Political Crossfire Forums

[Vulcidian]

In the wake of the second part of the Persian Gulf War, I am forced to ask myself how terrible the man in power really was for global stability?

I am forced to ask how we can forcibly remove his regime from power, and not sanction the Chinese for the atrocities they still commit in Tibet.

Saddam fought a long and bloody war for us against the Islamic Fundamentalist regime of Iran who ousted the Shah who we had backed. He was our pawn of the Cold War.

In the end he gassed thousands of people, trying to destroy the people who wanted him dead.

Since we do not live in a society wracked with such physical violence and power struggle, are we really fit to judge how evil the crimes of this man are? In a region where people starve and die daily, where regimes enforce imhumane punishments daily, isn't it hypocritical to single out one man to bear punishment?

Obviously removing him from power has made violence in his country rise to levels never before seen in recent history. It hasn't made us anymore liked than we were before, and it hasn't help us at all in the War on Terror.

Saddam was the closest to a secular balance of authority in the fundamentalist Islamic region that we had. We've worked with worse than him, including him, in the past, and we will work with worse in the future.

So, taking the reality of the situation into account. How bad was Saddam? How will history judge him?

I think he was just another Warloard in a long pastime generation of Warlords. There have been many before him, there will be many after. The middle-east is a sad reality.

[Trajan]

In the world of realpolitik, it only matters how bad he is if of no further use or he steps off the reservation.

His trial was for what happenned back in the 1980s. We didn't care how he ruled his country then as he was useful to us. Didn't matter to the US how many Kurds or Shias got it in the neck.

I suspect that if he didn't invade Kuwaiit, he would still be useful. Certainly as a counterweight to Iran.

[Chingu]

The idea that Saddam was a pawn of ours during the cold war is entirely overblown. We did indeed take sides with his regime, before it was known to be as terrible as it turned out to be, during the Iran/Iraq war because we saw Iran as a greater threat then. But the level of our alliance with his regime was very limited.

Saddam was about as bad as they get. He didn't only gas loads of his own countrymen to death, he gased Iranians as well. He systematically purged his population randomly at times of all who questioned his authority and many who simply were thought to have. He killed entire families, entire enclaves, and villages. He'd have his secret police raid towns and homes in the midle of the night and extract the homes members and force the father to kill the kids and then they'd torure him, maybe cut fingers or hands off - maybe cut his tongue out and let him bleed to death, rape th mother and then kill her as well. They were guilty of things like this all over Iraq for decades and it was getting worse - not better.

I could go on and on with lists of the sick disgusting things Saddam's regime was guilty of - but some folks probably have to eat - so I won't.

[Vulcidian]

So does this mean we should dig up Andrew Jackson and waste his grave for the things he did to the Indians?

Should we publicly decry President Lincoln for getting rid of habeus corpus during the civil war, and for allowing hundreds of thousands of Americans to starve to death?

Should we brand FDR and LBJ for the actions they took during WWII and Vietname?

No, because the times were different. Times of War and times of civil disorder call for measure modern America is not accustomed to.

Saddam killed people who wanted to overthrow his regime and hang him. They are now about to do so with our help.

I greave for the loss of every innocent person throughout the course of History due to terrible circumstances. But have we really made things any better by replacing Saddam? Have the killings stopped? The short answer is no.

Saddam did not live in America. He lived in a country created by the end of 20th century Imperialism. He lived in a country divided by religoius factions who do not understand the concept of tolerance and freedom of expression.
He fought a War against people who wanted him dead, in a country where some supported that country.

We can say what he had done is evil and wrong from our lofty perch high up in European enlightened civilization. But in his circumstances, would we have done any different?

[Fido]

Saddam was bad enough to justify our arming of his population against him. When we had the chance we did not, and we let those people suffer who raised themselves in expectation of American help for their freedom. This war is unjustified. It was never about empowering the Iraqis, but about making them even more subservient. We hoped to keep them down, and not help them up. We will find that the worst Muslim over them has a better chance than the best Christian over them. Some things are unacceptable. Letting political considerations stand in the way of doing justice to others is always a mistake.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Vulcidian wrote: In the wake of the second part of the Persian Gulf War, I am forced to ask myself how terrible the man in power really was for global stability?

Umm, he had an 8 year war with Iran and used Chemical weapons against them. He invaded Kuwait without provocation. He built the fourth largest army in the world before invading Kuwait. His goal, as a Hitler fan, was to attack Saudi Arabia and secure the energy resouces of the world under one thumb. Get real. :lol:

[Chingu]

Vulcidian wrote: So does this mean we should dig up Andrew Jackson and waste his grave for the things he did to the Indians?

Should we publicly decry President Lincoln for getting rid of habeus corpus during the civil war, and for allowing hundreds of thousands of Americans to starve to death?

Should we brand FDR and LBJ for the actions they took during WWII and Vietname?

No, because the times were different. Times of War and times of civil disorder call for measure modern America is not accustomed to.

Saddam killed people who wanted to overthrow his regime and hang him. They are now about to do so with our help.

I greave for the loss of every innocent person throughout the course of History due to terrible circumstances. But have we really made things any better by replacing Saddam? Have the killings stopped? The short answer is no.

Saddam did not live in America. He lived in a country created by the end of 20th century Imperialism. He lived in a country divided by religoius factions who do not understand the concept of tolerance and freedom of expression.
He fought a War against people who wanted him dead, in a country where some supported that country.

We can say what he had done is evil and wrong from our lofty perch high up in European enlightened civilization. But in his circumstances, would we have done any different?

We wouldn't have been in his circumstances.

And, yes, Iraq and the world are btter off without Saddam's regime in power.

Does everything happen in the blink of an eye?

Do you correct centuries of barbaric and savagely violent behavior in three quick years? I doubt it. Can you correct it and does IRaq stand a chance? Of course they do. Look at Japan?

[indieinmich]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Vulcidian wrote: In the wake of the second part of the Persian Gulf War, I am forced to ask myself how terrible the man in power really was for global stability?

Umm, he had an 8 year war with Iran and used Chemical weapons against them. He invaded Kuwait without provocation. He built the fourth largest army in the world before invading Kuwait. His goal, as a Hitler fan, was to attack Saudi Arabia and secure the energy resouces of the world under one thumb. Get real. :lol:


So whos freedom are we protecting here?US,Iraq, or Saudi Arabia?
So the Saudis hi-jack planes.They fly them into buildings here in the US.So we then cruise on over to middle east and invade Iraq to protect the what...???? The Saudis and the Oil?

That actually sounds about right.

[Chingu]

Many people don't see the larger view here in terms of the state of the world. They tend to think of Iraq as an isolated single issue in a world of single issues and fail to grasp the interrelationships bettween all the various things going on in not only the Middle East - but in the entire world. They maintain, even today, that Iraq was contained, which is simply an imposibility. In todays world there is no such thing as containment when a Pepsi can sized container can hold weapons that can kill tens of thousands and when there are people enabling that sort of desire throughout that region and when Western nations are heavily involved in trade. Peopple really need to get away from this inability to see beyond the single issue and take a look at the region and the world and how many of these things can easily manifest into pan-regional and even intercontinental axis against the free world. They also have to understand that there is that intent in many of these places and there is also a willingness and in cases, eagerness to unify among the enemies of the free world in order to tear it apart. It is necessary to understand how fragile our freedoms and Liberties are and that it doesn't take a standard military style war to destabilize the worlds economy any more. All of this was well in the works prior to 9/11 and prior to our using military action to depose Saddam's regime and enforce the WMD resolution and cease fire mandate. Nothing has been created out of our actions except for the reality of teh region being seen now. It is good that we are seeing it becuase it illustrates just how broken it was and just how much of a threat we were under. Prior to 9/11 and our military actions, we were largely ignorant of the scope of the growing threat. now we are not if only we take a look at it from beyond ideological and partisan blindfolds for what it really is.

for all of you who think Iraq is bad - you should hope and pray that things don't get a lot worse. One way to ensure that they DO get worse, is to back away from the fight, from the issue, from supporting the moderates and from stemming the evil.

[Flake]

Insisting on precision often gets me in trouble, but this:

Saddam was about as bad as they get.

Is really not even close to true. Stalin killed as many of his people every year as Human Rights Watch says Saddam killed (~ 350,000) in 25 years. He was a butcher, but his exploits are entirely overstated. The graphic nature of his brutality is what puts him up with the legends. Ripped out tongues, entire families slaughtered for the transgressions of one. Much larger crimes were his stupid wars based on insane miscalculations - Iran and Kuwait. Far more were killed in these wars than through Saddam's barbarity.

The fact is, you have to be brutal to govern Iraq. Any less oppressive and the place starts bursting at the seams. I think America's difficulty in governing, even with the massive applications of force we HAVE shown, proves this amply. Its a fallacy to think Iraq can be held together by reason and law.

Was America's cynical funding and arming of Iraq any more moral or constructive? We just added fuel to the fire in the hopes that Iraq would kill as many Iranians as possible, then we try to claim some kind of moral high ground. Ridiculous.

[Chingu]

indieinmich wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Vulcidian wrote: In the wake of the second part of the Persian Gulf War, I am forced to ask myself how terrible the man in power really was for global stability?

Umm, he had an 8 year war with Iran and used Chemical weapons against them. He invaded Kuwait without provocation. He built the fourth largest army in the world before invading Kuwait. His goal, as a Hitler fan, was to attack Saudi Arabia and secure the energy resouces of the world under one thumb. Get real. :lol:


So whos freedom are we protecting here?US,Iraq, or Saudi Arabia?
So the Saudis hi-jack planes.They fly them into buildings here in the US.So we then cruise on over to middle east and invade Iraq to protect the what...???? The Saudis and the Oil?

That actually sounds about right.

Actually - Al Qeada members flew planes into the Twin Towers who happened to be mostly ex-Saudi's. And as a response - in order to prevent further such attacks, we went over to Afghanistan and took down the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Then, after having spent 13 years and a war trying to get Saddam's regime to comply with the will of the free world in orer to get rid of the threat he posed, we went into Iraq to enforce what needed enforcing.

And now, when some spinless yellow-bellied sap-suckers realize that sometimes you have to shot bad guys and that war is real and people die - they think they can just walk away from it and everything will be fine. Well, it won't be fine. It wasn't fine. And the only way to make it fine is by defeating the sources of the evil - which is what we are doing.

[mr.snruB]

Vulcidian wrote: In the wake of the second part of the Persian Gulf War, I am forced to ask myself how terrible the man in power really was for global stability?


As a man, Saddam was a terrible waste of flesh. He was vile.

As for the question of how bad a threat he was for glabal stability? Not bad at all.

[Chingu]

Flake wrote: Insisting on precision often gets me in trouble, but this:

Saddam was about as bad as they get.

Is really not even close to true. Stalin killed as many of his people every year as Human Rights Watch says Saddam killed (~ 350,000) in 25 years. He was a butcher, but his exploits are entirely overstated. The graphic nature of his brutality is what puts him up with the legends. Ripped out tongues, entire families slaughtered for the transgressions of one. Much larger crimes were his stupid wars based on insane miscalculations - Iran and Kuwait. Far more were killed in these wars than through Saddam's barbarity.

The fact is, you have to be brutal to govern Iraq. Any less oppressive and the place starts bursting at the seams. I think America's difficulty in governing, even with the massive applications of force we HAVE shown, proves this amply. Its a fallacy to think Iraq can be held together by reason and law.

I don't think you can equate numbers of killed with how bad he is compared to other terrible people. When you get to Saddam's level - or Stalins, or Mao's or Phol Pot's or any number of other brutal murderers and torturers - you're about as bad as they get.

The idea that because Saddam held Iraq together by systematically murdering and butchering and gasing folks doesn't mean it was the proper course - nor does it imply that Iraq's can not live as a UNited nation stabily.

I think it is extremely arrogant and ultra-pessemistic and presumptious to assert that the Iraqi's are incapable of finding solutions to their problems. It obviously isn't going to come about by snapping fingers and demanding it. It takes a lot of brutal and difficult work and time and some fetching out of the problems that have existed there for so long.

Hell, when you examine it - they've gone from having a tyrant cruel and murderous dictator to having an elected functioning government in three years. Because the bad guys are still bad and because there is still violence in Iraq, doesn't mean things are hopeless - it means the mission isn't complete yet.

[Mr. Sunshine]

indieinmich wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Vulcidian wrote: In the wake of the second part of the Persian Gulf War, I am forced to ask myself how terrible the man in power really was for global stability?

Umm, he had an 8 year war with Iran and used Chemical weapons against them. He invaded Kuwait without provocation. He built the fourth largest army in the world before invading Kuwait. His goal, as a Hitler fan, was to attack Saudi Arabia and secure the energy resouces of the world under one thumb. Get real. :lol:


So whos freedom are we protecting here?US,Iraq, or Saudi Arabia?
So the Saudis hi-jack planes.They fly them into buildings here in the US.So we then cruise on over to middle east and invade Iraq to protect the what...???? The Saudis and the Oil?

That actually sounds about right.

Every action taken must be weighed against the potential consequence and following reaction. That is blow back. The Saudis and the Japanese paid for Gulf War 1. The goals of that conflict were to hobble Saddam enough so he would not be able to threaten his neighbors and create global instability. Powell knew invading and holding Iraq would be like this. We all did.

With Saddam's support for terror funded by the Oil for Food scandal combined with our increased need to create a forward operating base against Islamofascim in their home region secondary to 09-11, the calculated blow back was deemed worth it. Part of establishing a successful front means having the political support of the occupying region, like Germany, for example. We are in the building phase of that part of the plan. We are there for may reasons, most of which point to the fact that Saddam had it coming, and logistically Iraq is the best area to create our front. The uncalculated blow back is not the success needed for victory on the ground, it is the uncalculated lack of political will from anti-war Americans. Military planners knew this would be a 10 year engagement turning into a lifelong occupation, like Japan, Korea, and Germany before it. They didn't plan on the War being Vietnamized by the liberal left wing and their media. They assumed Americans are the same as their forefathers. They are not. They are weak minded, misguided, and unpatriotic. This mindset clashes with the mindset of the planners. Hence, blow back is a b*tch. :lol:

[Chingu]

Here's a little anology for ya:

You decide you want to build a house. You live in an area that has a challenging climate but you need a safe place to live or you know sooner or later the climate will kill you. So, you start building your house. It rains, teh wind blows and knocks bits of it down. You drop a lot of nails. You accidentally hammer your fingers a few times. You realize you've put a wall up in the wrong place and have to tear it down and start over. You get snowed on and you're freezing but despite all of these hostile and adversarial conditions you see the house being slowly erected. What do you do?

[Mr. Sunshine]

Easy. Pander to the left. Cut and run and blame the Republicans when terror cells get their next mass casualty event success in our homeland. It brought them this far. :roll:

[Chingu]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Easy. Pander to the left. Cut and run and blame the Republicans when terror cells get their next mass casualty event success in our homeland. It brought them this far. :roll:

It's a possibility based on current events. Your point made well.

[mr.snruB]

Chingu wrote: Here's a little anology for ya:

You decide you want to build a house. You live in an area that has a challenging climate but you need a safe place to live or you know sooner or later the climate will kill you. So, you start building your house. It rains, teh wind blows and knocks bits of it down. You drop a lot of nails. You accidentally hammer your fingers a few times. You realize you've put a wall up in the wrong place and have to tear it down and start over. You get snowed on and you're freezing but despite all of these hostile and adversarial conditions you see the house being slowly erected. What do you do?

Here's another analogy. You live next to a neighbourhood that has a lot of methlabs. They don't really affect you now, but they could in the future. So you decide to become a vigilante and take some of them out. You buy a gun, go into the neighbourhood, and then invade the home of....the Thompsons, who have no methlab in their home. And while Mr.Thompson is an **** who pisses you off, he didn't threaten you, and now his wife and kids are attacking you. What do you do?

[Somebloke]

mr.snruB wrote: Chingu wrote: Here's a little anology for ya:

You decide you want to build a house. You live in an area that has a challenging climate but you need a safe place to live or you know sooner or later the climate will kill you. So, you start building your house. It rains, teh wind blows and knocks bits of it down. You drop a lot of nails. You accidentally hammer your fingers a few times. You realize you've put a wall up in the wrong place and have to tear it down and start over. You get snowed on and you're freezing but despite all of these hostile and adversarial conditions you see the house being slowly erected. What do you do?

Here's another analogy. You live next to a neighbourhood that has a lot of methlabs. They don't really affect you now, but they could in the future. So you decide to become a vigilante and take some of them out. You buy a gun, go into the neighbourhood, and then invade the home of....the Thompsons, who have no methlab in their home. And while Mr.Thompson is an ***hole who pisses you off, he didn't threaten you, and now his wife and kids are attacking you. What do you do?

True. But to complete your example, Mr. Thompson was a known meth maker, had a history of meth use, and you had heard from good sources that he was back in the meth game.

one must also bear in mind that there are no police forces you can call in here; attempts to form a possie (UN) were met with frustration.

Of course, it doesn't help that you really, really dislike Thompson, and that must have affected your decision a little too much...

[mr.snruB]

Somebloke wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Chingu wrote: Here's a little anology for ya:

You decide you want to build a house. You live in an area that has a challenging climate but you need a safe place to live or you know sooner or later the climate will kill you. So, you start building your house. It rains, teh wind blows and knocks bits of it down. You drop a lot of nails. You accidentally hammer your fingers a few times. You realize you've put a wall up in the wrong place and have to tear it down and start over. You get snowed on and you're freezing but despite all of these hostile and adversarial conditions you see the house being slowly erected. What do you do?

Here's another analogy. You live next to a neighbourhood that has a lot of methlabs. They don't really affect you now, but they could in the future. So you decide to become a vigilante and take some of them out. You buy a gun, go into the neighbourhood, and then invade the home of....the Thompsons, who have no methlab in their home. And while Mr.Thompson is an ***hole who pisses you off, he didn't threaten you, and now his wife and kids are attacking you. What do you do?

True. But to complete your example, Mr. Thompson was a known meth maker, had a history of meth use, and you had heard from good sources that he was back in the meth game.

one must also bear in mind that there are no police forces you can call in here; attempts to form a possie (UN) were met with frustration.

Of course, it doesn't help that you really, really dislike Thompson, and that must have affected your decision a little too much...

Well, I would say that he had a history of meth use, but he had already been confronted and dealt with a decade earlier. And the "good sources" stuff is not true at all

Oh, and "Mr. Thompson tried to kill my father!" :lol: