Saddam, a tribute

He has several good points. In the past the U.S. always picked convenient
evils; we held our nose and aligned ourselves with people who upheld some
purpose that suited our interests. Hussein was a natural foe/check and balance
against Iran, and a secular one. We took him out, without being sure that in
his place another stabilizing force would seize control. It looks as if Iraq
will be split into thirds, for all intents and purposes, with a Shi'ite state
influenced by Iran and a Sunni state influenced by Al Qaeda and the like.
Wow, two enemies for the price of 3,000 american troops, countless Iraqs
and still counting.

We foolishly underestimated the stabilizing force that secular modern arab
nationalists like Hussein and Quadaffi had on extremist muslims. There's
fewer of them, now, and they've been replaced by religious leaders who
have an agenda far less subject to reason and potential compromise.

Then again, the U.S. set the Wahabbi muslims, the group that's given us
Bin Laden and his followers, on the militarized path when we used them to
lure the U.S.S.R. into Afghanistan, and destroyed that nation in the late 70's:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

which gave us the demoralization of the Soviet Union that aided in its collapse,
but also gave us the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

So, I'd say we're just idiots in the big picture. Don't shoot the messenger.

"Saddam offered his people a harsh deal. Yet, their lives were at risk only if they chose to challenge his authority."

*shudders

Sounds like a great place to raise a family right?

Would you say it's a great place to raise a family NOW, or will be for the
foreseeable future?

He committed those atrocities during the time we were friendly with him.
We, in a way, condoned them, because they were being reported but we still
supplied him with weapons. It's recently come out in this part of the world
that the part of Kuwait he invaded has long been in dispute... Iraq had a
traditional claim to it in some part, so it wasn't a simple black and white picture,
either. You know, the way we view Israel taking some area that
they think they have claim to.

Hussein was a monster, but like several of the emperors who unified
China and European countries through history, that seems to be what's
needed. We can't pick and choose which ones are ripe for the toppling,
and not expect something to come back on us.

Not right now. However it would never had been left alone. In the future? Yes.



It's always been like this. We take sides that will aide in our interest and inject the most stability possible into the area. Had we not took sides with Iraq and Iran where would it have been now? How much worse could it have gotten had we stayed out of it?

We never condoned the gasing of innocent people. However we can't just let mass chaos break out and not do anything about it because 15 years from now some guy on a political forum is going to try to put down the policy because we aided someone who gassed his own people.

Where was the United Nations during all this? Why did they not step in and do something about Iraq gassing his own people? Again the world expects us to not only stop Iran but Iraq at the same time. France wasn't bitching about it like they bitch about us now.



He wasn't just going after Kuwait. He had threatened Saudi Arabia as well. In fact it was the Saudis that request the United States to step in. Yet again, the United States. Not France, Russia or China.



We can't afford to not pick and choose.

I have said this time and time again. If we do not take sides in the many wars of the past the results could have been catastrophic. You can't see the future. You can only see what is going on now.

Look, I believe in a non-military version of the neo-con exportation of
democracy. I believe it is America's role in this century, as well as the only
way to stabilize the geopolitical situation.

The thing is, as even Fukuyama and others who came up with the doctrine
now realize, you have to realistically look at whether the people of whichever
locale has a stable society ready to embrace western-styled democracy in
a large enough segment to not fall prey to some violence or reversion to
violent "mod rule."

We replaced one maniac who murdered his own people in the name of
dominance with several. We have to be smarter than that.

I keep saying that about UN!!! US has been doing their job for decades....


United Nation should support GTMO and all the facilities and laws constituted to fight terrorrism and criminals around the world..He should be in Iraq with us have a stronger presence; right now we need UN to stand up to all those people or countries that do not fight hard enough against radical muslims..it is just the same as supporting them!!:frown:

Where were the UN when UK and EU gave money to Palestinians helping them to kill Israelis for years? Where is now when they are asking more money? Why the world stand up for Palestine and not Israel???:no:

And what with the deal that Hamas is in power? Is that ourtrageous? Or what?:dunno:

"And what with the deal that Hamas is in power? Is that ourtrageous?"

It may seem outrageous , but they did win in an election , therefore they have power legitimately .
I had expressed when it happened that I hoped they would moderate their stance , but that hasn't happened .
Hamas won because they appealed to enough voters to win . That is what Democracy allows . They have social programs which are needed by the people and a message that appeals to their constituents .

They are still a terrorist orginization. No amount of good will ever cover there harm.

Correct, Drnaline, and if someone else was providing the humanitarian
efforts they use to keep popularity, would they look so good? Would it
be worth overlooking the fanatical violence in that case?

Remember what L.B.J used to say about despots. "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in". A wise man L.B.J. :p