You're missing the point. Just who gets to decide who the "worst of dictators" are in the first place? Who sets themselves up on high above all other nations and makes that determination? By what right? Unless you're ready to say "the UN", any answer you could give would be utterly arbitrary. The rules either apply to everyone, or no one.
Not at all.
As it has been throughout history, the most powerful gets to decide. Fortunately
, the "most powerful" these days is America. Is it perfect in its decisions? Of course not, but compared to its antecedents it might as well be. "The" point is, of course, simply "Your" point, and it is at best, fanciful. There never has been a global decision making body and it will be decades, if not centuries, before one exists. You can argue as if such a body exists, but it does not. The UN certainly isn't such a body.
Again the point seems to elude you. "What is evil?", to paraphrase. Are the things Saddam was doing in his own country yesterday somehow measurably worse than the things yours is doing in it today? So tell me, then... what's evil?
Again, it seems to elude you that "the" point is merely "your" point.
And yes, the "things" Saddam was doing in his own country are
measurably worse that the things the US is doing in Iraq today. Saddam is "evil."Sadly, too many people cannot or will not see the difference between Saddam's tyranny in Iraq and America's liberation.
I haven't read all of the postings on this thread, and so this may not be original, but it is quite telling that under US occupation there is an Iraqi football team of which the members feel safe enough to make the comments they have. Does anyone think they would have made similar comments if Saddam was still in power?
The fact that these Iraqis can make these comments without fear that they and their families will be killed doesn't mean that the totality of the US occupation has been positive or properly executed, but it goes a long way in answering the ridiculous question: "What is evil?"
No, I was saying that the United States has no moral right to deny to others a capacity it claims itself. If you don't want other people to have the Bomb, give it up yourself. Otherwise, live with the precedent you've set, and no bitching when others follow your example. This "evil dictators" dividing line that, first of all, you have no right to set, and secondly, can and obviously would be drawn anywhere in the sand convenient to the United States at any given moment, is threadbare rhetorical hypocrisy.
Can there be a more idiotic argument?
Because there are nuclear powers in the world, all nations should have the "right" to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
First of all, none of the nuclear powers want to see new members of the club, and so your focus on the United States is fallacious.
Secondly, the countries now seeking nuclear weapons are, undeniably, dictatorships. If use of the word "evil" offends your sensibilities, let's not use it, but which nations are in the process of seeking nuclear capabilities?
Greece? Thailand? Latvia? New Zealand? Argentina? Australia? Kenya? Portugal? Mexico? Trinidad & Tobago? Canada? Iceland? Belgium? South Africa? Chile? Vietnam? Sri Lanks? Netherlands? Uruguay? Costa Rica? Cuba? Burma? Estonia? Poland? Egypt? Jordan? Cambodia? Indonesia?
etc, etc etc.
North Korea did and succeeded.
Iraq was and failed.
Libya was and gave up.
These are all examples of "evil" intent.
Guy's not a serial killer till he actually kills someone; you see, that's the problem here. Is Saddam ruthless? Yes. But aside from annexing Texas -- I mean, Kuwait -- what has he ever done outside his own country?
Yes, there can be a more idiotic argument.
Who cares about those sand monkeys in Kuwait? So what if Saddam invaded them?
And who cares that in the course of the Gulf War he fired Scud missiles on both Saudia Arabia and Israel? And who cares that he gassed Kurds or that he engaged in a horrific war with Iran?
He wasn't being "evil," just mischievous.
Has he overturned inconvenient Latin American governments, like in Guatemala, or Panama, or Chile, or lately Venezuela so they don't euroize their oil production? Did he interfere in, and thus exacerbate, a civil war in Vietnam? Did he drop nuclear weapons on Japanese cities and vapourize about a quarter million civilians?
Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the US is guilty of all of your charges: It nuked the peace loving nation of Japan that presented no threat to America or any other nation on Earth. It interfered
in a civil war in Vietnam despite the fact that no other powers (not the Soviet Union or China) were supporting one of the sides. It overturned the regime of Hugo Chavez (funny, but the last time I looked, he was still in power). It overthrew the benign regime of Norriega in Panama.
Assuming all of your charges are correct...so what?
How does any of the history of the US mitigate the evil of Saddam?
Are you arguing that anyone guilty of a crime cannot seek to prevent another?