It seems that a significant number of people are against the US removing Sadam Hussein from Iraq. I am curious as to why that is the case. He’s not doing anything great for the Iraqi people. He’s a threat to his neighbors. He is trying to build nuclear weapons and he has already shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against his own people.
So why shouldn’t he be removed in place of a government that is more representational of the Iraqi people?
well, I happen to personally believe that my next door neighbor is a boor, treats his wife and children shamefully, and mows his lawn wrong. Doesn’t make it my business to change that situation.
No, I’m not comparing SH to the above - just attempting to suggest that one reason people may have for feeling the way you describe is that while they may see him as a bad guy, they may not agree that it’s the US’s position to remove other countries leaders. Or they may feel that to attempt to do so would cost us far more than it would benefit us. these are legitimate reasons (you may disagree w/the assesment of course).
I am rather surprised by your characterization of the number of people in the US to have objections to it. do you have some poll or something that you saw?
Why shouldn’t George W. Bush be removed in place of a government that is more representational of the American people?
Obvious comments aside, there’s not guaratee that removing Saddam would get anyone any better, and it would only piss off the Iraqis (even many of those who don’t like Saddam – no one likes other nations meddling in their politics). We’ve tried this sort of thing in the past and it’s usually been a disaster for the U.S. (e.g., Mossadegh in Iran).
If that was the case, I would be out there demanding we invade France. Just kidding:). Serriously though, Sadaam could be the equivalent of the neighborhood crack-dealer. Not only is he a jerk, but he is screwing up the entire neigborhood. In that situation there are legal recourses to have that neighbor removed, however in the world of international politics there is no such “world cop”.
I’ve seen a couple polls on CNN and such. I don’t remember the exact numbers but there were a significant number of people who were opposed to the idea of removing Sadaam. I was curious to know what the reasoning was.
RealityChuck - You may not like him, but Bush is representitive of about half of the American public. If that changes, we have the mechanisms in place to painlessly remove him in 4 years. The Iraqi people have no such recourse.
Just to clarify a point, I think toppling another countries government is not something to be taken into lightly. But it is not unprecidented. It has also been used with some success in the past (ie The Taliban, Manuel Noreiga, Adolf Hitler, Mousillini).
well, msmith, while I agree that we were instrumental in toppling Hitler, and Mousillini, in those cases we were at war with the nations involved, and didn’t both take their own lives? The world court held the Nuremberg trials, not US courts.
Noriegga. I thought (and still do) that we’re on very shaky ground w/that, and really believe that if anyone from, say, Iraq, attempted to take our president back to stand trial for bombing their country, or whatever, we’d certainly object.
And I suggest that not everyone is convinced that toppling the Taliban was the aim of or responsability of the current action.
To complete the neighbor/crack dealer analogy, let me point out that the proper response to the crack dealer is to call the cops and let the authorities deal with him, not firebomb his house.
Another objection is that killing Saddam Hussein can destabilize Turkey , the largest democracy in that region. Turkey thinks that the Kurds to the southern provinces may want to join those in northern Iraq and form Kurdustan, a country hostile to Turkey.
Toppling Saddam will be expensive if comes down to invading Iraq. At a 100 billion or so, that’s $350 from every man, woman and child in the U.S. I’ve yet to hear convincing arguments that using taxpayer funds to fight Saddam would yield a better longer term profit than, for example, shredding the cash and selling it for mulch. If there’s actually a good case for toppling Saddam the evidence needs to be laid out honestly and in public. It hasn’t been.
There you go, I was under the impression W represented you all.
However if getting 50% of the votes of the 50% of those who bothered to vote was all that constituted a legitimate head of state, I reckon Saddam wouldn’t have to try very hard to get that level of endorsement. I’d bet Saddam could probably expect to win an absolute magority in a direct election, though the ballot might be as legitimate as Mugabe’s win in Zimbabwe.
Noriega was our own fault, being he was trained in an American military school and we supported him previously, I believe.
In the past, the US has had a history of overthrowing people they didn’t like-it usually lead to disaster.
My point is that, though I don’t like Bush, I would be even more angry if someone came in and deposed him. I would not consider any government imposed on us as legitimate. I would assume you would think so, too.
And that’s pretty much the way the Iraqis would feel if we tried to do the same thing over there. So ultimately, we’d end up with a bunch of pissed off Iraqis and someone as bad or worse.
More than you probably wanted to know. This was from March 28, 2002.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020328.asp
And there are graphs, and tables, and more paragraphs, and more graphs…
I read a real insightful article the other day about a possible reason why we have such trouble getting international support in removing Saddam Hussein from power. The upshot was that Arabs will always support SH as long as he is the closest person to developing weapons of mass destruction, the theory being that as soon as he has a valid WMD developed, he’ll drop it on Tel Aviv within hours. Probably none of them are going to come right out and SAY that they support Iraq’s WMD program in hopes that he will use it to destroy on of the US’s closest allies, but it’s a safe bet that a lot of them are THINKING it.
The Arab world has been trying to eradicate Israel for about 50 years now, and it seems clear that Hussein is their best chance of doing so. The longer we leave him in power, the more likely that the Middle East will become the site of the first full-scale nuclear war, and anyone who thought we left that particular nightmare behind with the fall of the Soviet Union will get a nasty jolt. If more people in the US realized this, the number against installing a new government in Iraq might reconsider… or they might not. One sure thing about American public opinion is that there will always be a significant number of people that will support any damfoolish idea floating around out there…
deltopia-cite?
A Great Debate if I ever saw one. I’ll move this one, shall I?
Sadly, no cite… I read it while at work, and so it’s not in browser cache at home. It was probably written by some non-credible source, like Al-Jazeerah TV or Uday Hussein, or Jenna Bush. shrug
Late last year I watched a HARDtalk (refer BBC) interview with Robert Baer, an ex-CIA operative. He has written a book called See No Evil which is reviewed at Salon.com. A lot of the discussion was centred around Iraq and the consequences of removing Sadam Hussein from power. I remember the interviewer’s last words as he shook Mr Baer’s hand at the end of the programme. “How depressing”, he said.
This newspaper article is very similar in content to the Hardtalk program:
sure explains the Bush approval ratings. 
(and for those in the other party, CLintons as well)
I voted for Dubya in 2000. I don’t plan on making that mistake again, but I’d sure be pissed off if another nation, say China, took it upon itself to topple the Bush administration and install Gore as president. Similarly, toppling Hussein will make 99% of Iraqis, even those that hated Hussein, hate us even more then they already do. It’s an ill-considered option, being touted by an ill-considered president.
Does this not seem perhaps a bit extreme to you, deltopia? Even assuming that Saddam Hussein is genocidal and suicidal enough to go dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv, do you honestly believe that all the other Arab leaders are that similarly insane. That they are hoping Iraq develops nuclear weapons in order to influence the balance of power in that region seems at least a defensible argument. That they are hoping he will actually use them immediately upon getting them (or even that he is likely to do so) seems pretty far-fetched to me.
I actually believe the Arab states’ concern is more along the lines of a slippery slope / precedent. I.e., Afghanistan can be justified as self-defense, but Iraq is getting more into the realm of “attacking him because we think he may do bad things in the future” (admittedly not without some good reason based on his past track record) which is another thing altogether.
I agree with *jshore’s reasoning on the nuclear weapons.
In fact, I think that it’s possible that Iraq already has a few nukes, but they’re hiding them for the time being.