re first in line the day they open the organ bank, because that would be a moral good. Your debating opponents on this board won’t have to listen to you any more, which will improve their daily outlook.
In addition, your skin will be able to help dozens of burn victims. Your heart, lungs, kidneys etc will give many people a renewed chance at life. Your blood can be used in surgery too!
Yeah, you’re not going to get to enjoy it, but on the whole, the quality of living for the world will be better off. At least according to the utilitarian philosophy you subscribe to.
By my count, you have 6 “points” you’ve brought up here. 5 of them are speculation or inaccurate for the purposes of your agenda.
People did die from U.S. bullets, though, gotta give you that.
Well, I’d say the assertion that “the US took a huge hit on its credibility in the international community” isn’t completely baseless either, Dave, agendas notwithstanding.
Perhaps not, but such things, in the “international community”, that is within the realm of politics and diplomacy, are remarkable inconsiquential and fleeting. “Huge hit” today is buddy/buddy next week, that’s whay it’s an agenda driven statement. They tend to be longer lasting within the populations of other nations, but even then, if it’s not someone with a ( usually political ) axe to grind (Activests in the EU, for example) or someone who was directly involved(countries in the mid east) is going to remember in a year or so.
Finally, I would note thet everybody’s other favorite bugaboo, North Korea, has finally accepted the idea of multi-national taks about it’s nukes, rather than insisting on one on one talks with the U.S. This has come about since the war in Iraq. Seems to me that U.S. credibility has recently been enhanced, at least for the North Koreans. Hmmm, I wonder why that could be?
My sentences make a lot more sense when I finish them. :smack: