Re: Hussein?s death...
[quote=TheLanciaFan;427234][COLOR=black]please show me the specific line when i mentioned that name... its already in you head... and its not a man, its the whole foreign policy... i dont care if its that man or somebody else... its way beyond one single man...[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]you know who decided to establish a new goverment in Iraq by force? yes!! you won!! North America was a friend of Hussein during de Iran-Irak war, offering the money and the weapons together with Europe against a Russia powered Iran. They were flesh and blood. And Hussein made the stupid mistake to invade Kuwait... and it was the perfect excuse to get rid of Saddam... why didnt Northamerica say anything about human rigths and freedom during that war?!?! interests, my friend... money, power, ... . The world is/was full of dictators who didnt matter human rights... you know the differences between those countries and Irak? ...yes, that magic black substance under the floor... [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]you said "Regardless of what we think, this is a big event for the Iraqis because Saddam won't ever again be in power after many years. I think it's a step forward for their government"... do you really thingçk there`s gonna be peace in the short term in Irak?!? This has just begun... [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]Please dont get me wrong... Hussein deserves a lifetime vacations in jail (i am against death sentence, but thats other topic) but its not necesary to pretend that everything was done in the name of the freedom and human rights... came on!![/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]The main point is that no one is safe from an invasion from that powerful, and with economical deficit since the war started, country. Like the attemp to start a riot against Chavez in Venezuela in order to get rid of him (again with black gold under the floor)... USA just couldn´t, the people went to the streets to support him... that was another sample of what i meant in the first post...[/COLOR]
[/quote]
A few things in response:
The USA sided with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war because Iran was seen as the larger threat. Fundamentalist Islam was seen as a problem then, as it is now. Saddam, while clearly a brutal dictator, was a secular leader who appeared content (at least at the time) with holding Iraq. Iran was a larger power, intent on expanding outward.... and this is still true, even today. The choice to aid Saddam during that war was a case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The USA was not alone in aiding Saddam. Nearly every country in Europe supplied Saddam with weapons and technology which he used to develop his WMD program. Whether it was chemical weapons technology from Germany or Italy, nuclear technology from Spain, or even biological samples of diseases supplied by the USA for medical use.... everyone helped Saddam in one way or another.
The USA was the leader of the coalition which liberated Kuwait during Gulf War I. Had it not been for the USA, Kuwait would probably still be under Iraqi control.
The decision not to oust Saddam following the Kuwait invasion was based on a number of factors, including:
-
Fear that the coalition would dissolve. Basically, we felt at the time that European countries who supported the liberation of Kuwait would not support a land invasion into Baghdad to remove Saddam.
-
The loss of USA military life was kept very low through the Kuwait liberation. It was felt that the primary mission was accomplished, and that more lives should not be lost at that time.
-
We had hoped that the Liraqi people would start their own coup from within to oust Saddam. In fact, this did happen but Saddam's military was quick to suppress any uprisings.
Look at issue # 1 I just posted. Funny how this is EXACTLY what Bush is being criticized for. Breaking up the coalition. But then all you Europeans come back with responses saying stuff like: "You should have taken Saddam out back in the first Gulf War." Seems a bit contradictory, doesn't it? We did not go after Saddam because it would have fractured the coalition. We are critisized for not acting. Saddam violates cease-fire agreements every day for 12 years, violates 17 UN Resolutions regarding his weapons programs, kicks out inspectors, pays suicide bombers who perpetrate attacks, aids terrorists who were injured in Afghanistan, and thumbs his nose at the international community. So after all of that, we decide to enforce the unanimously ratified UN Resolutions and go after Saddam, and we're criticized for breaking up the coalition.
You claim the whole reason for the war was oil. Well, what about the whole reason NOT to go to war? Do you know the real reason why France and Germany pulled out? Oil. They were both profiting with Saddam in power, through oil contracts. Both France and Germany were big losers financially from this war. THAT is why they opposed. It had nothing to do with morality. It had nothing to do with WMDs. They believed, just as every other intelligence service in the world believed, that Saddam had WMDs. But they were willing to let that slide because they were profiting while Saddam was in power. If you are so critical of government corruption, or corporate influence.... then please be fair about it. You can't even begin to act like the USA is the only guilty party when it comes to such things.
I do not think SuperDave was saying that Saddam's death was the end to violence in Iraq. He was saying that it was an important event, and this is true. It signifies an end to an era. It closes the book on a quarter century of brutal tyranny under Saddam. Many Iraqi's probably felt that it was possible for Saddam to return to power one day. This is clearly not possible any more, and it gives the people a chance to move forward. Of course, violence will continue. But that doesn't change the fact that this event is an important one for Iraq.
Please consider that this war.... while terrible.... is still rather young as far as wars go. It took the USA over a decade to establish itself as an autonomous power, free from British control. Many died in the fight for freedom. It didn't happen overnight. Not only did we fight a huge revolutionary war, but we later had a civil war which nearly fractured the country in two. And the USA is the model on which Europe is now shaping itself, whether their pride will allow them to admit it or not.
Lastly, I would like to know what would you have us do in Iraq now? Clearly we know you are critical of the decison to go there in the first place. But, at this point, that issue is rather moot. Time travel is not possible. So, do you think we should simply abandon Iraq... despite their inability to protect themselves from outside threats like Iran? I am sure that you dislike war and fighting, but do you realize the magnitude of what would happen if Iran moves in and controls Iraq? What if Iran gets a nuclear weapon?