Quote:
Originally Posted by i get high sometimes
Alright, I'll reply to each part of this.
Saddam Hussein WAS a threat, point conceded, but he was a threat in the 1980's, when he was backed and supported by the United States. During the Reagan and Bush I administrations, Saddam committed genocided against the Kurds in northern Iraq. All the while, the United States was providing him with the weaponry he needed to carry out this genocide. In fact, in 1982, Iraq was taken off the list of countries which sponsor terrorism so that he would be eligible for aid under the Reagan administrations. So, we supported him during his atrocities, and then used the same atrocities to justify his removal from power. Pretty illogical. Ever since 2000, when he stopped recieving aid from the United States, he poses absolutely no threat to anyone. Perhaps his own people, but that is what revolution is for. As for any dictator being a threat, you should really let the government know that, since we continue to support ruthless dictators just like Saddam Hussein, and have been doing so for years. Look at Suharto, Mobutu, Somoza, the Shah, and countless others for proof of that. The United States really doesn't view fascist dictators as a threat. If they did, we would stop supporting them.
Next, you think that imperialist gain is for the 'greater good'? Do you see the massacres in India (the Sepoy rebellion) and China (the Opium Wars) or the absolute raping of the Congo by the Belge, or the horrors in pre-1960 Algeria, as very potent counter-examples of imperialist gain being for the 'greater good'? The Indochina wars? In what way is imperial gain 'greater good'? All it does is cause suffering, which is why most European countries released their imperial possessions after WWII. Of course their is a problem with justifying war for imperial means. Not even the imperialist countries actually thought imperial gain was good justification for war, which is why they came up with other silly excuses for their wars.
Okay, you believe in what you want to believe in. That doesn't make it true in any way whatsoever, especially when it is not only based on NO evidence, but is actually refuted BY the evidence which is in existance. Why would the United States concede that Iraq had no al-Queda connections, after all, they used it's 'connections' with al-Queda to justify war in Iraq after the first justification fell through (WMD's). It was in their favor to have the populus think that Iraq had al-Queda connections, which is why, when it was discovered that they had none, it was somewhat impressive to hear the administration admit it. But of course, they couldn't pull out, they just offered another justification. Your 'own conjectures' led you to believe that Iraq had al-Queda connections... 
And lastly, YOU viewed Saddam as a threat. Therefore an illegal war against him is justified. Well there you go, all this time the Bush administration was desperately grasping for plausible justification for this war, when they could have just gone ahead and said that Voice_of_The_Soul 12,13,01 viewed him as a threat and the international community would have been off our backs. Why didn't you say so earlier?! |
Apparently people have lots of trouble grasping the concept of "THIS IS WHAT I THINK!" Not "This is how it should be." I never said anything I said was true. It's a ****ing opinion!
I am aware that we have supported dictators in the past. Why we did, I will honestly say I don't know. Maybe there was something to gain from it. My opinions today, however, would have been the same back then; these dictators, no matter how insignificant or lacking in power they are, are a threat to somebody. The fact that they are a threat to somebody, to me, is a reason any country, not just the US, should intervene, because if they are a threat to, say, their own country, what's to stop them from threatening other countries?
Next; I'm getting sick and tired of the whole "war causes suffering" argument. That's like the most obvious thing. Even I can see that. But some suffering is necessary (to some people). For imperialist nations, suffering is just collateral damage. How can an empire hope to expand it's boarders? Negotiating? Sitting on lawn chairs with picket signs while going on a hunger strike saying " surrender your country or we'll starve to death?" That's what war is; necessary force to destroy all opposition. Any regard for human life is a weakness in war, especially in wars based on conquest. And again, as I said, when I said "conquest for the greater good," more than likely that is for the greater good of the country trying to expand it's boarders. Why would that be good, killing "innocent" lives? Resources, land, money, power, and more people to take in and make part of the empire.
People die. Get over it.
And about Iraq's Al-Queda Connections; we now know they had none. But you can't tell me that there was a remote possibility there could have been connections. I know there weren't, but Saddam could have benefited from having connections like that.
I keep saying that Saddam was a potential threat, and I don't think I'm being clear; by "potential," I mean he had the ability, he was in the right position to gain enough power to become a greater threat to other countries, like he was in the Gulf War. He just squandered his power and wasted it on oppressing his own people. He could have gone on like that, leaving his country to stagnate, or he could have gotten smart and start making connections with organizations like Al-Queda, which could help him gain resources and whatever he needed to run a small war. He didn't, obviously. I'm saying he COULD HAVE!