Those facts only show that he was a bad man, and obssessed with keeping an iron grip on his power. It's that very fact that makes it doubtful he'd be spreading WMD around to others. As far as #3 what are you talking about? Are you talking about the money paid to families martyrs who died fighting Israeli oppression? Only very small amount of that fund went to families of suicide bombers. I'm not saying the fund should have given money for that at all. Or were you referring to something eles?
He was a bad man obsessed with terroristic deeds within and outside his country...His zeal and wish for big-time destructive weapons encapsulated the logical correlation with him being an extraordinary threat...and Of course, I'm talking about the slimeball suicidal terrorists causing terror against the good Christian people of Israel....
Those are compelling points but don't necessarily lead to him giving WMD to terrorists, particularly of the Al Qaeda stripe. 1. Yes Saddam did invade another country, two in fact, but rather that didn't didn't endear him to Islamic radicals. Shiites radicals who never liked him in the first place hated him more when he took on Iran. Sunni radicals resented a secularist like him threatening the seat of Islam in Saudi Arabia. At the time Osama Bin Ladin hadn't quite fallen out of favor with the house of Saud had argued that instead of having the an international coalition defend Saudi Arabia they should have had Mujahadin. 2. True, he was an evil b*stard but he did that to keep himself in power not to strike a blow against the US or anyone else for ideological reasons. 3. True also but at the same time many other Arabs and Muslims have too including our good friends the house of Saud and Arab Emirates who have probably given far more money to Palestinian groups of all stripes than Saddam ever had. In a way our own government has given money to terrorists since we funded and armed the Mujahadin in Afghanistan many of which ended up forming Al Qaeda. All of this shows that Saddam is a bad bad bad man but none of this logically leads to him giving WMD to terrorists. If anything your 'facts' would more likely indicate he wouldn't want to give WMD away to groups that might threaten him.
If you remove WMD from the argument, there is still substantial justification to take Saddam out of power. That EVERYONE admits he's a 'bad bad man' should be enough to prove that.
But that's not the reason used by this administration to remove him. If Bush would have pushed the humanitarian reasons for taking Saddam out I would have at least listened to the argument and probably would have been swayed.
Had that been the justification for the war, Bush would not be getting all this flak. Personally, I was (begrudgingly) convinced initially that the war was necessary because of the visions of mushroom clouds and mustard gas in the US. As far as I am concerned, he (and many others in the administration) looked me in the eye and lied to my face, just like Clinton did, and that makes them as bad as Clinton right there. The difference is that Clinton was lying about a blowjob and Bush was lying about the reasons to go to war. HUGE difference.
Among the problems with this, in addition to that outlined by previous posters ( ie, that it wasn't our actual reason) are these: * There are many bad men. When superpowers pick and choose which bad men to eliminate by themselves, the obvious temptation is to do so in conjunction with it's own interests. As such, it would be just another rationale for extending their own power. Our track record has us supporting more bad men then we abolished. What do you suppose the reason for that is? * With whom do you replace the bad man? * Who defines who is and who is not a bad man? I would support the idea of global consensus stated in your post, but how do we arrive at same? According to polls, the vast majority of the planet sees the US under Bush as the world's greatest threat to peace, and view the invasion as an obvious power play for self interest. Does that make him a bad man to everyone but us? * How do you account for differing profiles of interested parties as it relates to said party's ability to project biased renditions of other leaders? See Boer War, etc. ( Actually the prallels between the Boer War and the invasion of Iraq are startling, but another discussion)...If Bush, with the world watching and the great wealth and power of the US at his disposal says that Leader X of Southeast Timorland is a despotic pirate, how would leader X refute this claim with any real weight?
Oh, very good! The Boer War was a watershed event for Victorian Britain and it's ruling Conservative party, the way Britons looked at their empire, the limits of British power, and, arguably, when that empire's wave reached it's peak and crashed against the rocks of a hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, stubborn antagonist who sucked an astonishing amount of British power, wealth and prestige into what had been seen as a minor dustup on the edges of the realm. Parallels? Campbell-Bannerman saying, "A phrase often used [by government] was that 'war is war,' but when one came to ask about it one was told that no war was going on, that it was not war. When was a war not a war? When it was carried out by methods of barbarism in South Africa." A huge number of Boers, including women and children, were put in concentration camps. The war was carried out to insure British control of the newly discovered gold in the Boer republics. The revelation of 'barbarism' on the part of the British was a national and worldwide scandal. The world view (and the British view) of the Empire as a benevolent institution shattered, as was the perception, since the end of the Napoleanic War, of British military superiority. The Conservative government was turned out and replaced by the Liberal party. Parallels indeed.
Yeah I've been meaning to tell you guys thats not real funny anymore. I mean there was that period where it was, chuckle chuckle, they got us! But now its kind of like, not original and fresh anymore. You guys need something new. Something upbeat and ready to face a new millenium of Republican/Democrat jokes.
HayesStreet; Macbeth took typed the words right off of my fingertips with his response to your comment about my post about Saddam being a bad bad man as justification for invasion.
Congratulations. The problem with MacBeth's continuous 'sky is falling' logic is that in this case we do all, in fact, agree Saddam was a bad man. That's not one superpower declaring him a bad man, risking the oh so overhyped slippery slope. We all agree he was a bad man, yes? As there isn't anyone who disputes this, we don't have to worry about somehow being arbitrary in determining this. EVERYONE AGREES. As far as the administrations justification etc, obviously this was not the main reason they gave. I agree. What difference does it make when we're trying to assess the current situation in Iraq?
Don't believe I ever argued with you on whether or not the sky was falling. Do recall debating the merits of a war based on intel, the possibility that our avowed purpose might not be our real purpose, that we needed global support, etc. Sorry I was so far off base... As to this: Obviously the point you sidestepped is that there are many universally acknowledged bad men, but when you pick and choose which bad men you take out, which you ignire, and which you support, and it happend to generally coincide with your own interests, the rest of the planet might not see those few you choose to take out as humanitarianism. And in doing such things for such purposes, you are yourself making moves similarly motivated and carried out to those which bad men have themselves made. Again, based predominantly on this war, the vast majority of the planet sees Bush as a bad man. What's the solution? Obviously, selectivity again.
Not sidestepping anything. You claim there is danger in unilateral decisions about 'who is bad.' This is not such a case. Clearly no one supports Saddam. In fact the Iraqi people themselves clearly did not want Saddam in power and are glad he is gone. Therefore the premise of your critique, which starts with the RISK (not the fact, but the risk) of one power going overboard, is incompatible with the situation in Iraq. There was no mistake made. He was a bad man. The people over which he ruled think he's a bad man. I understand why some of the world would question Bush's motives. He didn't make the case for Iraq properly. However, whether or not the world perceives the intervention as humanitarian is largely irrelevant to whether or not humanitarian objectives have in fact been achieved. As for people seeing him as a threat, we can remove him too! Fine by me.
The unilateralism is in how bad, what the recourse is, and why this bad man and not others. I may have a headache. Many may agree I have a headache, Some may disagree that hitting me on the head and stealing my wallet might not be the best solution for my headache. I am gladdened that you support Bush's removal as well. Are you down at Pall Mall or Downing St. petitioning for Operation Freedom USA?
Er...one of us is certainly eskewed, that's for sure. P.S. Please pass on the infomration you have about the relization of the threat Iraq posed to us to the government, the CIA, etc. None of them seem to have it.
There is much more consensus that Saddam was a bad actor than against the intervention in Iraq, to put it in perspective. Certainly we can disagree on what the solution to the problem is, but no one asserts that Saddam was not a genocidal despot. So saying 'who gets to decide who's bad, how do we know we're not just saying that out of self interest,' is silly. Why is it silly? Because EVERYONE agrees he is/was a bad actor. Arguments about 'why Saddam instead of other despots' aren't really relevant to the question of whether or not removing him was a desirable or undesirable thing. Whether it would be good to remove Kim Jr does not affect this question. To generalize situations as different as the PRC and Iraq is dangerous and hardly realistic. We couldn't invade the PRC and change their government if we wanted to. Does that mean we shouldn't have stopped genocide in Bosnia? No, it doesn't. As far as Bush, I recommend voting against him. That's the cool thing about not having a despot in power...one of the cool things Iraqis hopefully will soon be able to particpate in.
