Finally: A Call To Censure Bush

If only they actually would censure him...

Bush lied but Saddam was a boil that needed lancing. A politician that lies to get a war going is nothing new and sometime the heard needs to be culled to keep the rest strong. Name one good thing Saddam's Iraq was good for? What about 10 years of sanctions that were starving and killing the Iraqi people? If Saddam played along ONCE during that time he would not be imprisoned and his regime crushed. We don't have a say in who lives or dies but we can agree what our enemies should be. Namely, mans inhumanity to man. We are better off without Saddam. He was no innocent, WMD during WW2 Germany were made with decentralized industry under years of air bombardment yet the v-1 and v-2 and other weapons were still made. Now you can have a chem lab in the space the size of a 2 car garage, tell me that isn't hard to hide or dispose of? Look at the lead time to invasion. Years were given to disperse and decentralize production. Iraq was a failed state that was producing nothing but misery and was a mad dog that needed to be shot as the net of the UN and diplomacy failed. War Is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means.

Scape,

Your missing the point. The major issue is not that Saddam is not in power no more thanks to the U.S. Of course in a sense that is welcomed across the world.

The issue is was it done properly? Was the alternatives discussed at the White House? What was their reasons for not going along with the rest of the countries who wanted to give the U.N inspectors a little more time? The U.N has said countless times if Iraq continued to NOT cooperate with the Inspectors they would have went to war. Basically the U.S would have got the o.k by the U.N, which means Canada and all other countries who opposed the war.

Saddam is gone, yes. But the way the war went about is wrong cause it was done against the majority of the leaders across the world and the majority of individuals who morally didn't support this invasion. How anyone can expect that only the U.S and Britain were RIGHT and the rest of the world was wrong in wanting to give the inspectors a little more time is just ridiculous. Come on just look at the U.S war history its all there for anyone to understand how they operate.

Kevin

Also if the the war on Iraq was all about the Iraq people, liberating them bla bla bla. Then what is the problem with giving it all up to the U.N, with other countries getting involved also just cause they support the U.N and not the U.S.?

It would do the Iraqi people more good with the U.N there then having the U.S occupy the country.

Kevin

Well the UN had 10 years to do just that and was no better than a leaky sieve in it's effectiveness with sanctions, food for oil program and no fly zones. The sanctions ended up starving the poorest and weakest people while his palaces and armies were well stocked and supplied. By this the UN has demonstrated that it is not an effective tool to project force when needed for too many of the nations who were supposed to impose the sanctions would have too much to lose when Saddam went under no resolution would pass. Saddam was very adept at doing just enough to give plausible doubt to world bodies like the UN when everyone knew what he was doing. Remember the war heads he was destroying just before the war broke out? Saddam was not taking the UN threats seriously and he could have dragged this on ad infinitum meanwhile a president only has 4 years. So back to your original point of being done 'properly', war is not an act by committee like the UN. War is messy, war is hell and war should be averted at all cost and must be the last possible option. Saddam was not complying, was given plenty of time, was leading to further instability and defiance worldwide, was a mockery of all things civil. Since his regime has been crushed, Libya has stopped it's WMD program and Iran has confessed to the atomic energy commission that it has been cheating. North Africa, and Asia Minor have been made more stable, not less, from this.

Yes and Iraq is now a stable, safe, and prosperous beacon of democracy to the world with all of its cultural treasures intact, where terrorism has nowhere to bloom and women are given a fair say in all decisions, where US soldiers are loved and adored by the thankful populace and tours of duty are fun and easy, where free elections are about to happen. <p> *rolleyes* <P> Well Scape. <P> First, I've been a peace activist since 2001 and that's the first time I've heard the sanctions used as a reason FOR the war. In fact yes, those sanctions weakened the populace and made it possible for Hussein to keep power, rather than strengthening the populace until they could overthrown him. But the sanctions could have been ended at any time without having a war. And you will remember that the US had a lot to do with putting those sanctions in in the first place, after the first Gulf War, and keeping them in. <p> From May 12, 1996 "60 minutes": <P> Lesley Stahl (referring to a 1995 figure): "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?" <P> Madeleine Albright (US ambassador to the United Nations at the time; six months later she became Secretary of State): "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." <p> And how, exactly, are the lives of Iraqi children better now that thousands of people have been killed, wounded, starved, and left without homes, water, and electricity by the US? Can't blame the UN for that one. <P> To point out another hole in your swiss cheese-like arguments, how exactly is North Korea more stable? Have you heard the term "nuclear standoff"? It doesn't generally connote safety and peace. See for just one example <a href="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/76595/1/.html">North Korea pushes back inter-Korean talks over US-South Korea exercise</a> <P> Finally and most obviously, Hussein was always a jerk. A lot of the Iraqi people hated him. <p> But the argument that he was a bad guy is generally used to bolster the problem with the WMD argument, which is that there were no WMDs there. (No idea what you're talking about re him destroying weapons--there were some empty warheads that might have had a little more than the allowed range, if I remember right, which were destroyed in full cooperation with the US--did you mistake those for an actual threat?). If you remember, we were told over and over again that he had WMDs. Why didn't he use them then? Where are they? <P> Well, Hussein was a bad guy so it was still worth it, we're told. Yeah, but Hussein was a jerk in the 80s when the US was his best buddy (because they didn't like Iran). That was when he gassed the Kurds. I wrote a letter to the US President back then, as a kid, about it. <p> So what made it so important to kick him out of power this time? Nothing. He didn't invade anybody. He didn't do anything much different than before. Maybe it was oil. Maybe it was power. Who knows. But it sure wasn't to make Iraq or the world a better place. <p>---<br>Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer <br />

Scape,

We will agree to disagree that the U.S invasion was the only way to deal with Saddam. Its clear you believe it was the only option. I will choose to believe for those who died in the war that their lives could have possibly been saved.

Also you say that the U.N had 10 years to do something about Saddam. Yet you didn't mention the U.S business relationship with Saddam ever since he took power with the help of the U.S. who thought he would be good for their interest in the oil. It wasn't until that business relationship started to change and Saddam wanted to decrease the U.S oil ties, change oil value to the Euro. Then all of a sudden the U.S cared about those people who were dying under Saddam's power. All of a sudden the U.S wanted to liberate the Iraqi people. Not to mention the liberation of the Iraqi people was the second reason behind Iraq having WMD. If the U.N is guilty of not doing something about Saddam for the past few years. Then its also a fact that the U.S should have done something many years ago.

IF Saddam wouldn't have put the pressure that he did near the end, decreasing his oil ties with the U.S, souring the business relationship with the U.S, wanting to change the oil value to Euro. He would still be in power today.

Kevin

Well, Saddam gassed the Kurds and it was farm equipment he used. The department of agriculture was supporting the farm vote under Regan and this was a great way to boost productivity is by selling to an Allie who is on the front lines of the cold war vs Communism. Saddam fought an 8 year war with Iran with help from CIA Intel but the US gave him just enough to stay in the game but not enough to win decisively. The game was to weaken the 2 so they would be too exhausted to bother anyone else. Kinda like letting 2 dogs go at it. After the war Saddam tried to rebuild using oil revenue but Kuwait flooded the oil market, seriously undercutting Saddam's staying power.

From the eyes of the US it was choosing between two allies when it went to war, on the one hand they give Saddam the green light by being politically ambivalent to his aggressive oil claims but to be truthful Saddam struck so quick (2 weeks) that the US was caught off guard. I believe Saddam might of had a chance at this point had he just backed off, but he did not and the US hand was played for them and they made an example of his guard with the 'highway of death'.

The US stayed it's hand at that point for the coalition was about to turn on itself. Had they actually gone to downtown Baghdad the US was not prepared to be in the position to control the Saudis and Iraq at the same time if things turned into a revolt.

US gave Saddam permission to use air power that he used to quickly crush Kurdish opposition that the US was encouraging revolt but not directly supporting it. Then 10 years of sitkreig happens where Saddam basically thumbs his nose at the expense of his people.

Who better a target than one who doesn't have weapons yet. Why would the US take on North Korea as sthompson seems to suggest, when he was primed to be culled. How can you make a possibly badder bad guy than a Stalinist styled dictator that gasses, torturers, and starves his own?

Scape, no one's claiming it was a bad strategic move on the part of the US. What people are saying here is that it's WRONG. It's wrong to justify their move for oil using lies about WMD and giving the Iraqis democracy. It's also wrong to pick one particular dictator who isn't necessarily the worst and invade his country. It's wrong to kill innocent civilians. It's wrong to continue to occupy the country now that Saddam is gone. And it's wrong to give all the restructuring contracts to US corporations. How does THAT help bring a strong and stable economy to Iraq?

To sum it up: invading a country under false pretense is wrong. Whether it was smart stratetgy from a military/economic perspective is irrelevant when discussing the fact that it's illegal and immoral.

-KY



---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

What was wrong was letting it go on so long and just shuffling it under the carpet and not dealing with it. It was relevant and immediate threat, perception is everything and the weakness of the UN were laid bare. No one should think they can use the UN as a diplomatic shield when your not a superpower. Saddam was called out. The threat of anarchy has been addressed directly and with force how could you expect any less? How does having a despot rule Iraq good for anyone? Illegal and immoral? Are you serious? If the Chinese were to have their way you'd be in a sweat shop making sneakers for Walmart working for .06$/hr 12 hrs a day 7 days a week and if you didn't like it they have 200,000 waiting to take your place. Tibet's a nice place I hear and a fine example to those who value laws and morals more important than reality. Laws and morals have no place if they cannot be enforced and saying that it isn't is the real lie.

If the US doesn't believe in morals then it should stop claiming to act in the name of freedom and justice, etc. and should stop using religious imagery. Apparently you and they think might makes right. What a sad world. At least the US should be honest about what they've been up to instead of hiding behind a thin curtain of morality that the rest of the world can see right through.

Scape, you're not listening to peoples' arguments here. I'm not saying it's wrong to enforce international law. I'm saying it's wrong to SELECTIVELY enforce international law when other factors motivate you to do so. And it's wrong to do so under false pretense.

If the US ousted him for the righteous reasons they claim, then why Saddam instead of other dictators?

And if the US was serious about it's claims of seeking democracy and the destruction of WMD, they would be forced to dispose of their own ruling elite and its pseudo-democratic process, not to mention the monopolized media.

To reiterate: I'm not saying it's wrong to be rid of Saddam. I'm saying it's wrong to be rid of Saddam and not other brutal dictators. And I'm saying it's wrong to do so under the banners of democracy, goodwill, and the elimination of WMD when in fact the real motivation was oil.

And one last note: The US's unilateral invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was illegal by international law. Following 9/11, the US instituted laws that are technically illegal by international law. No other country has vetoed as many UN resolutions as the US. The US has been unilaterally invading countries pretty much since WW2. It got its hands bloody in a list of countries too long to name, and probably more through the CIA that the public is completely unaware of. It funds terrorist groups to overthrow dictators and democratically elected leaders again. In many ways, the US is the greatest perpetrator of international crimes. Not to mention it has the largest store of WMD. The only difference between Saddam's regime and the American ruling elite (Rumsfeld et al.) is that Saddam's range has always been limited. Most of his massacres happened in his own country. The US's reach every corner of the globe. Just because they claim to do these things under a banner of righteousness doesn't mean it's true. Was 9/11 not declared righteous by Al Qaida?

-KY

forgot to sign in... that last anonymous post was mine

-KY

---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Not only do you want it all, but you want it all right now. You want law enforced by a political body that will stand idly by bickering over semantics when massacres like Rwanda and Kosovo, and East Timor go unchecked and only does something after the fact. You want Illegal and immoral? Gassing your own people doesn't qualify? Invading and conquering your neighbor isn't illegal? Starving your own people isn't illegal? How does that even begin to compare vs an Enron? Saddam got to make his own rules, so how are you to judge him? Unless you have a huge modern army I don't know about then order will not be enforced on your watch.