Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by khayos, May 29, 2010.
The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein
EDIT: What a huge mistake George HW Bush made leaving him in power.
What, then, should we do with our erstwhile "ally" Hosni Mubarak?
Few object to the idea that Hussein is no longer in power. However, the war was not waged to correct that issue, nor should that necessarily be a raison d'etre for US military action. It's a very slippery slope. Many world leaders brutalize their people, but that doesn't mean we should be putting boots in those countries to bring about regime change.
Agreed. HW in my opinion should've finished the job in 91.
Or, if we're going to play world policeman -- which I agree we usually should not do -- we should have a coherent policy addressing that
But it wasn't "politically correct"....
But no matter what Saddam did, it does not justify the efforts and lies of George W.. nothing can make up for the 5K plus lives and the expenditures of 723 billion dollars..
Give me that old time CIA or Mossad any day of the week, their efforts would have been just as effective with a lot less expenditures and casualties..
I personally prefer a much more isolationalist foreign policy. We should be worrying more about solving our own problems, and less about everyone else. If he minded our own business more than we do, we'd be better off as a nation. I'd keep foreign afairs to food aid, education, and maybe some reconstruction with respect to farming, bridges, water treatment plants, etc. All the rest is the worlds problem, not ours.
The CIA had Bin Laden in their sites in 98 (IIRC) and Clinton said no because it wouldn't be politically correct to kill the Saudi Princes who were with him.
I bet those 3000 people who died on Sept 11th would have appreciated a little less political correctness and a lot more ass-kickery.
And Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people during his campaign of genocide... kind of justifies lots of things IMO.
The problem as I see it is that political correctness makes it so nothing can get done. I'll take a lie if it means something gets done.
Let's give equal treatment to other administrations. Bin Laden was also in our armies sites AFTER 911, under the Bush administration.
When? And what was our reason for not pulling the trigger? If it was because of political reasons, then my point still stands!
Exactly, this country's crazy political correctness sh!t gets a lot of people in trouble and gets a lot of people hurt.
Sappy Pant Suit Hillary once wanted to change the name "Man Hole Cover" to "Person Hole Cover" thats how the Loon Brain Works.
All of your statements are open-ended, as if there should be ended with an ellipsis.
What do you mean by "something gets done"? What gets done without the permission of the People in this country? Lies about getting into a war or about assinating a leader of another country are good? At what point does a foreign policy based on secrecy and lies turn on us?
I agree 100%.
YouTube - Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
I think he should still be in power for a number of reasons.
Taking him out reduced the balance of power in the Middle East, allowing Iran to become a force to be reckoned with.
Prior to 1991, Iraq was one of the more progressive Arab states, according relatively equal rigths to women, having a high degree of academic freedom (not political freedom), and being the most technically and economically advanced of the Arab States.
Most of the claims about Saddam's atrocities come from groups that can be seen as special interests of their own. See this, for example,
Did Saddam Gas His Own People?
I thought containment was working just fine, and also served to keep Iran in check. I thought continued political pressure would have ultimately forced reform in Iraq. I do not think Saddam Hussein was worth the lives of 4,000 troops and tens of thousands of civilians, not to mention the economic price we are currently experiencing.
While the survivors might in some ways be better off right now, it remains to be seen how this plays out. It's going to take a lot of success on Iraq's part to balance out the loss of 100,000 people, not to mention the loss of homes, photos, neighborhoods, friends, and so on.
Iraq Body Count
Despite all that, I recognize that Saddam was very dangerous, and that many of his atrocities are well documented.
So you think everything the CIA/FBI/Military does should be public knowledge? That would make things rather easy for our enemies... (an ellipsis for you!)
I can't think of a leader of a country that the US has successfully assassinated, is there a particular one you are refering to?
As for "something gets done", Darryl said he thinks the CIA would be more effective than boots on ground, I then brought up that the CIA had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden but couldn't because of politics which led to nothing being done. It took getting attacked and losing thousands of civilian lives for us to do something. I then followed that up with saying I would prefer a war based on a lie (that would be what you guys call Iraq) than sitting around and letting Saddam remain in power.
He knew how to keep those people of his in line thats for sure, who cares if he had WMD's the whole worlds got them, Al Queda's got them (suicide bombers) Iran's got them (beheadings and stonings) Saddam and his demented sons didn't take any sh!t from any of his people if they crossed him his kids Raped them and then killed them or cut their feet off (law and order :singing
America's Loon Community On Saddams WMD's
YouTube - Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
GENOCIDE IN IRAQ: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds (Human Rights Watch Report, 1993)
More information about the genocide of the Kurds without the bias of the current Iraq war.
And the "it remains to be seen" comment, exactly! We won't start to see the true impacts of these wars on the world for another generation. For all we know we made it possible for a young Iraqi to prosper and eventually cure cancer, or for all we know we created the next Hitler.
We can argue and protest and argue this side or that side is right, but to be honest, we won't know for a long time.
THE CIA MADE BIN LADIN!
Your world view is wreckless and messy at best. My position is that we have no business interfering in the affairs of other countries if their actions don't harm the US. Your position seems to suggest that we should be taking out whoever the CIA and Pentagon decides needs to go. It's a slippery slope. Your scenario is inconsistent, Otherwise, we would have to take out other despots in Burma, Zimbabwe, etc. It's not our job. We are not the world police. We have more important problems to spend time and money on at home.
And look up the assassination of Diem of S. Vietnam, 1963. His body was buried next to the US consulate in Saigon. SVA surrogates did the deed, but the US set it up.
God Damn America
Frankly, my own suspicion is that when you have Iranians, Iraqis, and Kurds fighting, you're going to have a great big mess. All sides most likely committed atrocities, but in that context our war on Iraq was just an extension of those atrocities. But, do note that I am in no way defending Saddam, a sadistic Stalinist to the end. It's just my feeling that if we had left him in, we and the Iraqis very well might have been better off.
Separate names with a comma.