LoneStarMadam wrote:djjd62 wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:djjd62 wrote:at least saddam was the only nut killing his own people, now there are at least three groups doing it
plus the removal of saddam and the subsequent exposing of his impotent weapons program has just made iran that much more dangerous
Then you believe that saddam should be put back in power? Just one man killing thousands is much better tha 3 groups killing them?
i don't believe he should be back in power, but that wasn't the principle reason for the war, now a huge power vaccum has been created, and no mater what the administration would have us believe, there's a better chance of the usa becoming a socialist workers paradise, before iraq becomes the model of democratic reform
The
principle of this thread is about whether saddam should be back in power or not.
That isn't a principle, it's a silly false dichotomy and a dumb way to try to make people who don't agree with you look bad.
I say TRY.
Nobody ever argued (except his own clique which benefitted from him, and, presumably governments like those including that of the US which supported him at different times for their own ends) that there was anything good about him. But, in terms of the people you are quite fallaciously attempting to attack, I think you will find it hard to pretend there is support for him. You are merely attempting a slightly different version of the usual daft "If you don't support Bush, you support terror" nonsense.
Nor is anyone arguing that Saddam should be put back in power.
So...at one time the US decided it was in their interests to arm and support a vicious dictator.
Then the US decided it was no longer in their interests to do so any more, and that it was in their interests to invade Iraq.
I, and most of the people you attempt to attack here would likely disagree with both notions.
The US attacks Iraq, aided by a few idiotic governments, such as my own.
As a result of this attack, Saddam is no longer in power.
This appears to be one good which has come from this sorry mess, although history is long, and there is no telling as yet whether or not he will be replaced in the mediumn term by something better ( a consummation devoutly to be wished) or by something worse.
Now...if you are seriously interested in deposing vicious dictators, how do you think we might achieve this with less damage to the thin fabric of international law which was rearing its fledging head?
How might we decide whether armed intervention against such dictators is justified or not? You appear to believe it is...what are your ethical bases for this? What is your evidence for the efficacy of such intervention? And what are the criteria for determining efficacy? (eg...do we say it is efficacious up until the number of deaths in ridding a country of a dictator equals the number under the dictator, or some other criterion?)What factors do you take into account?
Eg...once we say that countries can invade each other to get rid of regimes which harm their peoples, then on what basis do we say to one country "You're wrong...this is not a case where you can invade" and to another "Yep, go ahead"? Perhaps you can imagine that motives might not always be utterly pure and simple? That there may be some repercussions from deciding that it's ok to invade people if we think it is a good idea?
How do you think we might determine reasoned, just and practical criteria for action against such dictators?
How might we muster support from a real collection of countries if we deem such an endeavour appropriate?
What sanctions ought there to be against countries which prop up such regimes in what they believe to be in their strategic interests, since I believe you will agree that arming and financing these monsters, as many in the west, including the US, have habitually done is not a good start?
How might we enforce sanctions against superpowers which wilfully support such regimes, then dump them again, with dizzying speed, as super and medium powers including the US are wont to do?
These are but a few of the multiplicity of issues that come to mind.
I will be interested in reading your proposal, if you decide to stop pursuing silly would be tricks, and address the issue in a meaningful way.
