For most of the 20th century the USA has been supporting and propping up ruthless dictators, including Saddam Hussein. Suddenly the USA has had an epiphany and seen the light and realized it’s task in the world is to be world policeman and remove ruthless dictators. Except that there are many other ruthless dictators and the USA is not going after them. The argument doesn’t hold water. The fact that some Americans believe it just shows that propaganda does wonders.
Sung by Saddam Hussein:
*Gee, President Bushie, I’m very upset;
I never had the love that ev’ry child oughta get.
I’m not terroristic,
I’m misunderstood.
Deep down inside me there is good! *
“America pledged to rid Iraq of an oppressive regime, and we kept our word.”
Or have a look at Bush’s speech on Oct.7 of last year.
Gee, a two second Google search isn’t all that difficult.
And I’m sorry, Susma, but I can’t go thru your posts point by point to refute them. I can’t type and giggle very well at the same time.
Regards,
Shodan
Gee, perhaps you should have taken more than two second to read what I wrote; it wasn’t all that complicated. Note the date on link you’ve provided 04/29/2003
Obviously, a speech made after the fact is not a justification for going in, is it? So there you go, “you still won’t be able to”…no matter how smug you might have felt after posting your reply.
As for the “Oct 7th” speech, thanks for bringing it up…because guess what? It illustrates my point perfectly as it is all about the scaremongering tactics and thinly veiled inferences to the connections between Al Quada and Saddam that sold so many of you on this invasion. I am not surprised, are you?
Here ya go. See for yourself:
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
(bolding mine)
In fact, I’d urge everyone to read it again. It is a perfect example of the overblown propaganda campaign with little or no regard for truth that you’ve been swamped with from the start. Which is precisely what I am accusing this Administration of doing.
And you’re right, it only took me two seconds to find it. Thanx.
As for smiling bandit’s comment, I am satisfied with sailor’s reply to same. I’ll just add that if you believe that invading another country for its resources “justifies” this invasion, then you should have said as much when making the case to the UN. I doubt they would have given you a green light for that either, but at least it would have been honest. And that is exactly what’s been missing from the start: honesty.
Read the speech if you have any doubts. And thank Shodan as well.
One of Saddams son is such a prolifent serial rapist/murder that he makes ted bundy look good by comparison. Saddam supposedly tried to have him killed in 1996 (i’m not sure if Saddam was behind Uday’s assassination though).
I think one of his daughters is in jail for marrying a guy who defected.
heres some info from one of his supposed mistresses who defected
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg01361.html
Besides, the world tried reasoning with Saddam in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. 11 security council resolution telling Iraq to leave Kuwait and he wouldn’t do it.
In regards to assassinating Hussein, like you mentioned earlier, assassinating a leader while not in a time of war is a violation of international law.
No we are not ‘going’ after them, but chances are the US has applied some economic & diplomatic pressures on them to enforce reform.
I admit the US does evil as well as good, but to say that the US is incapable of doing anything benevolent (as you seem to be saying) is untrue. In the last decade the US has overthrown at least 5 dictatorial regimes. Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia.
Besides, ‘liberating’ people is one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the book when it comes to gaining support for a war. I think even Mussolini, Hitler and Hirohito used the idea of liberation for their invasions of Ethiopia, Chezkoslovakia & China.
But, unlike those instances, the iraqi people probably will end up with a better life in this war, so whats the problem?
I’m curious, what do you base your optimism for the future of the Iraqi people on? Last I checked, the US’s past nation-building efforts are spotty at best. And I am being generous because I really can’t come up with anything past WW-2. Never mind that post-war Germany and Japan had nothing in common with current Iraq.
Then again, if you don’t see “the problem” in ignoring laws and treaties your country signed and agreed to, in order to invade a sovereign country based on lies and distortions, I imagine you don’t see “problems” in much of anything.
PS-In fact, one of those “two second” Google searches Shodan seems so fond of, reveals all kinds of daunting problems in your latest ‘forgotten’ attempt, Afghanistan.
See for yourself Afghanistan today
No. Sadams brutalizations are documented facts, not exagerations.
Hitler also did good things for Germany. That is hardly the point.
You are going to have to provide a site for such a claim.
Yes…I’m asking you what alternatives you are recommending. Twelve years of sanctions did not work. Simply assassinating him is a lot more dificult than you might think and there is no garantee that someone worse won’t take his place or the country wouldn’t decend into permenant anarchy.
He certainly didn’t share such sentiments for his son in laws. (who he executed for leaving the country)
Yes. You are living in a fantasy world.
You didn’t answer either of my questions. You simply went into the usual tirade of “America is a hypocrite”, “Americans don’t care” etc.
For the purpose of my simple yes/no question, how the dictator came to power is not the issue. You stated that you believe that we should not prop up dictators in the first place and I agree. Do you also believe that our foreign policy should be to not deal with dictators at all? Do you think we should execute policy that encourages the removal of dictators through non-violent means? At what point is the use of force acceptible?
Oh but I most surely did. Namely that if you want to remain conistent with your current actions, you should already be planning your next invasion.
If not, this is clearly a self-serving and hypocritical act – as the others I mentioned, when you installed dictators.
Hope that helps 
You are mistaken. The Communist world was rotten to the core with oppression, corruption, and general ineffiency. While the onslaught of Western media no doubt helped, remember that the media was tightly controlled in those countries. Besides, it still took 70 years for Communism to fall–how much time were you willing to give Saddam?
Nothing in common? Hogwash. All three nations are technologically advanced (Japan in 1945 was somewhat further behind the ciurve than Iraq in 2003) and have a large pool of educated workers. The key element is how long the Americans were willing to stick around, ideally long enough to establish a stable local democracy. It took German and Japan a generation of occupation, it will take Iraq a similar amount. I just hope the Americans are willing to put in the time and effort, because that will ensure a better future for the Iraqi people, as well as a safer world for everybody else.
All this anti-American tirade makes you wonder, can the US, in the eyes of some of the posters here do any good at all? There were of course a reasonable number of other countries who joined in and helped with the removal of the baathist regime. Not least the UK and Australia, but also a substantial number of other countries as well.
By the logic of not removing Hussein, should I then not call the police or, if needed, take action myself against the wife-beater next door? After all, why should her screams bother me.
That may seem a little stretched, and I hope that no-one here would provide actual moral support to the Baathists, but I have yet to see a single viable alternative to the war. I have seen many many arguments about various issues, but still no alternative methods for the removal of this regime.
As to other dictators around the world, well yes, I believe there is just cause for the removal of them. Self-determination is a meaningless concept in the context of a dictatorship.
Well, Red, you ask for a speech where Bush mentions that our purpose in invading Iraq was regime change. Then I provide a cite, where Bush said so, and you don’t like it because it happened a day and a half ago.
So you and I both make reference to a speech delivered some months ago, well before the fact, in which Bush says things like:
and you don’t like that one either.
Bush has been saying that regime change in Iraq is the goal of the invasion from the get-go. Let’s not pretend otherwise. He said it before the invasion, he said it during the invasion, he is saying today.
Perhaps you object because Bush also said things like:
Actually, another part you may not care for is:
All of which, unsurprisingly, turns out to be quite true.
Cite.
You’re welcome.
Regards,
Shodan
Brian, for the sake of argument I won’t mention the obvious. That Japan and Germany were throughly industrialized nations with a deep-rooted sense of national pride and quite capable of working united under a central Goverment. Nope, I won’t mention any of that, but since I am still interested in my original query, I’ll ask again: what successful nation-building examples can you give me since, so I can be as optimistic as all you flag-waving Americans?
Of course, getting me to believe that you invaded Iraq for purely altruistic reasons is still going to take some doing. Or was it WMDs? Ties to Al Quada? Regime change? World safety? That’s it!.. isn’t it?
Hard to keep track of these things, guess it depends on what day you read the papers or listen to your Resident.
Shodan if, after reading the overall tenor of that speech, replete with lies and distortions, you still hold on to the myth that Bush went in for the sake of the Iraqi people, I have nothing else to say to you.
Other than…well done Dubya, you’ve got yourself another great unquestioning soldier!
All the best.
Iraq was the jewel of the Middle East within the memory of the baby boomers. It did have a stable central government for some time after WWII. They most defintely had a sense of pride. perhaps not in being Iraqis yet, but give them time. They are probably still the best educated in the region aside from Israel and the useless “glitter” degrees of Saudi Arabia.
The US doesn’t intend to build a nation. We cannot and never have. What we intend to do is give them the space and room they need to recover and heal. They have everything they need, and they’ll be getting thier own Marshall Plan to help. We won’t, at first, let them have absolute sovereignty so that some new factional power gains totl control, but with time they would appear to be the best prospect for establishing a new order in the Middle East.
I don’t believe any conservatives stated there was but one goal in our invasion. In fact, just the opposite; I believe that there were dozens of goals, and some of them will not see fruit for years. In fact, everything you have mentioend, included altruism, was a factor.
Perhaps I merely being one of those foolish free-thinker who doesn’t follow you around, but I don’t believe any of those goals conflict. The truth is that everything noble and good in humanity benefits by our destruction of the Baathist regime.
Aside from the base insult that assumes that we are not wise enough to choose intelligently and differently from yourself, I submit that you have yet to prove your case on any point.
You sir, have no honor.
I don’t think that the Iraq war was about regime change or the oil for Bush and his merry band. It was about having to DO something to placate the American people post 9/11. Hardly alturism at its finest, it was done for Political reason. As opposed to France, Germany and Russia’s reasons for opposing the war…that was about the money. So, who has the high moral ground here?? lol
America is not perfect, as anyone living here will tell you, but you can get off YOUR soap box RedFury. Want to get into a large list of dictators that Europe supported (hell, and home grew)? Its called practical politics…and EVERY country does it. Make a new post and we can debate relative history of America vs Europe (or any other power). Europeans seem great on casting bricks at our glass house, while avoiding looking at their own…
Getting back to the OP, such as it is, I’d say that sometimes war is a good thing, sometimes its a bad thing. As with all life, it just depends. The Iraq war is/was a good war done for all the wrong reasons. It was (IMHO) a POLITICAL war, waged for political reasons, and I feel quite confident that Bush and company will be a one time administration. Gods only know what we will get next.
-XT
If a stupid insane person attacks you, do you let them kill you?
One of the great ironies of the 20th century was Einstein, who had been a pacifist, sighing a letter to encourage FDR to develop the atomic bomb. Individuals like Adolf Hitler can change your thinking.
Dal Timgar
Well, smiling bandit was already kind enough to point out how stupid your counterargument is, so I’ll just throw in the fact that while Germany had been a thoroughly industrialized nation before and during the war, in the spring of 1945 they had gotten the crap bombed out of them, along with millions of their young men having been killed on the eastern front. With modern precision munitions and relatively light casualties, Iraq’s industrial capability is far more intact than Germany’s was in 1945, though the Saddam regime and the sanctions hurt it quite a bit. Rebuilding Iraq into a stable democracy will be hugely expensive, requiring some variant on the Marshall Plan, as bandit pointed out. Fortunately, the huge oil wealth of the nation could be directed to this end.
As for working under a central government, that’s exactly what the Iraqis have had for decades. Hopefully, the Americans will be able to help establish a central government that is:
[ul][li]Elected[/li][li]Civilized (i.e. torture and rape kept to a minimum)[/li][li]Responsible, and[/li][li]Won’t roll over to the first strongman coup that comes along.[/li][/ul]
I’m Canadian, but that’s okay. I understand we all look alike to you.
You don’t want to count Germany or Japan as successful examples of nation-building? Well, then I’ll just as arbitrarily dismiss any negative examples you can mention and the argument becomes a tie.
Purely altruistic? I doubt even many Americans believe that. The Americans acted in large part to increase their own security. If you want to call that “evil”, so be it, but regime change all by itself was worthwhile goal, even if it wasn’t the only goal in mind.
Hey, he ain’t my “Resident.” Were I American, I would have voted for the other guy to be “Resident” but in any case I happen to agree with the actions taken by this “Resident” and only wish the invasion had happened two “Residents” ago.