NationStates Jolt Archive

This fascinating article, "Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?" is by Norman Geras, professor of government at Manchester university and self-professed Marxist.

It outlines much of what I agree with. That is, the short-sightedness and unthinking oppositionism of the majority of those on the political left with regards to this war. Most of us (on the left) seem to think that because Bush is right-wing and because we oppose most of his policies, then all of his policies must be opposed. Fallacy. Read on.

A Moral Failure
Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?

BY NORMAN GERAS
Monday, August 4, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

This article is adapted from a talk I gave to the Workers' Liberty summer school in London on June 21 under the title "After the Holocaust: Mutual Indifference and Moral Solidarity." To be fair to those who invited me, I should point out that although the views I expressed in this part of the talk met with a perfectly civil reception, they plainly weren't shared by most of the audience.

I want to say something about support for democratic values and basic human rights. We on the left just have it in our bloodstream, do we not, that we are committed to democratic values. And while, for reasons I can't go into here, there are some on the left a bit more reserved about using the language of basic human rights, nonetheless for many of us it was this moral reality, and more especially its negation, that played a part in drawing us in: to protest and work against a world in which people could just be used for the purposes of others, be exploited and superexploited, worked maybe to an early death, in any case across a life of hardship; or be brutalized for organizing to fight to change their situation, be "disappeared," or tortured, or massacred, by regimes upholding an order of inequality--sometimes desperate inequality--and privilege. In our bloodstream.

However, there is also a certain historical past of the left referred to loosely under the name "Stalinism," which forms a massive blot on this commitment and these values, on the great tradition we belong to. I am of the generation--roughly 1960s-vintage, post-Stalinist left--educated in the Trotskyist critique of that whole experience, and in the new expansion and flourishing of an open, multifaceted and pluralist Marxism; educated in the movement against the war in Vietnam, the protests against Augusto Pinochet's murderous coup in Chile, and against the role of the U.S. in both episodes and in more of the same kind. Of a generation that believed that, even though the Western left still bore some signs of continuity with the Stalinist past, this was a dying, an increasingly marginal strand, and that we had put its errors largely behind us. But I fear now it is not so. The same kinds of error--excuses and evasions and out-and-out apologia for political structures, practices or movements no socialist should have a word to say for--are still with us. They afflict many even without any trace of a Stalinist past or a Stalinist political formation.

I obviously don't have the time or space here to rehearse all of the relevant arguments. I will confine myself to sketching some important features of the broad picture as I see it.



On Sept. 11, 2001, there was, in the U.S., a massacre of innocents. There's no other acceptable way of putting this: some 3,000 people (and, as anyone can figure, it could have been many more) struck down by an act of mass murder without any possible justification, an act of gross moral criminality. What was the left's response? In fact, this goes well beyond the left if what is meant by that is people and organizations of socialist persuasion. It included a wide sector of liberal opinion as well. Still, I shall just speak here, for short, of the left. The response on the part of much of it was excuse and apologia.

At best you might get some lip service paid to the events of September 11 having been, well, you know, unfortunate--the preliminary "yes" before the soon-to-follow "but" (or, as Christopher Hitchens has called it, "throat clearing"). And then you'd get all the stuff about root causes, deep grievances, the role of U.S. foreign policy in creating these; and a subtext, or indeed text, whose meaning was America's comeuppance. This was not a discourse worthy of a democratically committed or principled left, and the would-be defense of it by its proponents, that they were merely trying to explain and not to excuse what happened, was itself a pathetic excuse. If any of the root-cause and grievance themes truly had been able to account for what happened on September 11, you'd have a hard time understanding why, say, the Chileans after that earlier September 11 (I mean of 1973), or other movements fighting against oppression and injustice, have not resorted to the random mass murder of civilians.

Why this miserable response? In a nutshell, it was a displacement of the left's most fundamental values by a misguided strategic choice, namely, opposition to the U.S., come what may. This dictated the apologetic mumbling about the mass murder of U.S. citizens, and it dictated that the U.S. must be opposed in what it was about to do in hitting back at al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.

Something similar has now been repeated over the war in Iraq. I could just about have "got inside" the view--though it wasn't my view--that the war to remove Saddam Hussein's regime should not be supported. Neither Washington nor Baghdad--maybe. But opposition to the war--the marching, the petition-signing, the oh-so-knowing derision of George W. Bush, and so forth--meant one thing very clearly. Had this campaign succeeded in its goal and actually prevented the war it was opposed to, the life of the Baathist regime would have been prolonged, with all that that entailed: years more (how many years more?) of the rape rooms, the torture chambers, the children's jails and the mass graves recently uncovered.

This was the result that hundreds of thousands of people marched to secure. Well, speaking for myself, comrades, there I draw the line. Not one step.



Let me now focus on the question of humanitarian intervention. There is a long tradition in the literature of international law that although national sovereignty is an important consideration in world affairs, it is not sacrosanct. If a government treats its own people with terrible brutality, massacring them and such like, there is a right of humanitarian intervention by outside powers. The introduction of the offense of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trial after World War II implied a similar constraint on the sovereign authority of states. There are limits upon them. They cannot just brutalize their own nationals with impunity, violate their fundamental human rights.

Is there then, today, a right of humanitarian intervention under international law? The question is disputed. Some authorities argue that the U.N. Charter rules it out absolutely. War is permissible only in self-defense. However, others see a contradiction between this reading of the charter and the charter's underwriting of binding human-rights norms. Partly because the matter is disputed, I will not here base myself on a legal right of humanitarian intervention. I will simply say that irrespective of the state of international law, in extreme enough circumstances there is a moral right of humanitarian intervention. This is why what the Vietnamese did in Cambodia to remove Pol Pot should have been supported at the time, the state of international law notwithstanding, and ditto for the removal of Idi Amin by the Tanzanians. Likewise, with regard to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq: It was a case crying out for support for an intervention to bring the regime finally to an end.

Just think for a moment about the argument that this recent war was illegal. That something is illegal does not itself carry moral weight unless legality as such carries moral weight, and legality carries moral weight only conditionally. It depends on the particular law in question, on the system of law of which it is a part, and on the kind of social and ethical order it upholds. An international law--and an international system--according to which a government is free to go on raping, murdering and torturing its own nationals to the tune of tens upon tens, upon more tens, of thousands of deaths without anything being done to stop it, so much the worse for this as law. It is law that needs to be criticized, opposed and changed. It needs to be moved forward--which happens in this domain by precedent and custom as well as by transnational treaty and convention.

I am fully aware in saying this that the present U.S. administration has made itself an obstacle in various ways to the development of a more robust and comprehensive framework of international law. But the thing cuts both ways. The war to depose Saddam Hussein and his criminal regime was not of a piece with that. It didn't have to be opposed by all the forces that did in fact oppose it. It could, on the contrary, have been supported--by France and Germany and Russia and the U.N., and by a mass democratic movement of global civil society. Just think about that. Just think about the kind of precedent it would have set for other genocidal, or even just lavishly murderous, dictatorships--instead of all those processions of shame across the world's cities, and whose success would have meant the continued abandonment of the Iraqi people.

It is, in any event, such realities--the brutalizing and murder by the Baathist regime of tens upon tens of thousands of its own nationals--that the recent war has brought to an end. It should have been supported for this reason, irrespective of the reasons (concerning weapons of mass destruction) that George Bush and Tony Blair put up front themselves; though it is disingenuous of the war's critics to speak now as if the humanitarian case for war formed no part of the public rationale of the Coalition, since it was clearly articulated by both the president and the prime minister more than once.

Here is one approximate measure of the barbarities of the Baathist regime I have just referred to. It comes not from the Pentagon, or anyone in the Bush administration, or from Tony Blair or those around him. It comes from Human Rights Watch. According to Human Rights Watch, during 23 years of Saddam's rule some 290,000 Iraqis disappeared into the regime's deadly maw, the majority of these reckoned to be now dead. Rounding this number down by as much as 60,000 to compensate for the "reckoned to be," that is 230,000. It is 10,000 a year. It is 200 people every week. And I'll refrain from embellishing with details, which you should all know, as to exactly how a lot of these people died.

Had the opposition to the war succeeded, this is what it would have postponed--and postponed indefinitely--bringing to an end. This is how almost the whole international left expressed its moral solidarity with the Iraqi people. Worse still, some sections of the left seemed none too bothered about making common cause with, marching alongside, fundamentalist religious bigots and known racists; and there were also those who dismissed Iraqi voices in support of the war as coming from American stooges--a disgraceful lie.



Let's now model this abstractly. You have a course of action with mixed consequences, both good consequences and bad consequences. To decide sensibly you obviously have to weigh the good against the bad. Imagine someone advising, with respect to some decision you have to make, "Let's only think about the good consequences," or, "Let's merely concentrate on the bad consequences." What?! It's a no-brainer, as the expression now is. But from beginning to end something pretty much like this has been the approach of the war's opponents. I offer a few examples.

The crassest are the statements by supposedly mature people--one of these Clare Short, Britain's former international development secretary, another the novelist Julian Barnes--that this war was not worth the loss of a single life. Not one? So much for the victims of the rape rooms and the industrial shredders, for the children tortured and murdered in front of their parents, and for those parents. So much for those Human Rights Watch estimates and for the future flow of the regime's victims had it been left in place.

More generally, since the fall of Baghdad critics of the war have been pointing (many of them with relish) at everything that has gone, or remains, wrong in Iraq: the looting, the lack of civil order, the continuing violence and shootings, the patchy electricity supply, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. Is this fair enough? Yes and no. Yes, because it has to be part of any balanced assessment. But also no if it isn't set against the fact, the massive fact, of the end of a regime of torture, oppression and murder, of everything that has stopped happening since the regime fell. And typically it isn't set against this massive fact. This fact is passed over or tucked away, because to acknowledge it fully and make a balanced assessment won't come out right for the war's critics. It just won't stack up--this, this and, yes, also this, but against the end of all that--in the way they'd like it to.

Or else your antiwar interlocutor will freely concede that of course we all agree it is a good that that monster and his henchmen no longer govern Iraq; but it is too stupid a point to dwell upon, for it doesn't touch on the issue dividing us, support or not for the war (on grounds of weapons of mass destruction, international law, U.S. foreign policy, the kitchen sink). Er, yes it does. No one is entitled simply to help himself to the "of course, we all agree" neutralization of what was and remains an absolutely crucial consideration in favor of the war. One has properly to integrate it into an overall, and conscientiously weighted, balance sheet of both good and bad consequences.

The same ploy from a different angle: Since the fall of Baghdad there have been voices--both Iraqi voices and those of Western critics of the war--calling for the immediate departure from Iraq of American and British forces. One can certainly discuss this as a proposition. Would it be better for Iraq and its people or worse, such an immediate or early withdrawal? Personally, I doubt that it would be better. Indeed, it would likely spell disaster of one kind or another. From more than one survey of Iraqi opinion I've seen, it is the view also of many Iraqis that there should be no withdrawal for the time being, until the consolidation of an Iraqi administration. But note, anyway, that the call for a prompt withdrawal is not a call to restore the Baathist regime to power. No, it just starts from where things are now, with the regime gone. That is to say, it starts from a better starting point than would otherwise have been in place. And this is a good (but not properly acknowledged) achieved by American and British arms.

If war opponents can't eliminate the inconvenient side of the balance, they denature it. The liberation of Iraq from Saddam's tyranny can't have been a good, because of those who effected it and of their obviously bad foreign-policy record: Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua and the rest. It can't therefore have been a liberation. Even allowing the premise to go unchallenged--which in point of fact I don't, since recent U.S. and British foreign policy also has achievements to its credit: evicting the Iraqis from Kuwait, intervening in Kosovo, intervening in Sierra Leone, getting rid of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan--it is a plain fallacy. A person with a bad record is capable of doing good. There were some anti-Semitic rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. This argumentative move just fixes the nature of the act via a presumption about those who are responsible for it, sparing one the necessity of examining the act for what it actually brings about and of assessing this in its own right. It's a bit like saying that because the guy who returned me the expensive book he'd borrowed has previously stolen things from others--you can fill in the rest yourself, and yes, it's silly.

Last and worst here. If the balance doesn't come out how you want it to, you hope for things to change so that the balance will adjust in your favor. In the case under consideration, this is a perilous moral and political impulse. When the war began, a division of opinion was soon evident among its opponents, between those who wanted a speedy outcome--in other words, a victory for the coalition forces, for that is all a speedy outcome could realistically have meant--and those who did not. These latter preferred that the coalition forces should suffer reverses, get bogged down, and you know the story: stalemate, quagmire, Stalingrad scenario in Baghdad and so forth, leading to a U.S. and British withdrawal. But what these critics of the war thereby wished for was a spectacular triumph for the regime in Baghdad, since that is what a withdrawal would have been. So much for solidarity with the victims of oppression, for commitment to democratic values and basic human rights.



Similarly today, with all those who seem so to relish every new difficulty, every setback for U.S. forces: What they align themselves with is a future of prolonged hardship and suffering for the Iraqi people, whether via an actual rather than imagined quagmire, a ruinous civil war, or the return (out of either) of some new and ghastly political tyranny; rather than a rapid stabilization and democratization of the country, promising its inhabitants an early prospect of national normalization. That is caring more to have been right than for a decent outcome for the people of this long-unfortunate country.

Such impulses have displayed themselves very widely across left and liberal opinion in recent months. Why? For some, because what the U.S. government and its allies do, whatever they do, has to be opposed--and opposed however thuggish and benighted the forces which this threatens to put your antiwar critic into close company with. For some, because of an uncontrollable animus towards George W. Bush and his administration. For some, because of a one-eyed perspective on international legality and its relation to issues of international justice and morality.

Whatever the case or the combination, it has produced a calamitous compromise of the core values of socialism, or liberalism or both, on the part of thousands of people who claim attachment to them. You have to go back to the apologias for, and fellow-traveling with, the crimes of Stalinism to find as shameful a moral failure of liberal and left opinion as in the wrongheaded--and too often, in the circumstances, sickeningly smug--opposition to the freeing of the Iraqi people from one of the foulest regimes on the planet.

Mr. Geras is a professor of government at the University of Manchester. His books include "The Contract of Mutual Indifference: Political Philosophy after the Holocaust" (1998) and "Solidarity in the Conversation of Humankind: The Ungroundable Liberalism of Richard Rorty" (1995), both published by Verso. He writes at normangeras.blogspot.com.

Italics mine.

Source (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003834)

its how they did it that is the problem,
barging in, guns blazing, managing to take a few extra blues with you. is the american way.

Just ask him then enforce it and so on.

[not sarc]

Very interesting read.

Good read. I respect this man.

I've got a lot respect for you, too. ;)

I've been wondering when someone would say something like this for a while. I only skimmed the article, and I'm not a Marxist, but I'm certainly a leftist. And I supported the war beforehand. My objections to it afterwards have all been in terms of implementation, strategy, and method: the Rumsfeld doctrine is bullshit, and lying or at the least vaguely deiceiving the American public isn't cool either. I'm glad I'm not the only person on the left who feels this way.

I've been wondering when someone would say something like this for a while. I only skimmed the article, and I'm not a Marxist, but I'm certainly a leftist. And I supported the war beforehand.

My objections to it afterwards have all been in terms of implementation, strategy, and method: the Rumsfeld doctrine is bullshit, and lying or at the least vaguely deiceiving the American public isn't cool either.

I'm glad I'm not the only person on the left who feels this way.
It certainly has not been perfect. I don't agree with everything that has been done. I am especially pissed at the abuses of human rights in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the American practice of outsourcing their torture to less scrutinised allied states.

What's the Rumsfeld doctrine?
It was unfortunate that the public had to be lied to, but back then, who would have accepted a war just to save the Iraqis from their own government? It was necessary that a self-defence clause be involved, even if it was semi-invented.

From spending time with my friends who are on the left, their thinking about world politics is insufferably simplistic and parochial. I have really learned that most people on both the right and left are just morons, when it comes to politics.

Another leftist who supports the Iraq war is the journalist Christopher Hitchens.

Good read. I respect this man.

I've got a lot respect for you, too. ;)
Shamone! It's hard to be pro-Iraq war. I've never told anyone in real life.

its how they did it that is the problem,
barging in, guns blazing, managing to take a few extra blues with you. is the american way.

Just ask him then enforce it and so on.

[not sarc]
Unfortunately the dozens of UN resolutions thrown at Saddam were having no effect. Sometimes it is really necessary to use an evil (i.e. violence) in order to defeat an even greater evil (genocidal dictatorship, in this case). It's not nice, but the alternative is worse.

It certainly has not been perfect. I don't agree with everything that has been done. I am especially pissed at the abuses of human rights in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the American practice of outsourcing their torture to less scrutinised allied states.
I agree. That's terrible. So's the Federal Marriage Amendment. But that doesn't mean that everything the Bush administration does is bad, or that they're evil incarnate, as the most simplistic leftists tend to believe.

What's the Rumsfeld doctrine?
That the military should use less soldiers in its operations and focus more on technological innovation. This fails miserably to understand the way insurgencies work. Having cooler missiles doesn't make up for the fact that we didn't put enough troops in Iraq to effectively control every region of the country.

It was unfortunate that the public had to be lied to, but back then, who would have accepted a war just to save the Iraqis from their own government? It was necessary that a self-defence clause be involved, even if it was semi-invented.
The ends don't justify the means here. Government cannot lie to its people in such a case. Surely you don't think that another Gulf of Tonkin resolution would be tolerable?

If our government has a humanitarian philosophy in terms of foreign policy, I damn well want to hear it. I want to know why my government does what it does. Otherwise, they're no longer an elected accountable government - as long as we don't know why they're doing things, we don't know whether to support them or not.

From spending time with my friends who are on the left, their thinking about world politics is insufferably simplistic and parochial. I have really learned that most people on both the right and left are just morons, when it comes to politics.
The worst of the left is almost as bad as the worst of the right. It sometimes is embarassing to share some of the same positions.

This fascinating article, "Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?" is by Norman Geras, professor of government at Manchester university and self-professed Marxist.

It outlines much of what I agree with. That is, the short-sightedness and unthinking oppositionism of the majority of those on the political left with regards to this war. Most of us (on the left) seem to think that because Bush is right-wing and because we oppose most of his policies, then all of his policies must be opposed. Fallacy. Read on.



Italics mine.

Source (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003834)

Swimmingpool,

Though we don't always agree on everything, you have posted a great article. Thank you very much for posting it my friend.

*And this coming from a person who is on the right*

Now, I don't see how him being a "Leftist" allows him to make generalising statements about "leftists" who for whatever reason didn't fall in line quickly enough.
The only way you can possibly be for a better world with human rights and freedom is to support the Roman Empire of our time?
Right now, many, if not most, Iraqis believe they were better off before the war. I'm not gonna go into the same arguing he pointed out in his article, suffice to say that I'm not keen on torture chambers either.
And yet, if one believes in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, wouldn't that suggest that it is "better" to have a few suffer rather than the entire country (acknowledging torture is worse than not having basic services, but in my opinion the numbers make it)?
And as a rule, can one allow the US to attack a sovereign nation, on whatever basis, or does one set a precedent for worse things to come?
Additionally, calling Saddam "genocidal" is a bit of a stretch. He fought people that rose up against him (be they right or wrong). In his country, those people happened to be Shias and Kurds rather than Sunnis. I doubt his aim was though to wipe out all Shias and Kurds from the face of the planet.

Finally I want to say that human rights abuses or torture chambers were not the reason for the war, merely a "convenient" second justification as the original one was proven false (and yes, he may have had anthrax in a ditch, but the issue was that he would use WMDs against Americans and others).

So all in all, this is a fairly standard post-war pro-war argument, supposed to somehow carry more weight because the author may be a "leftist".

I agree. That's terrible. So's the Federal Marriage Amendment. But that doesn't mean that everything the Bush administration does is bad, or that they're evil incarnate, as the most simplistic leftists tend to believe.
I agree. Actions must be judged by their own merits, not by the people committing them.

That the military should use less soldiers in its operations and focus more on technological innovation. This fails miserably to understand the way insurgencies work. Having cooler missiles doesn't make up for the fact that we didn't put enough troops in Iraq to effectively control every region of the country.

That is a Cold War way of thinking. I agree, having coll missiles to scare the USSR may have worked in the 1980s, but the challenges are different now.

The ends don't justify the means here. Government cannot lie to its people in such a case. Surely you don't think that another Gulf of Tonkin resolution would be tolerable?

If our government has a humanitarian philosophy in terms of foreign policy, I damn well want to hear it. I want to know why my government does what it does. Otherwise, they're no longer an elected accountable government - as long as we don't know why they're doing things, we don't know whether to support them or not.
Your points are good. I didn't say that lying to everyone was right, but for the Bush admin it was necessary.

That is a Cold War way of thinking. I agree, having coll missiles to scare the USSR may have worked in the 1980s, but the challenges are different now.
And they pretend that it's the "new way of warfare," and justify it by saying massive armies are cumbersome. Except that they function more like several smaller armies in insurgency suppression.

Your points are good. I didn't say that lying to everyone was right, but for the Bush admin it was necessary.
Why, though? Just curious as to why you believe the lying was justified given the precedent it sets.

I'll admit, I didn't read the article, I did quick-read the main ideas though. Quit trying to justify the Iraq War, we just attacked a nation for a threat that may or may not of existed, at the time. Actually, Bush's war reminds me of events in the Islam end-of-the-world thing, and frankly, I'm starting to beleive 'em. Several other religions ranging from the Maya to the Hindus (They think it's soon, just not sure when) think the world will end soon, so uhh...

Just because I don't support the war doesn't mean that I support Saddam Hussein or wanted to see his regime saved. I would have supported the war if;

1. The primary excuse for going to war wasn't a blatant lie.
2. The US had in the past shown its committment to democracy, even when not on its terms or best interests.
3. The support of the majority of the Iraqi population could be counted upon to quickly overthrow the regime as bloodlessly as possible and without causing the country to spiral into anarchy.

None of these preconditions were met.

Did anyone against the war truly support Saddam Hussein?

Did anyone against the war truly support Saddam Hussein?

Comical Ali. :p

I don't mind that Saddam was in in power, nor do I mind that he isn't now, just I don't like the threat of Islamic nations banding together and killing us. If that wasn't there, and we weren't total dicks about it, kill saddam all you want!

Why, though? Just curious as to why you believe the lying was justified given the precedent it sets.
Well, it enabled the US to go to war to depose Saddam Hussein, but you're right in that it sets a nightmarish Orwellian precedent. Something to think about.

Just because I don't support the war doesn't mean that I support Saddam Hussein or wanted to see his regime saved. I would have supported the war if;

1. The primary excuse for going to war wasn't a blatant lie.
2. The US had in the past shown its committment to democracy, even when not on its terms or best interests.
3. The support of the majority of the Iraqi population could be counted upon to quickly overthrow the regime as bloodlessly as possible and without causing the country to spiral into anarchy.

None of these preconditions were met.
I'm not saying that war opponents supported Hussein actively; rather, their unwillingness to support the overthrow of his regime meant that they supported him in effect.

1. I agree that the reasons to go to war were not true, but I'm willing to live with that if it means the end of Hussein's regime. Read this extract from the article:

It is, in any event, such realities--the brutalizing and murder by the Baathist regime of tens upon tens of thousands of its own nationals--that the recent war has brought to an end. It should have been supported for this reason, irrespective of the reasons (concerning weapons of mass destruction) that George Bush and Tony Blair put up front themselves.

2. I agree that the US has a bad record on this, such as Iran, 1953 and Chile, 1973. But also consider Germany and Japan, 1945.

3. Could you give me proof that the overthrow of the regime was opposed by the majority of Iraqis?
bloodlessly - Actually the Iraq war has been rather bloodless when you consider past wars like this. Only 1660 US soldiers and 14,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. In Vietnam, the US lost 58,000 soldiers and three million Vietnamese civilians were killed. In WWII, the US lost 420,000 soldiers and tens of millions of people were killed. (In the 1944 liberation of France alone, over 25,000 French civilians were killed; in the 1945 Dresden bombing, 135,000 Germans were killed.)

Iraq has also not spiralled into anarchy. The only part of the country that could be remotely described in this way is the Sunni triangle. Most of the country is alright.

1. Now, I don't see how him being a "Leftist" allows him to make generalising statements about "leftists" who for whatever reason didn't fall in line quickly enough.

2. The only way you can possibly be for a better world with human rights and freedom is to support the Roman Empire of our time?

3. Right now, many, if not most, Iraqis believe they were better off before the war.

4. I'm not gonna go into the same arguing he pointed out in his article, suffice to say that I'm not keen on torture chambers either.

5. And yet, if one believes in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, wouldn't that suggest that it is "better" to have a few suffer rather than the entire country (acknowledging torture is worse than not having basic services, but in my opinion the numbers make it)?

6. And as a rule, can one allow the US to attack a sovereign nation, on whatever basis, or does one set a precedent for worse things to come?

7. Additionally, calling Saddam "genocidal" is a bit of a stretch. He fought people that rose up against him (be they right or wrong). In his country, those people happened to be Shias and Kurds rather than Sunnis. I doubt his aim was though to wipe out all Shias and Kurds from the face of the planet.

8. Finally I want to say that human rights abuses or torture chambers were not the reason for the war, merely a "convenient" second justification as the original one was proven false (and yes, he may have had anthrax in a ditch, but the issue was that he would use WMDs against Americans and others).

9. So all in all, this is a fairly standard post-war pro-war argument, supposed to somehow carry more weight because the author may be a "leftist".
1. Is it incorrect that most on the left are against the war? I know of no left-wing organisation, other than the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Party (PUK), that supported the Iraq war.

2. No, but when the alternative is to leave a dictator Hussein in power, the evils of the United States are easier to tolerate.

3. Proof?

4. Yet you would have left them open, under Saddam's regime.

5. Saddam's crimes against humanity were too great to justify this argument. To make a historical comparison, the majority of Germans were not being tortured and killed by the Nazi regime in the 1930s, but deposing Hitler was still justified.

6. I agree with this one, but I don't see how it is really consequential. This isn't the first time the US has engaged in regime change. It probably won't be the last.

7. No, it's not a stretch.

Here is one approximate measure of the barbarities of the Baathist regime I have just referred to. It comes not from the Pentagon, or anyone in the Bush administration, or from Tony Blair or those around him. It comes from Human Rights Watch. According to Human Rights Watch, during 23 years of Saddam's rule some 290,000 Iraqis disappeared into the regime's deadly maw, the majority of these reckoned to be now dead. Rounding this number down by as much as 60,000 to compensate for the "reckoned to be," that is 230,000.

There was also Hussein's terrible 1980-88 war against Iran which killed over one million Iranians. (Using American weapons, it must be said.)

8. They were not the official reason for the war, but regime change is the reason I support it.

9. It's one of the better, more articulate, sensible and non-sensationalist arguments I've seen. The fact that the author is on the left does not mean it inherently carries more weight. I posted it because I agree with it, and partially, I suppose, to destroy the notion that everyone on the left is against the deposition of the Hussein regime.

Just because I don't support the war doesn't mean that I support Saddam Hussein or wanted to see his regime saved. I would have supported the war if;

1. The primary excuse for going to war wasn't a blatant lie.
2. The US had in the past shown its committment to democracy, even when not on its terms or best interests.
3. The support of the majority of the Iraqi population could be counted upon to quickly overthrow the regime as bloodlessly as possible and without causing the country to spiral into anarchy.

None of these preconditions were met.
You have raised 3 excellent points that should not be lost on those that opposed the war.

Bush's foreign polcies are largely based on two bad ideas that will haunt America in the future: Pre-Emptive Strike and Ex Post Facto Justification/Rationalization. The world will see what I mean when other nations start adopting these ideas just because America is doing it.

Well, I did read the whole article and I put it down to intellectual snobbery.

For the author to suggest that those on the left that opposed the war on Iraq have failed "morally" (from his perspective), results in the collapse of his argument(s).

Actually, his argument was lost from the getgo with the title:

A Moral Failure
Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?

Does the author really think that the left was trying to "save Saddam Hussein"? Give me a break!!

When looking back on the whole history of Saddam's rise to power to his eventually capture there is a lot of complicity by western nations, especially by the US. It is not a pretty picture.

Has the ends justified the means? IMHO, it is just that much more complicated, and I believe a dangerous miscalculation.

Bush's foreign polcies are largely based on two bad ideas that will haunt America in the future: Pre-Emptive Strike and Ex Post Facto Justification/Rationalization. The world will see what I mean when other nations start adopting these ideas just because America is doing it.
I agree with you, especially now that the UN has been furthered weakened by the USS Enterprise.

The reason that the left did not scream for the removal of Saddam is the same reason that they are not screaming for the removal of Bob Mugabe. It's the same reason they don't boycott companies like DeBeers.

You know why there's all this talk lately about the decision to invade Iraq, whether it was right or wrong?

Because that way it keeps our collective minds from making the decision whether to OCCUPY Iraq for indefinite amounts of time.

The reason that the left did not scream for the removal of Saddam is the same reason that they are not screaming for the removal of Bob Mugabe. It's the same reason they don't boycott companies like DeBeers.
Please explain?

We're a bunch of moral-less degenerates obviously. I would have you note however that no-one else is really doing what Ravenshrike advocates either. Well, I boycott deBeers but that's because I'm skint.

I would have supported the war HAD IT BEEN BASED ON GOOD GROUNDS. As it was, I was fairly sure the WMD were BS before we even went over the borders. If you fail to give good reason for your actions, don't be surprised if I oppose you.

Proof?
Maybe I got ahead of myself there. I'm near my download limit, and I'm short on time too (i've got an exam tomorrow) and so I haven't found anything useful yet.
It is a common sense though that someone who wasn't a dissident and wasn't hunted by the regime (which probably was the majority of the population - think of the logistics...) probably had it better before the war than now, being scared of bomb attacks, no electricity and so on.
Whether he would say it in an opinion poll is a different matter...


Saddam's crimes against humanity were too great to justify this argument. To make a historical comparison, the majority of Germans were not being tortured and killed by the Nazi regime in the 1930s, but deposing Hitler was still justified.
Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a cynical thing to say, but apart from the Jewish population and a number of dissidents, the majority of Germans had a reasonably good life under Hitler (apart from the bombs).
The justification for declaring war on Germany was mainly national interest (an maybe some people who believed the very few stories about the Holocaust before they actually found out about it).


7. No, it's not a stretch.
But as you have shown, there were many people killed, but it's not race-specific. Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were all killed when they disagreed.
Genocide means however that he'd have to have had a grudge against a certain type of people and that he therefore would have started a campaign to eradicate all Kurds from the planet.
A mass murderer, yes, genocidal, no. It's not much of a difference, yet calling him genocidal carries a lot of emotional and subconscious weight which in this case is misplaced.

I agree with you, especially now that the UN has been furthered weakened by the USS Enterprise.

Which USS Enterprise are you talking about? CV6 or the Nuclear powered one?

The world will see what I mean when other nations start adopting these ideas just because America is doing it.
It's not really a new thing. In March-December 1971, there was a revolution in East Pakistan against rule from Karachi. The Pakistani Army, dominated by West Pakistanis, began a campaign of brutal crackdown on the revolutionaries. Many thousands were killed and millions were made refugees. In December, the Indian army intervened on behalf of the Bengali revolutionaries and stopped the Pakistani crackdown. The Pakistani Army surrendered on 16th December. Bangladesh became independent on 17th December 1971.

In December 1978, the Army of Vietnam invaded Cambodia, toppling one of the worst regimes of the century, which had killed two million people. The Vietnamese captured Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979 and deposing the Khmer Rouge regime. Despite Cambodians' traditional fear of Vietnamese domination, the Vietnamese invaders were assisted by widespread defections of Khmer Rouge activists, who formed the core of the post-Khmer Rouge government.

Humanitarian intervention is really nothing new.

Actually, his argument was lost from the getgo with the title:

A Moral Failure
Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?

Does the author really think that the left was trying to "save Saddam Hussein"? Give me a break!!
Objectively, the anti-war marchers were marching to save Hussein. If they had got their way, Saddam would still be in power. I know that no true leftist supported Hussein in his heart, but in his actions, he did, however unintentionally.

When looking back on the whole history of Saddam's rise to power to his eventually capture there is a lot of complicity by western nations, especially by the US. It is not a pretty picture.
It's irrelevant. The opportunity was presented to get rid of Hussein. Does it really matter that it was America, which supported Hussein in the past, that was doing the regime change? I agree that America's support for Hussein should not be forgotten, but at the same time, I don't think "the Iraq war is wrong because America supported him in the past" is a valid reason.

Actions should be judged on their merits, not on who is doing them. It is possible for evil people or evil entities (such as America) to do good things from time to time.

You know why there's all this talk lately about the decision to invade Iraq, whether it was right or wrong?

Because that way it keeps our collective minds from making the decision whether to OCCUPY Iraq for indefinite amounts of time.
Good point. My position is one of supporting medium-term occupation (no, not colonialism). A pull-out soon might destabilise the country.

I would have supported the war HAD IT BEEN BASED ON GOOD GROUNDS. As it was, I was fairly sure the WMD were BS before we even went over the borders. If you fail to give good reason for your actions, don't be surprised if I oppose you.
I agree that Bush and Blair failed to give a good reason for their actions, but that doesn't mean that no good reason existed. I am referring to the toppling of the Hussein regime. That's a good reason for the action.

It is a common sense though that someone who wasn't a dissident and wasn't hunted by the regime (which probably was the majority of the population - think of the logistics...) probably had it better before the war than now, being scared of bomb attacks, no electricity and so on.
Whether he would say it in an opinion poll is a different matter...

I'm sorry, but your 'common sense' argument does not hold up. It's true that most Iraqis had a decent enough life under Saddam (well, those who were not among the hundreds of thousands whose children starved to death in the 1990s), but it's not as if bombs are going off daily everywhere in Iraq. The violence is concentrated in the Sunni triangle. Most of Iraq is relatively calm. New infrastructure is being built all the time.

Also, the high turnout for the elections, even among those threatened with death, would suggest that Iraqis are not afraid to express their opinions.


Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a cynical thing to say, but apart from the Jewish population and a number of dissidents, the majority of Germans had a reasonably good life under Hitler (apart from the bombs).

The justification for declaring war on Germany was mainly national interest (an maybe some people who believed the very few stories about the Holocaust before they actually found out about it).

Oh yeah, those bombs - we were dropping them.

The reason for the Iraq war was also national interest (oil, strategic location), but I support it for its effect of removing Hussein and installing a democracy. Just as the invasion of Europe in 1944 was good because it removed Hitler's regime.

But as you have shown, there were many people killed, but it's not race-specific. Sunnis, Shias and Kurds were all killed when they disagreed.

Genocide means however that he'd have to have had a grudge against a certain type of people and that he therefore would have started a campaign to eradicate all Kurds from the planet.

A mass murderer, yes, genocidal, no. It's not much of a difference, yet calling him genocidal carries a lot of emotional and subconscious weight which in this case is misplaced.
The Al-Anfal campaign leaves me with an impression that he would have liked to get rid of the Kurds. However, luckily Saddam didn't have the power that Hitler did to execute his desires. For example, it would have required an invasion of Turkey and a few other countries.

But alright, he was a mass-murderer. It's just as bad to me, and my argument still stands.

Bremers orders make clear what this administration really went to war with Iraq for.

Saying that oppsing the war in Iraq was somehow supporting and supposedly even trying to save Hussein makes your argument worth less and less the more you keep saying it.

Last thing I want to note: No matter what your opinion is, you are always going to be able to find something to back up your opinion. It's useless to debate whether going to war was right or not at this point.

Bremers orders make clear what this administration really went to war with Iraq for.
I know what the admin went into Iraq for. It was oil. In the Middle East, it's almost always about oil. Sometimes it's also about Israel.

Saying that opposing the war in Iraq was somehow supporting and supposedly even trying to save Hussein makes your argument worth less and less the more you keep saying it.
What does it make it worthless? Opposing the war was, subjective opinions aside, the same as supporting the existence of the Saddam regime.

Last thing I want to note: No matter what your opinion is, you are always going to be able to find something to back up your opinion. It's useless to debate whether going to war was right or not at this point.
So basically, because you can't think of any arguments to refute me, you declare my sources invalid and the argument redundant.

How does one refute an opinion? :confused: :confused: :confused:

You can go ahead and bitch and moan about your fellow lefties not having the same view as you about the war in Iraq and condemn us all as Saddam loving terrorist sympathizers for all I care. Yes the argument is redundant and I'm tired of going in circles with it as it isn't goign to go anywhere. Do whatever you need to do to make yourself feel good about yoru support of the war (even though you will only admit it on an internet forum yet apparently you will not come clean about it with your friends).

How does one refute an opinion? :confused: :confused: :confused:

You can go ahead and bitch and moan about your fellow lefties not having the same view as you about the war in Iraq and condemn us all as Saddam loving terrorist sympathizers for all I care. Yes the argument is redundant and I'm tired of going in circles with it as it isn't goign to go anywhere. Do whatever you need to do to make yourself feel good about yoru support of the war (even though you will only admit it on an internet forum yet apparently you will not come clean about it with your friends).

Hear Hear!

Bremers orders make clear what this administration really went to war with Iraq for.
I agree with you 100%. I wonder how many people know about Bremer's Orders and the far reaching affect that they have not only on the economics of Iraq but the social environment.

Saying that oppsing the war in Iraq was somehow supporting and supposedly even trying to save Hussein makes your argument worth less and less the more you keep saying it.
The article was poorly conceived and was designed to (intellectually) embarass those who opposed the war. The article was based on sensationalism at best and fails to fully rationalize the politics of the situation.

Last thing I want to note: No matter what your opinion is, you are always going to be able to find something to back up your opinion. It's useless to debate whether going to war was right or not at this point.
On this I disagree. The critics should never remain silent, lest it encourages the perpetrators of this illegal. immoral war, to continue with their agenda. The opposition would love for the dissidents to remain silent. Public opinion is that this war was wrong and no that doesn't mean we love Saddam or his brand of politics either, despite what the author may think.

I know what the admin went into Iraq for. It was oil. In the Middle East, it's almost always about oil. Sometimes it's also about Israel.
WOW, I can agree with you on both of these points. You can't see anything wrong with this picture?

Unfortunately, this lust for oil and power has cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis (depending on the measurement tools), has resulted in devestation of the infastructure of Iraq, has turned Iraq into a recruitment centre for terrorists, has cost the US taxpayers over $176 Billion, and has tarnished America's image.

What does it make it worthless? Opposing the war was, subjective opinions aside, the same as supporting the existence of the Saddam regime.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Change may have been necessary, but it was achieved in the wrong manner and ultimately for the wrong reasons.

WOW, I can agree with you on both of these points. You can't see anything wrong with this picture?

Unfortunately, this lust for oil and power has cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis (depending on the measurement tools), has resulted in devestation of the infastructure of Iraq, has turned Iraq into a recruitment centre for terrorists, has cost the US taxpayers over $176 Billion, and has tarnished America's image.


I couldn't disagree with you more. Change may have been necessary, but it was achieved in the wrong manner and ultimately for the wrong reasons.


I merely lack the patience to go over it again. I'm glad you are diligent in this cause.

Just because I don't support the war doesn't mean that I support Saddam Hussein or wanted to see his regime saved. I would have supported the war if;

1. The primary excuse for going to war wasn't a blatant lie.
2. The US had in the past shown its committment to democracy, even when not on its terms or best interests.
3. The support of the majority of the Iraqi population could be counted upon to quickly overthrow the regime as bloodlessly as possible and without causing the country to spiral into anarchy.

None of these preconditions were met.

1. It wasn't a blatant lie. It was faulty intelligence. The CIA believe that Saddam had WMD's because of faulty intelligence. It wasn't like the Bush administration got together and said "let's make up some total bullshit about WMD's and invade them, LOL it'll be funny." No. Besides, who the hell knows if he really didn't have WMD's? The U.N. inspectors didn't find any, but I sure as hell don't trust the U.N.

2. That's partially true. Look at Japan and Germany after WWII. Look at what's happening in the middle east. Democracy is spreading.

3. Saddam Hussein WAS the majority of Iraq. If you didn't agree with him, you were out of there.

While I don't agree with the reasons we were given, you must, if you have any shred of humanity in you at all, support the war for the humanitarian reasons.

EVERYONE needs to read this: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
Take the time and read it. It'll give you insight on what really happened.

1. It wasn't a blatant lie. It was faulty intelligence. The CIA believe that Saddam had WMD's because of faulty intelligence. It wasn't like the Bush administration got together and said "let's make up some total bullshit about WMD's and invade them, LOL it'll be funny." No. Besides, who the hell knows if he really didn't have WMD's? The U.N. inspectors didn't find any, but I sure as hell don't trust the U.N.

2. That's partially true. Look at Japan and Germany after WWII. Look at what's happening in the middle east. Democracy is spreading.

3. Saddam Hussein WAS the majority of Iraq. If you didn't agree with him, you were out of there.


1. As far as I know, there were calls to "blame it on Iraq" on something like September 12 2001. I saw it on a PBS Documentary here in Oz.
And what do you think, that the UN found weapons and then hid them as well?

2. No thanks to you, that's for sure. Both countries were horribly ravaged by war, your goal was not to bring democracy, your goal was to defeat and destroy them as nations. If there are democracies now in those countries, that is alone the work and commitment of the population.

3. :rolleyes:

I'll refute you all tomorrow, but for now I will merely bump the thread.

It should be noted that the US backed Saddam for part of his career. I had some good sources explaining the whole thing, but the site is apparently down.

It should be noted that the US backed Saddam for part of his career. I had some good sources explaining the whole thing, but the site is apparently down.

The enemy of thy enemy is thy friend. And as the original poster of this thread stated before, it doesn't matter if we supported him in the past. That is irrelevent.

The enemy of thy enemy is thy friend.
That is a big load of ...hmmm, i don't wanna say bullshit again, but it is.
Osama and Saddam didn't like each other at all.
Osama offered his Mudjaheddin to the Saudis when Saddam attacked Kuwait.
They are enemies, yet you like neither of them very much, is that correct?

That is a big load of ...hmmm, i don't wanna say bullshit again, but it is.

How is it bs? Its a fact!

Osama and Saddam didn't like each other at all.

But both hated the United States.

Osama offered his Mudjaheddin to the Saudis when Saddam attacked Kuwait.

Yea and was pissed when Saudi Arabia came to the *gasp* US for protection. That pissed Osama off and we know the rest.

They are enemies, yet you like neither of them very much, is that correct?

They are the enemies of the United States, both of them but yet Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts with eachother and Saddam offered sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden. :rolleyes:

They are the enemies of the United States, both of them but yet Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts with eachother and Saddam offered sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden. :rolleyes:
Excuse me?
Links please (not opinions)

Excuse me?
Links please (not opinions)

http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/ZKZ_Osama_and_Saddam_002.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34147
http://therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/mnevin062704.htm

http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/ZKZ_Osama_and_Saddam_002.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34147
http://therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/mnevin062704.htm

Now all three of these are opinion pieces.
They refer to evidence without linking, which may already have been discredited.
And all three sites are massively biased. You might as well quote the PotUS as evidence.

For another example then. Anwar Al-Sadat was leader of Egypt and attacked Israel rhetorically and physically. He was killed by extremists under Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Which one is your enemy in this case? What is your preference?

http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/ZKZ_Osama_and_Saddam_002.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34147
http://therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/mnevin062704.htm

Wow...... opinion pieces from 1999!


Gee, I'm sold.

How about you George? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html)

One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.




Oh.


Well, it seems like the President doesn't agree with you. But then, he's an idiot right? What the fuck would HE know?

How about you Colin? (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2004/01/001532.html)

"'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. 'But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.'"



damn, that's TWO strikes....


C'mon Donny....save the fucking day will ya? (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100604A.shtml)

"I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was," Rumsfeld said.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Rumsfeld added.

"I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to al Qaeda who was in and out of Iraq. And it is the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship and why he might not have had a relationship. It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage."




Well fuck.


But hey, you keep going with those opinion pieces from people who know more than the people running the country......

1. As far as I know, there were calls to "blame it on Iraq" on something like September 12 2001. I saw it on a PBS Documentary here in Oz.
And what do you think, that the UN found weapons and then hid them as well?

2. No thanks to you, that's for sure. Both countries were horribly ravaged by war, your goal was not to bring democracy, your goal was to defeat and destroy them as nations. If there are democracies now in those countries, that is alone the work and commitment of the population.

3. :rolleyes:

1. Well of course. The administration was looking for someone to blame after 9/11, who the fuck in their right mind wouldn't consider Iraq a suspect? I don't believe that, I simply believe that they didn't look very hard. Again, I don't trust the U.N. any more than I trust our government.

2. I wasn't around back then, so no, no thanks to me. The goal was not to defeat them, but to liberate those in the concentration camps.

3. And you have nothing to say. Imagine that.

Wow...... opinion pieces from 1999!

Gee, I'm sold.

How about you George? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html)

Oh.

Well, it seems like the President doesn't agree with you. But then, he's an idiot right? What the fuck would HE know?

How about you Colin? (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2004/01/001532.html)

damn, that's TWO strikes....

C'mon Donny....save the fucking day will ya? (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100604A.shtml)

Well fuck.

But hey, you keep going with those opinion pieces from people who know more than the people running the country......
NEXT batter please. :D

Fine ignore it. I don't care. It was still the right move and one I support.

It is indeed your right to support whatever you wish.

Just as it is our right to point and laugh at you for it.

Ignore it? No, we do way the fuck more than that. We fucking well discount it.

Why? For the simple reason that subsequent analysis has confirmed that it had as much truth to it as the farsical notions that Iraq could launch WMD's within 45 minutes, that they had reconstituted a nuclear program, or that they were buying aluminum tubes to use as anything more sinister than cigar containers for Saddam to use to try and better Clinton on the fat-intern-fucking fetish scale.


Supporting it is one thing. Trying to pass off outdated and totally discredited reasons as your basis for that support however is a sure path to getting your ass handed to you by those who have a fucking clue about the specifics of the issue.

2. I wasn't around back then, so no, no thanks to me. The goal was not to defeat them, but to liberate those in the concentration camps.
You cannot be serious. Freeing concentration camps was a nice PR-By product, but no country went to war with Germany because of that. During the war many people in Allied nations actually didn't believe the camps existed.

You cannot be serious. Freeing concentration camps was a nice PR-By product, but no country went to war with Germany because of that. During the war many people in Allied nations actually didn't believe the camps existed.

I never thought I would agree with Leonstein but I am here.

Nice article.

Personally, while I think taking down Saddam was an uberly-great Idea and liberating Iraq was as well, we screwed up in making the plans. The first days were near flawless. Then we realised we didn't have an "after" plan. Morons. Now why I continue to support the war is NOT because I agree with George's plan, but because I think that we OWE it to the Iraqi people to at least get their country stable again. This isn't another Vietnam, but if we don't start re-building Iraq and getting the Sunni's back in, it will be.

You cannot be serious. Freeing concentration camps was a nice PR-By product, but no country went to war with Germany because of that. During the war many people in Allied nations actually didn't believe the camps existed.
Of course, no country goes to war in anything other than self-interest. But Whatever the reasons, the by-product that was liberation was good reason to support that war. Actions should be judged by their effects over their motivations. It's better, IMO to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for the right reasons.

It should be noted that the US backed Saddam for part of his career. I had some good sources explaining the whole thing, but the site is apparently down.
This is undoubtedly true. Just because I support the Iraq war, doesn't mean I worship the US Government as flawless. I freely criticise it, I am pissed at the whole Guantanamo Bay/Abu Ghraib thing, and I even think that Rumsfeld should be put on trial.

Of course, no country goes to war in anything other than self-interest. But Whatever the reasons, the by-product that was liberation was good reason to support that war. Actions should be judged by their effects over their motivations. It's better, IMO to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for the right reasons.
I agree with you, but there is a question of time involved here. Before the camps were discovered, they were not a reason to support the war. Smiting the evil Germans was.
Only after the camps were liberated could people say: "Yes, I liked that too!"
Similar thing here. People who supported the war usually didn't do it for the reasons mentioned now. It was about WMDs, and for some about smiting someone who had dared to disagree with the US. Only afterwards have humanitarian concerns risen to such prominence.

Fine ignore it. I don't care. It was still the right move and one I support.
So you support an illegal invasion of Iraq that has accomplished the following:

1. Has made the CIA look bad.

2. Has made the USA look bad.

3. Has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and injured tens of thousands more.

4. Has killed over 1,700 US troops and injired over 12,000 others.

5. Has cost over $175 Billion.

6. Has affected diplomatic relations with traditional allies.

7. Has caused widespread damage to the infastructure of Iraq.

8. Has increased terrorism.

9. Has increased distrust of the US in the Arab world.

10. Has resulted in a further weakening of the UN.

11. Has resulted in the election of a government dominated by Shiites loyal to the Grand Ayatullah Ali al-Sistani (an Ayatollah who ultimately wants the US out of Iraq).

12. Has made Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice all look bad in the worldview perspective.

13. Has destablized the Middle East situation.

14. Has resulted in a "forced" election that took place during widespread insurgency in the country, and was boycotted by the Sunnis. US troops had to guard most of the polling stations and most of the electorate did not know the names of the candidates, who were afraid to declare their candidacy fearing reprisals from the insurgents.

15. Has resulted in widespread condemnation of the abuses, tortures, and deaths that took place at Abu Ghraib at the hands of US soldiers.

16. Has resulted in the majority of Americans believing that it was "not worth it".

All of these and more to root out one bad guy (Saddam Hussein), who in the 1980's was such a diligent puppet for the US.

And you can honestly say that you support this? Why?

I agree with you, but there is a question of time involved here. Before the camps were discovered, they were not a reason to support the war. Smiting the evil Germans was.
Only after the camps were liberated could people say: "Yes, I liked that too!"
Similar thing here. People who supported the war usually didn't do it for the reasons mentioned now. It was about WMDs, and for some about smiting someone who had dared to disagree with the US. Only afterwards have humanitarian concerns risen to such prominence.

gonna disagree with you there

the reason nobody thought about liberating the camps was because by and large that wasn't well know

most people on the street (well, those who voted anyway) knew about saddam and say, the gassing of kurdish villiages. people had the general idea that saddam = genocide and those who put any effort into researching the topic had no doubt.

I supported the war on those grounds. I'm a little dissapointed GW tried to sidetrack us with the whole WMD thing when we could have made a pretty good argument with the genocide

You cannot be serious. Freeing concentration camps was a nice PR-By product, but no country went to war with Germany because of that.

Absolutely true. In Europe, the reason we went to war was because we had promised our ally (Poland) that we would do so. Why did we keep at it, when it was blindingly obvious we'd lost? (I don't care what anyone says, we lost World War Two. Germany conquered Europe. We just sat on the sidelines for a few years stopping them invading, and then went back for Part Two) Well, I just covered it in the brackets: Survival. If we'd lost the Battle of Britain, if Operation Sealion had gone ahead and succeeded, my country would no longer exist, except as a state of the German Empire. The same goes for the rest of Europe.

National survival - that is a good reason for war. Honouring an alliance - less so, but still justifiable, and honourable in its way. Meddling in internal politics? I don't think it's justified. Even if Iraq becomes a Utopia and manages to implement world peace and prosperity, I will still not think that this war, as it was played out, is justified. Ever. It was the United States and the United Kingdom interfering in a sovereign nation's affairs, and lying to everyone about why.

Does this mean I support Saddam? No. If the war had been put forward for different reasons - say, if we'd been told that we were going in to, I don't know, help the opressed peoples, I would have... well, I wouldn't have been enthusiastically for it - it's still war - but I would have been a lot less vehemently against it. For me, this issue is not about the end - it's about the means to that end, and I consider that the means we used were abysmal.

3. Has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and injured tens of thousands more.

4. Has killed over 1,700 US troops and injired over 12,000 others.

5. Has cost over $175 Billion.

8. Has increased terrorism.

10. Has resulted in a further weakening of the UN.

11. Has resulted in the election of a government dominated by Shiites loyal to the Grand Ayatullah Ali al-Sistani (an Ayatollah who ultimately wants the US out of Iraq).

13. Has destablized the Middle East situation.

15. Has resulted in widespread condemnation of the abuses, tortures, and deaths that took place at Abu Ghraib at the hands of US soldiers.

-All of these and more to root out one bad guy (Saddam Hussein), who in the 1980's was such a diligent puppet for the US.

some points to consider

3. - how many people would have been killed or injured by the saddam regime in that time frame if they were still in power? how many more would have been killed later on down the road after Iraq transitions to a functioning democracy?

4. - alot of soldiers die sitting aroun in the US, how many of those men would have been killed in training accidents or car crashes at home?

5. - the pre-war containment strategy was also costing us billions. how much have we saved not having to keep 75,000 troops in saudi arabia, 37,000 in kuwait and tens of thousands more through out the region?

8. - has increased terrorist in Iraq, an interviewee on NPR called Iraq the terrorist fly-trap of the middle east. if those terrorists weren't in Iraq where would they be (you might argue that some of them were only drawn there because of the war but remeber, thats only some of them)

11. - GW also wants troops out of Iraq, everyone wants the troops out of Iraq. this guy understands they have to stay for a few years, don't make him sound unreasonable

13. - but is that a good thing? freedom for lebennon, democracy in palestien, elections in saudi arabia (limited, but still a step in the right direction), elections in bahrain and kuwait

- oh come on, thats like saying WW2 was just to get hitler. though the end result was the toppling of the government of one man don't try to make this sound like a petty vendeta

gonna disagree with you there

the reason nobody thought about liberating the camps was because by and large that wasn't well know

most people on the street (well, those who voted anyway) knew about saddam and say, the gassing of kurdish villiages. people had the general idea that saddam = genocide and those who put any effort into researching the topic had no doubt.

I supported the war on those grounds. I'm a little dissapointed GW tried to sidetrack us with the whole WMD thing when we could have made a pretty good argument with the genocide
Without the WMD charade, the UK would NOT have supported the US, and it is doubtful that Congress would have approved of war against Iraq in the name of "regime change" only.

Without the WMD charade, the UK would NOT have supported the US, and it is doubtful that Congress would have approved of war against Iraq in the name of "regime change" only.

it sure would have taken longer but imagine W showing footage of the gassing of kurding villages, the raping of women, the tourture of dissidents and mass exicutions on TV and then pointing out the congressmen who voted not to stop this

when Americans were confronted with the brutality of life under saddam I'm sure the would have come around eventually (most of them anyway)

it sure would have taken longer but imagine W showing footage of the gassing of kurding villages, the raping of women, the tourture of dissidents and mass exicutions on TV and then pointing out the congressmen who voted not to stop this
Bush has videos of these occurrences? You would show them on TV and then intimidate those who would democratically oppose a regime change?

Somehow, I don't think those tactics would work very well?

when Americans were confronted with the brutality of life under saddam I'm sure the would have come around eventually (most of them anyway)
The fact remains that since the Gulf War, Saddam has pretty much behaved himself. There are far worse violations happening in other countries as we speak.....does that mean the US will be invading them in the near future?

The fact remains that since the Gulf War, Saddam has pretty much behaved himself.

whoa, I know he didn't do anything internationaly but plenty of shit was going down domestically


There are far worse violations happening in other countries as we speak.....does that mean the US will be invading them in the near future?

like who? the only ones that spring to mind are north korea and the sudan and we're gunnin for them. I'd like to see the US topple every dictatorship in the world but we've got to pace ourselves. we'll get to the lesser ones eventually

That is a very interesting and thought provoking article and i am glad that some of the people on the left felt like that and that they are not all anti war protestors who oppose anything the US does.

some points to consider

3. - how many people would have been killed or injured by the saddam regime in that time frame if they were still in power? how many more would have been killed later on down the road after Iraq transitions to a functioning democracy?

I don't know the answer to that first one but to the second, Zero!

4. - alot of soldiers die sitting aroun in the US, how many of those men would have been killed in training accidents or car crashes at home?

More than have been killed in this war, that's for certain.

5. - the pre-war containment strategy was also costing us billions. how much have we saved not having to keep 75,000 troops in saudi arabia, 37,000 in kuwait and tens of thousands more through out the region?

More than what we are spending on this war right now.

8. - has increased terrorist in Iraq, an interviewee on NPR called Iraq the terrorist fly-trap of the middle east. if those terrorists weren't in Iraq where would they be (you might argue that some of them were only drawn there because of the war but remeber, thats only some of them)

They would be here in the States or elsewhere to kill us. Instead, they are in Iraq killing Iraqi Civilians which really is pissing them off more than we are.

11. - GW also wants troops out of Iraq, everyone wants the troops out of Iraq. this guy understands they have to stay for a few years, don't make him sound unreasonable

Even the current Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister said this. They want us out but not right now. Heck, he's asking the UN to extend our mandate there.

13. - but is that a good thing? freedom for lebennon, democracy in palestien, elections in saudi arabia (limited, but still a step in the right direction), elections in bahrain and kuwait

And Libya giving up its WMDs theoritically too.

- oh come on, thats like saying WW2 was just to get hitler. though the end result was the toppling of the government of one man don't try to make this sound like a petty vendeta

He's been doing this for awhile. He also keeps forgetting that the War in Iraq isn't illegal.

Unfortunately the dozens of UN resolutions thrown at Saddam were having no effect. Sometimes it is really necessary to use an evil (i.e. violence) in order to defeat an even greater evil (genocidal dictatorship, in this case). It's not nice, but the alternative is worse.

That's usually the rationalization behind armed revolution by the proletariat as well.

Or the rationalization behind the US Founding Fathers' actions to fight the British.

It's an interesting aticle, and correct in many respects. However, there is the argument that a US invasion of Iraq would not in all likelyhood end in a better human rights regime. You could say the same about the war in Vietnam. Certainly it was true that the Viet Cong were/would reduce the level of human rights, and that a different more liberal regime would have increased those rights. However, it was also predictable (again, arguably) that the Vietnam conflict would NOT result in a higher standard of human rights (especially given the rights lost during the conflict).

If securing human rights is our objective, we must determine whether our interventions, correct in theory as they may be, will in fact end in a higher level of human rights. I think given the history of western interventions in that region, it was not a good assumption to believe that they would.

However, within the next few years we will see.

My problem with these after the fact, ends justify the means arguments in support of the war, whether from 'Marxists' or not, is that they are too eager and quick to identify the 'ends.'

It seems easy to say that objectively it is better to have no Saddam than Saddam, and that alone does seem an easy truth. But what is the result of the 'good' that removing Saddam has caused? What will be the costs? Make no mistake, we haven't finished paying them.

Remember, and this has been my argument for a while, Saddam and bin Laden are the result of the 'good' we have done in the past. Don't make the mistake of interpreting this as 'We made them, so we can't oppose them.' That's not the point.

The 'good' that was done in thier creation was against an enemy that, for all its menace, never managed to attack America directly. It took the result of that good to achieve that. That, it could be argued, is the ends of the 'good' we thought we where doing in the 80s. The 'means' dictate the ends, because it's not a foot race, it doesn't end after the tape is snapped.

Despite the authors attempt at guilt by association, opposing the war is not the same as supporting Saddam. As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. It would be more accurate to say that they did not support that method of getting rid of Saddam.

Either way, the end of the story is not the removal of Saddam. The real result of this 'good' is yet to come. Will we be able to bear the cost?

On a final note, I have a greater and greater distaste for the continued rhetoric in silencing dessent. "If you are not with us, you are against us," re-enforced by this article and the continued blanket dismissal of objection as knee-jerk and motivated by nothing more than anti-Bushism. Good lord, what are we really protecting at this point?

Only after the camps were liberated could people say: "Yes, I liked that too!"
Similar thing here. People who supported the war usually didn't do it for the reasons mentioned now.

It was about WMDs, and for some about smiting someone who had dared to disagree with the US. Only afterwards have humanitarian concerns risen to such prominence.
To be honest I don't have much respect for the majority of Americans who supported the war. For most of those armchair Rambos it was about American troops "kickin' teh ass!!" - basically space invaders with a twist. However, there are some, such as Chris Hitchens and Norman Geras who supported it as a humanitarian intervention from the start.

Hitler's crimes against humanity were not just in the camps, which we didn't know about til the war was over. It was the relentless massacres of any civilians the Nazis came across that was also objectionable.

Also, unlike the concentration camps scenario, we all knew about what Saddam had done in the past, and his atrocities such as the an-Alfal campaign.

Just because I don't support the war doesn't mean that I support Saddam Hussein or wanted to see his regime saved. I would have supported the war if;

1. The primary excuse for going to war wasn't a blatant lie.
2. The US had in the past shown its committment to democracy, even when not on its terms or best interests.
3. The support of the majority of the Iraqi population could be counted upon to quickly overthrow the regime as bloodlessly as possible and without causing the country to spiral into anarchy.

None of these preconditions were met.
Thank you. You've made my post for me.

I do support military intervention in cases of terrible state-wide brutality. But I object to any nation pretending that this was their intention from the onset, when their reasons are not so noble as that. Admitting that would go a long way to getting my support for the action, past injustices aside.

The reason that the left did not scream for the removal of Saddam is the same reason that they are not screaming for the removal of Bob Mugabe. It's the same reason they don't boycott companies like DeBeers.
:rolleyes:
Just because you can't HEAR me where you are, doesn't mean I'm not screaming.

And how long did the 'left' oppose the Taliban while countries continued doing 'business' with them before they finally became a target of international action? Did you not hear that 'screaming' either?

To be honest I don't have much respect for the majority of Americans who supported the war. For most of those armchair Rambos it was about American troops "kickin' teh ass!!" - basically space invaders with a twist. However, there are some, such as Chris Hitchens and Norman Geras who supported it as a humanitarian intervention from the start.

Hitler's crimes against humanity were not just in the camps, which we didn't know about til the war was over. It was the relentless massacres of any civilians the Nazis came across that was also objectionable.

Also, unlike the concentration camps scenario, we all knew about what Saddam had done in the past, and his atrocities such as the an-Alfal campaign.

At first I was skeptical about the reasons for war, but I was sold when I learned of what Saddam Hussein's regime was doing.

Thank you. You've made my post for me.

I do support military intervention in cases of terrible state-wide brutality. But I object to any nation pretending that this was their intention from the onset, when their reasons are not so noble as that. Admitting that would go a long way to getting my support for the action, past injustices aside.
Care to read my refutation of Kanabia's post? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9055399&postcount=18)

I don't see why the whole "lying" thing is such a big deal. Well I do, but the point is that the result now would be the same as if Bush had told the truth. Is your support for saving the women in the rape rooms, or the Kurds dying of gas attacks conditional on Bush telling the truth?

The enemy of thy enemy is thy friend. And as the original poster of this thread stated before, it doesn't matter if we supported him in the past. That is irrelevent.
And sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

It's not that cut and dried, Corn. It absolutely matters that you supported him in the past. It matters when your government can't admit they made a terrible mistake in that support...when they can't admit to their part in the murders that followed...that they can never seem to get over themselves enough to apologize for all the 'interventions' that so royally fucked OTHERS over (Latin America for one).

I'd trust an honest bastard over a sanctimonious, lying one anyday. (talking about governments here, not particular people)

And how long did the 'left' oppose the Taliban while countries continued doing 'business' with them before they finally became a target of international action? Did you not hear that 'screaming' either?
Well said. Much of the left has consistently opposed the likes of the Taliban. It may sound strange given what I am saying in this thread, but assertions that "teh Left LOVeS dictators", I find truly repulsive. Most on the left are really decent, and good people, which is more than I can say for the far right.

Care to read my refutation of Kanabia's post? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9055399&postcount=18)

I don't see why the whole "lying" thing is such a big deal. Well I do, but the point is that the result now would be the same as if Bush had told the truth. Is your support for saving the women in the rape rooms, or the Kurds dying of gas attacks conditional on Bush telling the truth?
I did. It didn't, in my mind, refute his post.

The lying issue is this. Had the US admitted they'd fucked up in the first place by letting Saddam in, and gone after him on valid humanitarian grounds long ago, those murders, those rape rooms, those gassed Kurds, would not now be the issue they are. Late action is still better than no action, but when a government refuses to admit culpability, there is no reason to believe they have learned from history. So they go in and 'save' Iraq. What other dictators will they prop up in the future, then beleatedly remove?

The other issue for me is, that the US did this as a loose cannon (aside from its few allies, who I am not discounting, just not granting the title of intstigator). I want the international community to act more often to stop atrocities, but when nations like the US so consistently block effective international coordination, then DEMAND IT when it suits them, we aren't looking at internationalism, we're looking at a rogue nation who has the firepower to do as it pleases. That worries me.

At first I was skeptical about the reasons for war, but I was sold when I learned of what Saddam Hussein's regime was doing.
And why weren't you aware of this before? It's not like it wasn't going on for decades...

The other issue for me is, that the US did this as a loose cannon (aside from its few allies, who I am not discounting, just not granting the title of intstigator). I want the international community to act more often to stop atrocities, but when nations like the US so consistently block effective international coordination, then DEMAND IT when it suits them, we aren't looking at internationalism, we're looking at a rogue nation who has the firepower to do as it pleases. That worries me.

LOL. The U.N. is hardly effective international coordination. If it was, the resolutions passed before the troops were sent in would have worked. The U.N. is ineffective and corrupt.

And why weren't you aware of this before? It's not like it wasn't going on for decades...

I was aware he was a fascistic dictator, but I was unaware of exactly what he was doing. Keep in mind that I was only 13/14 when the U.S. was going to war with Iraq.

LOL. The U.N. is hardly effective international coordination. If it was, the resolutions passed before the troops were sent in would have worked. The U.N. is ineffective and corrupt.
Yes, it is. In great part due to the efforts of the US to derail any sort of real progress. The US is not alone in this...but being one of the key players, consistantly using veto when it pleases them, doesn't help.

...consistantly using veto when it pleases them...

Just like France!

Really, though, when was the last time we used a Veto?

The other issue for me is, that the US did this as a loose cannon (aside from its few allies, who I am not discounting, just not granting the title of intstigator). I want the international community to act more often to stop atrocities, but when nations like the US so consistently block effective international coordination, then DEMAND IT when it suits them, we aren't looking at internationalism, we're looking at a rogue nation who has the firepower to do as it pleases. That worries me.

We don't block effective international coordination CONSTANTLY. Let's see when have we...oh, the Iraq war. That's once in my mind. Care to bring up a few others? Anyhoo, In many other cases, we were the only ones that BROUGHT international coordination(Somalia, for example).

Also, you have to realise that some things don't need international coordination. Iraq DID, but other cases don't (Example: Panama, 1989). You can't treat EVERY case the same.

gonna disagree with you there

the reason nobody thought about liberating the camps was because by and large that wasn't well know

most people on the street (well, those who voted anyway) knew about saddam and say, the gassing of kurdish villiages. people had the general idea that saddam = genocide and those who put any effort into researching the topic had no doubt.

I supported the war on those grounds. I'm a little dissapointed GW tried to sidetrack us with the whole WMD thing when we could have made a pretty good argument with the genocide
Apart from the fact that "genocide" is the wrong word, "mass murder" would be better (he killed irrespectively of race, truly political correct), that wouldn't have made enough of an impression on the average American. Now there's lots who genuinely care about others, but if you subtract those who don't want US-Troops in danger, there's hardly a solid majority left.
Tell people they are gonna be blown up with WMDs however...

Actually, marxists are anti democracy. Witness the Soviet Union and the People's Republic, not to mention East Germany, North Korea and Cuba.
Those are all states run by marxists and one of them is now extinct.

He's been doing this for awhile. He also keeps forgetting that the War in Iraq isn't illegal.
The person with the bad memory would be you.

Saddam Hussein and Company, owned and operated by the Reagan/Bush Regimes:

Thanks For The Memories (http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html)

The US seems to have a bad habit of supporting bad people:

Pol Pot
General Suharto
Manuel Noriega
Augusto Pinochet

And a whole list of others (http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm).

If you want to do well in political science, perhaps it is time to extracate that melon of yours from the deepest recesses of your posterior region and come up for air.

And please don't spout your usual pre-programmed response.

*Snip*

Don't have to tell me the history of my nation CH! I know it quite well. I also know we supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War. And before you say we supplied him with WMD, we didn't. That would be the USSR and that was proven. Then we fought 2 wars with Saddam and won them both. Both of them with little casualties.

I do not have a short term memory here CH. I have a pretty good memory. Especially when it comes to history.

"He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it"

I live by this line every day. I learn from our mistakes and apparently the military has learned from its mistakes too. Not to mention, we are not repeating our cut and run strategy that had a devestating affect. We are still there and we shall stay till the job of rebuilding is done or till the government says we don't need you anymore. Which ever comes first.

As for Political Science. I have an A and 2 Bs to date. My A coming in Intro to Global Politics. I have done better in my International Class than I did in my 2 American classes. I find that funny. Don't you?

1. I learn from our mistakes and apparently the military has learned from its mistakes too.

2. As for Political Science. I have an A and 2 Bs to date. My A coming in Intro to Global Politics. I have done better in my International Class than I did in my 2 American classes. I find that funny. Don't you?
1. But you don't learn from the mistakes others made. If you did, you'd know that no amount of projecting force is going to change the world into what you want it to be.

2. About that: Do they teach you your ideology, too? Or did you get that all by yourself?

The person with the bad memory would be you.

Saddam Hussein and Company, owned and operated by the Reagan/Bush Regimes:

Thanks For The Memories (http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html)

The US seems to have a bad habit of supporting bad people:

Pol Pot
General Suharto
Manuel Noriega
Augusto Pinochet

And a whole list of others (http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm).

If you want to do well in political science, perhaps it is time to extracate that melon of yours from the deepest recesses of your posterior region and come up for air.

And please don't spout your usual pre-programmed response.

*initializes pre-programmed response*

Dear sir and/or madam,
The World is not in black or white, so one must choose the "lesser of two evils". We chose those others because it was the right thing to do. The Bush family is never wrong. Heil Fuhrer King Bush!

[/somethingdonebecauseIwasbored]

Really, though, we screwed up with Saddam. We thought he would just fight the Iranians, win, then go "I'll just sit in my country and make more oil." He went a weee bit overboard during the war, and the rest is history.

However, the sites you give, while credible, are very, very biased. I would say the same if you gave a site that said "Bush never lies! America is Perfect!", but linking to a page that basically says, "t3h U.$. r t3h 3vlz0rz!!1!!11!1!1!!!!!one!!111111" isn't very un-biased.

Also, a large majority of people we put in, we also took out.

And don't act like only the U.S. puts in/supports these men. The Europeans put them in and support them too. The Canadians have even supported a few. In other words, all first world countries have messed up the third world.

1. But you don't learn from the mistakes others made. If you did, you'd know that no amount of projecting force is going to change the world into what you want it to be.

Oh I learn from others mistakes too Leonstein. I am also a history major as well as a Political Science Major. I have read up on mistakes made in the past and have learned from them. That is why i support somethings and oppose others.

2. About that: Do they teach you your ideology, too? Or did you get that all by yourself?

No since most of my professors that I have had (and that's various subjects) are democrats. I actually go with the party that closely matches my ideals and morals and that happens to be the Republican Party. I will cross party lines if the other candidate has plans that I can get around on. Since that hasn't happened yet....

Swimmingpool,

Though we rarely agree on anything, you have posted a great article. Thank you for posting it. I'm glad not all liberals are anti-war-for-every-war-because-it's-war idoits.

You shall be awarded the medal of being "Fair and Balanced" in NS.

*And this coming from a person who is on the extreme right.*

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

To be honest I don't have much respect for the majority of Americans who supported the war. For most of those armchair Rambos it was about American troops "kickin' teh ass!!" - basically space invaders with a twist. However, there are some, such as Chris Hitchens and Norman Geras who supported it as a humanitarian intervention from the start.

I am one of those Rambos, who happens to be a American soldier, that is "kickin' teh ass!!", and I'm damn proud of what I'm doing.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

I am a Marxist-Leninist and thus do not support the US imperialism of the war, however, you cannot say that Saddam did not deserve what he got by any means. Saddam was a US puppet for quite some time in the 1980s and the US was fully aware of his crimes in that war, but simply chose to ignore them because of fear of the Islamic Revolution spreading. Only when Saddam started being disobediant is when the US made him their enemy. Saddam was an imperialist puppet and certainly one of the bigger reactionaries of the 20th century along with the other dictators the US supported including, but obviously not limited to Pinochet, Seseko, Somoza, Pol Pot, Papa Doc, Siad Barre, Franco, Batista and Deng Xiaoping.

We must look at how it was done. NO PLAN, NO FORSIGHT, just blow shit up. Surely, the generations of Zarqawis will keep the fight alive, and keep Americans in Iraq for many years.

Oh I learn from others mistakes too Leonstein. I am also a history major as well as a Political Science Major. I have read up on mistakes made in the past and have learned from them. That is why i support somethings and oppose others.
From your posts on here, it appears that you support one ideal solely and that is the Bush Idiotology.

In an earlier post, in response to terrorism being increased because of the Iraq War, you stated:

"They would be here in the States or elsewhere to kill us. Instead, they are in Iraq killing Iraqi Civilians which really is pissing them off more than we are."

Perhaps you can't see, that Iraq represents a fantastic training ground for future terrorist attacks. Maybe they are in Iraq today, but you never know when they will show up on your doorstep again.

Adversary's Tactics Leave Troops Surprised, Exhausted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3843-2004Jun24.html)

In dawn-to-dusk fighting, more than 100 armed insurgents overran neighborhoods and occupied downtown buildings, using techniques that U.S. commanders said resembled those once employed by the Iraqi army. Well-equipped and highly coordinated, the insurgents demonstrated a new level of strength and tactical skill that alarmed the soldiers facing them.......

The insurgents fought in large, coordinated squads, set complex ambushes and occupied downtown buildings from which they apparently planned a long fight, U.S. military commanders said. Striking first along two key avenues bracketing the city, the insurgents intended to isolate and overrun the local Coalition Provisional Authority compound and other downtown government buildings, the commanders said.

In another post in this thread, you stated:

"Don't have to tell me the history of my nation CH! I know it quite well. I also know we supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War. And before you say we supplied him with WMD, we didn't."
Well I hate to tell you this again, as I have stated before to you, that the US did indeed supply Saddam with WMD:

U.S. And Iraq Go Way Back (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml)

Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports....

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.


How about this article from your own Senator Byrd:

"The Road to Coverup Is the Road to Ruin" (http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003june/byrd_speeches_2003june_list/byrd_speeches_2003june_list_2.html)

Whether or not intelligence reports were bent, stretched, or massaged to make Iraq look like an imminent threat to the United States, it is clear that the Administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded fear of the American public about future acts of terrorism. But, upon close examination, many of these statements have nothing to do with intelligence, because they are at root just sound bites based on conjecture. They are designed to prey on public fear.

The face of Osama bin Laden morphed into that of Saddam Hussein. President Bush carefully blurred these images in his State of the Union Address. Listen to this quote from his State of the Union Address: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans – this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." [State of the Union, 1/28/03, pg 7] Judging by this speech, not only is the President confusing al Qaeda and Iraq, but he also appears to give a vote of no-confidence to our homeland security efforts. Isn't the White House, the brains behind the Department of Homeland Security? Isn't the Administration supposed to be stopping those vials, canisters, and crates from entering our country, rather than trying to scare our fellow citizens half to death about them?

This guy has been around a long time and appears to be a wise old Byrd. Perhaps you could learn some history from this Senator?

Here is a classic example of Bush trying to link al Qaeda and Iraq, and as the Senator so astutely conveys, Bush's attempt to instill fear in the US public and provide a support mechanism for the invasion of Iraq that would follow two months after this speech.

*CanuckHeaven* awaits typical Corny response......

This guy has been around a long time and appears to be a wise old Byrd. Perhaps you could learn some history from this Senator?


Yes, like black people are inferior, and it is okay to say ****** on TV. He has a lot to teach does that wise old man.

I'll see if I can find a link to his LP.

Oh I learn from others mistakes too Leonstein. I am also a history major as well as a Political Science Major. I have read up on mistakes made in the past and have learned from them. That is why i support somethings and oppose others.


Man your university must have a really horrible political science program. Some of the posts you've made are really poorly thought out for a poli-sci student (especially a declared major).

Having read the article (although I haven't made it all the way through the posts yet) I would like to make a few comments about this "marxist" writer.

Marxism is a very big school, and the 'left' is an even bigger body of thought. My work has been involved in social insitutionalism - the use of insitutions within a society to legimitmise power structures, particularly third-dimension power structures. This school has been around for a long time, and is closely linked to the conservative socialist movement in Britian. I am writing all this to remind this poster of the article that the so-called left side of politics is hugh, and even within the subdivision of marxism, there are many different view points. The view points the articles attributes to the left are very limited in scope, representing the liberal left movement in the USA, and ingoring the views of many other groups around the world.

From our point of view, the regime in Iraq was implimented to as to ensure that power was retained by one particular group at the expense of other. It supported many insitutions - such as the suppression of democratic freedoms of certain ethnic groups - as a means to support this particular power structure. International insitutions - such as the Gulf war - also actually supported this power structure, legitmising Suddam's government's actions to the people who supported him. Obviously, personally, I felt that Iraq under Suddam was a horrible place, and certainly required international intervention. However, it is important to understand that the USA's actions were not a form of international intervention - despite the involvement of their close economic allies and dependant satelitte-nationstates like my homeland of Australia. Infact, the issue with the war on Iraq was that is was a war. By defining it as such the USA created an insitutional backdrop that legitimised the domination of Iraq and surrounding states.
It has enforced the creation of a third dimension power structure that allows it treat Iraq as a conquered nation - I use this in late 20th century language; that is where one state become economic and political subservent to another for a period of time - by, for example, assisting the placement of a similar USA style of government that is more likely to conform to an American model of Mode of Production, and the removal of raw resources by American interests - namely oil. Even if these oil fields are returned completely to the Iraqis and the profits made from them are psend in Iraq, the fact that America 'gave the oil abck' to Iraq is in-itself an insitutional pillar of support for future US-power over the area. Infact, it is very easily argued that without the insitution of the Afgan war, the US would have been without the required power structures both domestically and internationally needed to allow it to attack iraq, a view supported by actors from both the liberal right and left in america.

By now most of the pro-war audience are saying, yes, America will benefit greatly from this war, but so will Iraq. My answer is that the insitution of war was not the most effective way to solve this problem, but instead the insitution of peacekeeping. While in physical terms the battle line would have looked the same, the difference is that peacekeeping is widely excepted by the world community as run by an international body - hence not granting future gains to one particular (dare I say rogue) state. Furthermore, peacekeeping does not suggest conquest, which in the case of Iraq's future development is very important. Of course the complication is that peacekeeping must be organised and led by an international body. The very fact that america wanted the invade iraq for basically personal reasons was why the security council had difficulty ratifying such a move.

What does this mean in real terms? Firstly, Iraq did indeed have a problem of abuse of power, similar to many, many other countries in the world. It was notable because, again like a fairly large handful, the abuse of power was within the first and second dimensions and so easier for the international community to see. Secondly, America - and to a lesser extent, Britian - desired the conquest of Iraq for purely personal reasons, an excuss for war that is not longer allowed by our internatioal insitutions. To avoid this problem, perhaps the UN shoudl have solved the so-called 'Iraq-problem' earlier, by once again it was a case of many 'problems' and only so much support. America had no right to invade Iraq under the terms it stated, but the UN had no right to allow America to do so, and arguably had no right allowing the Iraq government to do what it did. The failure of the UN to fulfill its duties has allows a power shift in the international community further benefiting the (super-power of the) USA. For American citizens, this is a good thing. For the rest of us it is probably not.

Oh, and yes, America and her allies (plus us dependant states) should most definity remain in the country until civil unrest is resolved. From a pro-US view, this will allow America more power in the long run (assuming they are successful, which they increasely look to be) and in terms of a por-international view, a decreased level of conflict within the region will de-legimise future conflicts (except, of course, those led by the US) and so provide an increased legimiticy of UN peacekeeping intervention during future conflicts. Of course, this is just the view of one member of just one branch of socialism. To suggest that all socialist, or that all lefties, think alike is similar to confusing the political views of Rostow and Friedman!

Sorry about the length of the post, but I felt that correcting this gigantic error on the part of the article was important enough to aid this piece.

Interesting post. I'm don't agree with either socialism or institutionalism in principle, but still a very convincing argument.


It was notable because, again like a fairly large handful, the abuse of power was within the first and second dimensions and so easier for the international community to see.

Stephen Lukes?

Man your university must have a really horrible political science program. Some of the posts you've made are really poorly thought out for a poli-sci student (especially a declared major).

or they could just be an example of what my friend/former grad advisor refers to as the 'militantly ignorant'

... And before you say we supplied him with WMD, we didn't. That would be the USSR and that was proven. ...
You did not supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, but the USSR involvement in providing CW has not been proven. It is a possiblity, along with the involvement of West Germany, France, the UK, Egypt, and some other counties.

Man your university must have a really horrible political science program. Some of the posts you've made are really poorly thought out for a poli-sci student (especially a declared major).

Actually I think its quite good. Not my fault that my professors are liberal and I am a conservative :D

Anyway....

You have never seen the papers that I write for my political science classes. You have never heard me argue in my political science classes either. I do better in a debate when I can actually debate and not wait five hourse for a response.

*snip*

Just curious, have you read any Foucault or Agamben?

From your posts on here, it appears that you support one ideal solely and that is the Bush Idealology.

I support the fact that he sticks to his guns. I support the fact that he launched an investigation into the Intelligence used to go into Iraq. I support the fact that he is trying to reform the Intelligence community. Yes he has made mistakes, but so has every President in the US. I could say that every president is an idiot (most notably Jefferson, LBJ, Ford, Carter, Nixon,).

In an earlier post, in response to terrorism being increased because of the Iraq War, you stated:

"They would be here in the States or elsewhere to kill us. Instead, they are in Iraq killing Iraqi Civilians which really is pissing them off more than we are."

Accurate to the last.

Perhaps you can't see, that Iraq represents a fantastic training ground for future terrorist attacks. Maybe they are in Iraq today, but you never know when they will show up on your doorstep again.

If they go into Iraq, they'll die there. They only way they'll be on our doorstep is if they leave Iraq on their own accord and not in a bodybag. I have no sympathy for the enemy and that enemy is the insurgency and terrorists.

Adversary's Tactics Leave Troops Surprised, Exhausted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3843-2004Jun24.html)

War is hell CH. War is Hell. My father has seen war upclose! Have you?

In another post in this thread, you stated:

"Don't have to tell me the history of my nation CH! I know it quite well. I also know we supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War. And before you say we supplied him with WMD, we didn't."

And we didn't. My point stands.

Well I hate to tell you this again, as I have stated before to you, that the US did indeed supply Saddam with WMD:

U.S. And Iraq Go Way Back (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml)

Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports....

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.


I think Whispering Legs already destroyed this line of logic. Something apparently you haven't understood yet. I will have to find his posts dealing with this subject.

How about this article from your own Senator Byrd:

"The Road to Coverup Is the Road to Ruin" (http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003june/byrd_speeches_2003june_list/byrd_speeches_2003june_list_2.html)
*SNIP*

Senator Byrd can kiss my ass. He may be old but he sure isn't wise. He believes that blacks are inferior and he is a racist. Funny thing is, no one cares but when Senator Lott said something about being better off if Senator Thrumond got elected as President, people wanted his head on a plate. Hypocracy only goes so far.

Here is a classic example of Bush trying to link al Qaeda and Iraq, and as the Senator so astutely conveys, Bush's attempt to instill fear in the US public and provide a support mechanism for the invasion of Iraq that would follow two months after this speech.

And the war in Iraq was the proper thing to do. I guess you have missed the Rape Rooms, Torture Rooms, Mass Graves, the people he deformed. Doesn't this mean anything to you? No I guess not.

*CanuckHeaven* awaits typical Corny response......

*Corneliu* awaits typical Canuck response......

You did not supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, but the USSR involvement in providing CW has not been proven. It is a possiblity, along with the involvement of West Germany, France, the UK, Egypt, and some other counties.

Ok this I will concede this point.

It's a well-accepted fact that the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq's regime during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's; the Reagan administration thought fundamentalist Iran was more dangerous than Saddam's dictatorship, especially because Iran had the pseudo-backing of the Soviets. I'd like to see one source saying the US didn't provide those weapons. Because even the CIA admits that the United States helped begin the Iraqi chemical weapons program:

Junior Army officers were trained in United States and Russia in chemical warfare during the 1960s. The Iraqi army then formed the Chemical Corps.

First I would like to say that I do support Bush.

However I cannot support the war in Iraq because we had no justification whatsoever for going to take out Saddam. There was no real intelligence that Saddam had WMDs or that he was any threat. We can't go around taking out every little dictator that we don't like. We had justification in the first Gulf war but not now in Iraq.

Just like France! http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

France has used a total of 18 vetoes.

The US has used their power of veto 80 times.



Really, though, when was the last time we used a Veto?

2002. Here are a list of resolutions the US has vetoed since 1985.

1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

However, the sites you give, while credible, are very, very biased. I would say the same if you gave a site that said "Bush never lies! America is Perfect!", but linking to a page that basically says, "t3h U.$. r t3h 3vlz0rz!!1!!11!1!1!!!!!one!!111111" isn't very un-biased.
Credible, but biased? Because it focuses on 'one side' of the story? Hardly. It's not there to 'balance' itself with the official government stand on these dictators. You can go find that stand quite easily yourself. Will you dismiss this information as false, simply because you think it's 'biased'? (Sorry to say...EVERY source of information has a bias)

Does 'bias' make this information less true?
(I'm referring mostly to the list of dictators by the way...I didn't read through the other site yet:))

Also, a large majority of people we put in, we also took out. Does that make it okay? You can put in puppets, then take them out, and that cancels out the damage those puppets do?

And don't act like only the U.S. puts in/supports these men. The Europeans put them in and support them too. The Canadians have even supported a few. In other words, all first world countries have messed up the third world.
But not equally. Not at all. You can not say that any European state, or Canada, is as equally responsible for Operation Condor in South America, or the various Central American dictators.

I just want to say:

I haven't been on an "American issue" thread in a LONG time. I got sick of reading the same things over and over, so I just stopped. Much like the religious ones.

So I have to thank you for creating one that has sparked my interest THIS MUCH. I even dreamt about the damn thing last night! I don't think I've been this riled up/interested in months. So again, thank you...you've made some very interesting points for me to consider.

I think what I disagree with most is the idea that your intentions aren't as important as your actions. So you can be a selfish, violent, evil person...but if you do good things (even by accident) it's okay.

I don't agree.

Example: a man hates his neighbour, and plots to kill him. One night, he creeps over to his neighbour's yard and sets his house on fire while his neighbour is sleeping. The neighbour wakes up in time, and escapes, not knowing how this happened. It is later found that there had been a termite infestation in the home, and it was close to collapsing. The insurance pays for a new, sound home, and the neighbour is actually better off.

So, the outcome was actually positive, despite the evil intentions of the first man. Does the outcome cancel out the intentions?

I say no.

Now, I'm not using this as an analogy for the war. I'm not that chipper this morning. I'm just saying...I'm glad Saddam is out, but I don't believe that the ends in this case necessarily justify the means.

Yes, like black people are inferior, and it is okay to say ****** on TV. He has a lot to teach does that wise old man.

I'll see if I can find a link to his LP.
I read the story and also noted that he made apologies for any slurs. However, you do detract from the fact that this Senator is indeed a wise man and by trying to discredit him, you miss his wise message.

This excerpt was delivered in October 2002:

Senate Remarks: Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution (http://bar-nettwork-strategies.us/F.B.Name/Byrd.Iraq.War.html)

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.

Methinks that Senator Byrd hit the nail on the head.

"The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a "preemptive" military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal goal of United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence."

Further down the speech Senator Byrd talks about the effects of a possible war on Iraq:

"No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium."

And the world is indeed discussing that very "mistrust in the US relations with other nations" three years later.

Further down in the speech:

"Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces. There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government. There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor. The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces. In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces."

And even more wisdom from Senator Byrd's speech:

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it – we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack.

Actually the whole speech is a great read and there are references to other great Presidents. Unfortunately Senator Byrd's words fell on deaf ears, and the world awaits the aftermath.......

snip

CanuckHeaven please check your telegrams. Thanks!

"No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium."

This is exactly what I have tried to say, but failed to do so as eloquently. I won't pretend that all leftists have considered this, and base their opposition on this, rather than just blind hatred of Bush...but the ones I respect have. Saddam is a monster. He should not be leading a nation. But do we really want to live in a world where individual governments decide to topple other governments? It's a slippery slope...

Credible, but biased? Because it focuses on 'one side' of the story? Hardly. It's not there to 'balance' itself with the official government stand on these dictators. You can go find that stand quite easily yourself. Will you dismiss this information as false, simply because you think it's 'biased'? (Sorry to say...EVERY source of information has a bias)

Does 'bias' make this information less true?
(I'm referring mostly to the list of dictators by the way...I didn't read through the other site yet:))

No, I never said I'd dismiss it. It's the truth. However, as everyone knows, a change in words can change the message entirely. Instead of just focusing on the dictators we put in, how about talk about the peacefull democratic leaders we put in?

Does that make it okay? You can put in puppets, then take them out, and that cancels out the damage those puppets do?

No, it doesn't. However, it shows we make for our mistakes. Tell me, of all the dictators in the world today, how many have we put in? What dictators have we put in since the turn of the century

But not equally. Not at all. You can not say that any European state, or Canada, is as equally responsible for Operation Condor in South America, or the various Central American dictators.

But I can say they are responsible for multiple genocides(What IDIOT would put Punjabis and Bengalis in the same state? Oh, the British!), corrupt governments(Can you say, "Africa"?), and the numerous puppet states created during and after the World Wars.

And don't give me the "but those all happened in the past". You know what? We put in all our dictators in the past as well. So if what the Europeans did doesn't count, then neither does what we did.

No, I never said I'd dismiss it. It's the truth. However, as everyone knows, a change in words can change the message entirely. Instead of just focusing on the dictators we put in, how about talk about the peacefull democratic leaders we put in?

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? If these leaders were actually DEMOCRATICALLY elected...how is it that you PUT them in power? :D Please list some.


No, it doesn't. However, it shows we make for our mistakes. Tell me, of all the dictators in the world today, how many have we put in? What dictators have we put in since the turn of the century Okay...I'm not going to try to count up all the CURRENT dictators (though I assume you actually mean of all the dictators in the last, say, century, not just those currently living with power?) and then count up how many the US propped up. And the list of dictators the US has put in since the turn of the TWENTIETH century has already been given to you. (Again, I'm assuming you don't mean the turn of THIS century, as it's only 5 years old)



But I can say they are responsible for multiple genocides(What IDIOT would put Punjabis and Bengalis in the same state? Oh, the British!), corrupt governments(Can you say, "Africa"?), and the numerous puppet states created during and after the World Wars.

And don't give me the "but those all happened in the past". You know what? We put in all our dictators in the past as well. So if what the Europeans did doesn't count, then neither does what we did. You're barking up the wrong tree on this one...trust me, I hold Europe very much responsible for the evils of colonialism. However, when you won your independence, you lost any right you had to blame your actions on someone else. Now it's time to take responsibility. Comparing yourself to Europe and saying, "They were much worse" does not erase the stain of what your nation has done. So I guess...if Europe's crimes counts...so do yours?

Anyone else want to take a shot at this debate? It's a good one...

Instead of just focusing on the dictators we put in, how about talk about the peacefull democratic leaders we put in?
Oh boy.....you really didn't mean this the way it sounds did you? If yes, please explain.

Oh boy.....you really didn't mean this the way it sounds did you? If yes, please explain.
Yeah...that one and the comment about dictators installed since the turn of THIS century...had me squirting coffee out of my nose :D

No, it doesn't. However, it shows we make for our mistakes. Tell me, of all the dictators in the world today, how many have we put in? What dictators have we put in since the turn of the century?

Two problems with that line of questioning:

A) No nation will publicly advertise that they rigged an election or assassinated one dictator to put another in power.

B) Most dictators known to be put in power by the US have been overthrown (The Shah [sp?] of Iran comes to mind), or have disassociated themselves from the US to the point that they have to be replaced by the US once more (not a dictator, but think Bin-Laden).

But I can say they are responsible for multiple genocides (What IDIOT would put Punjabis and Bengalis in the same state? Oh, the British!), corrupt governments (Can you say, "Africa"?), and the numerous puppet states created during and after the World Wars.

And don't give me the "but those all happened in the past". You know what? We put in all our dictators in the past as well. So if what the Europeans did doesn't count, then neither does what we did.

That's ridiculous. How can you even try to go in that direction? Okay, Europe is guilty of crimes in the past. How does that in any way exonerate the US or any other nation from crimes of the present?

No, I never said I'd dismiss it. It's the truth. However, as everyone knows, a change in words can change the message entirely. Instead of just focusing on the dictators we put in, how about talk about the peaceful democratic leaders we put in?

Peaceful democratic leaders aren’t the ones you see any nation putting into power, because they are peaceful and don't kill our enemies. Why do you think the US supports corrupt states like Iraq (in the 80's) and Saudi Arabia? Because they kill people we don't like (specifically Iranians, and then after we decide that the Iraqis are now the bad-guys, Iraqis).

Now please, tell me something that isn't paper-thin.

You did not supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, but the USSR involvement in providing CW has not been proven. It is a possiblity, along with the involvement of West Germany, France, the UK, Egypt, and some other counties.
The US did in fact supply chemical and biological agents to Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true):

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php)

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

Iraq as you can see, was very well assisted by the US. For posters on here to bleat out the apologetic......"oops we made a mistake and now we are fixing it".....just doesn't cut the mustard.

NOTE: I'll be using this post to try and respond to your responses to my response

Two problems with that line of questioning:

A) No nation will publicly advertise that they rigged an election or assassinated one dictator to put another in power.

B) Most dictators known to be put in power by the US have been overthrown (The Shah [sp?] of Iran comes to mind), or have disassociated themselves from the US to the point that they have to be replaced by the US once more (not a dictator, but think Bin-Laden).

A. True. Oh, and by the way, I didn't mean we actually put in the elected leaders, but we made the elections possible.

B. Technically, there had been Shah's long before the one we put in. And as you know, he seems to have been better than the guys who replaced him.



That's ridiculous. How can you even try to go in that direction? Okay, Europe is guilty of crimes in the past. How does that in any way exonerate the US or any other nation from crimes of the present?

It doesn't. But you guys are making it sound like "all 0f t3h crimez of t3h world r t3h U.Sz0rz fualtz!!!!1!11!". Also, us putting in dictators (which basically stopped a few dacades ago, after our wonderful([/sarcasm]) leaders realised that they would eventually turn on us) was ALSO in the past.



Peaceful democratic leaders aren’t the ones you see any nation putting into power, because they are peaceful and don't kill our enemies. Why do you think the US supports corrupt states like Iraq (in the 80's) and Saudi Arabia? Because they kill people we don't like (specifically Iranians, and then after we decide that the Iraqis are now the bad-guys, Iraqis).

Now please, tell me something that isn't paper-thin.

To the first part(the "democratic leaders aren't the ones that get put in power" part), read above.

Also, it's the lesser of two evils. Again(of course, both Iran AND Iraq were messed up then, so making a choice was hard. The thing that tipped it in our favor was that the Iranians were constantly trying to harm us at EVERY SINGLE TURN).

Also, I hate the Saudi Government. I loved the Arabs, but I DESPISE the Wahabis in charge of Saudi Arabia.

I hate having a political ideaology that isn't left or right...(ok, it's slightly more right-wing, but not much). Everyone hates me :/

Yeah...that one and the comment about dictators installed since the turn of THIS century...had me squirting coffee out of my nose :D
Ewwwww that is painful and makes the coffee lumpy!!

I think the list of dictators that I posted was comprehensive enough. It sure was a long list.

Ewwwww that is painful and makes the coffee lumpy!!

I think the list of dictators that I posted was comprehensive enough. It sure was a long list.

How typical: You guys don't even notice my response. How hypocritical...

How typical: You guys don't even notice my response. How hypocritical...
No offense was meant, but not sure where you were going with that. I posted a list and you commented that it was a credible list but biased, and I suppose you could be right on both counts but nevertheless, the US has had a long history at instigating regime change and the results have not been that great.

Even Afghanistan is in bad shape these days, even with an "elected" government. The US still calls the shots, and they are building US bases there. The warlords are still very powerful and the opium trade is booming.

Bitter-Sweet Harvest: Afghanistan's New War (http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/opium/default.asp)

Thirdly, the opium business provides a lucrative and virtually risk-free resource base for warlords and provincial commanders who want to resist central control and continue to see Afghanistan under the rule of the gun instead of the rule of law. This danger is perhaps the greatest threat to Afghanistan, for it undermines all the processes currently guiding the country towards democracy and the development of civil society.

In the haste to invade Iraq, the US basically kissed off Afghanistan. BTW, where is Bin Laden?

This is the problem with US foreign policy.

i couldnt find the bit where it explained how Iraq attacked America in 9/11

No offense was meant, but not sure where you were going with that. I posted a list and you commented that it was a credible list but biased, and I suppose you could be right on both counts but nevertheless, the US has had a long history at instigating regime change and the results have not been that great.

Even Afghanistan is in bad shape these days, even with an "elected" government. The US still calls the shots, and they are building US bases there. The warlords are still very powerful and the opium trade is booming.

Bitter-Sweet Harvest: Afghanistan's New War (http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/opium/default.asp)

Thirdly, the opium business provides a lucrative and virtually risk-free resource base for warlords and provincial commanders who want to resist central control and continue to see Afghanistan under the rule of the gun instead of the rule of law. This danger is perhaps the greatest threat to Afghanistan, for it undermines all the processes currently guiding the country towards democracy and the development of civil society.

In the haste to invade Iraq, the US basically kissed off Afghanistan. BTW, where is Bin Laden?

This is the problem with US foreign policy.


I agree, we have messed up in the past. All we can hope to do now is clean up the mess and not do it again.

Also, Afghanistan may be in bad shape, but it is an improvement. I bet if we had kept more men in Afghanistan, it would be running smoothly now. Of course, we'll still clean up that country eventually. It'll just take alot longer.

Oh, and no one ('cept for high Al-qaeda members) know where Bin Laden is. Of course, we guess he's hiding in the not-so-friendly areas of north-western Pakistan and north-eastern Afghanistan.

I agree, we have messed up in the past. All we can hope to do now is clean up the mess and not do it again.
I do think this is the current fear running through the other countries of the world, in that it is feared that the invasion of Iraq is just the beginning of a series of invasions. Iran next, maybe Syria? Who knows?

Also, Afghanistan may be in bad shape, but it is an improvement. I bet if we had kept more men in Afghanistan, it would be running smoothly now. Of course, we'll still clean up that country eventually. It'll just take alot longer.
You are right, the US should have stayed the course, after all, Afghanistan is the country that was refusing to give up Bin Laden and the terrorists. Iraq was just a huge foreign policy blunder. I do believe that the repercussions of that mistake will be felt for many years to come.

Oh, and no one ('cept for high Al-qaeda members) know where Bin Laden is. Of course, we guess he's hiding in the not-so-friendly areas of north-western Pakistan and north-eastern Afghanistan.
Again, if the US had maintained a more intensive force in Afghanistan, Bin Laden and his henchmen might have been caight?

i couldnt find the bit where it explained how Iraq attacked America in 9/11
Yeah, it is a rather large omission, probably because it never happened?

I do think this is the current fear running through the other countries of the world, in that it is feared that the invasion of Iraq is just the beginning of a series of invasions. Iran next, maybe Syria? Who knows?

Peaceful regime change is what we need now. Now military invasions, but cultural and political revolutions. Certain cases require military intervention(such as Afghanistan and maybe North Korea), but the rest can be solved peacefully.


You are right, the US should have stayed the course, after all, Afghanistan is the country that was refusing to give up Bin Laden and the terrorists. Iraq was just a huge foreign policy blunder. I do believe that the repercussions of that mistake will be felt for many years to come.

We will feel the reprecussions. However, what they will be depends on how we handle the situation. If we fix our mistakes, then the reprecussions could be far lesser(and we may even see benefits). However, if we make another big mistake, we're screwed. Right now, we are on the reaaaallllyyy thin line between catastrophe and success. Just one push one way or another will determine the fate of the world for decades to come.

Again, if the US had maintained a more intensive force in Afghanistan, Bin Laden and his henchmen might have been caight?

I'm not so sure that Bin Laden may have been caught by now (After all, there are a helluva lotta mountains in that area, and alot of people that support Al-qaeda), but Al-qaeda and the Taliban would be far weaker now.

Objectively, the anti-war marchers were marching to save Hussein. If they had got their way, Saddam would still be in power. I know that no true leftist supported Hussein in his heart, but in his actions, he did, however unintentionally.
Not at all. If we'd gotten our way, the sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted, and perhaps the Iraqis would have had the strength to topple Saddam from within. That's kinda hard to do when you're starving to death.

They would be here in the States or elsewhere to kill us. Instead, they are in Iraq killing Iraqi Civilians which really is pissing them off more than we are.
What a ridiculous line of thinking. I don't fault you for this, but rather the people that have perpetuated it. The idea that terrorists, who have the ability and means to come here and commit acts of terrorism, where said acts would be far-reaching and disastrous, and yet don't for whatever reason is ludicrous. The only terrorists in Iraq are the ones that don't have the resources to come here.

Furthermore, it's reasonable to say that the war created terrorists who wouldn't otherwise have been engaging in acts of terror.

Questions for the Iraq war supporters:

During the '80s/early '90s, the U.S. supplied Turkey with hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid. During this time, thousands of Turkish Kurds were massacred by the Turkish armed forces. Why is this acceptable, but Saddam killing Kurds in Iraq not acceptable?

If Saddam gassing the Kurds was so bad, then why did the U.S. increase support for him following the attacks?

Why is it that Dubya's biggest campaign contributors are the ones getting the best reconstruction contracts?

If the UN inspections were ineffective, then why were there no WMDs found?

Peaceful regime change is what we need now. Now military invasions, but cultural and political revolutions. Certain cases require military intervention(such as Afghanistan and maybe North Korea), but the rest can be solved peacefully.
I agree that Afghanistan was a necessary intervention. Unfortunately, as previously stated, the US did not leave enough resources in the country and the shabby results are starting to show.

As far as North Korea is concerned, the US should be engaged in bi-lateral and multi-lateral discussions right now instead of issuing threats. If the US is contemplating an armed confrontation with North Korea, and I think they are, then I honestly believe that in itself would be a greater mistake than Iraq and Vietnam combined. It also increases the possibility of nuclear warfare, which is an extremely unpleasant thought. It is time to put the toys away and initiate meaningful discussions, and by that, I don't mean one side or the other dictating a solution.

We will feel the reprecussions. However, what they will be depends on how we handle the situation. If we fix our mistakes, then the reprecussions could be far lesser(and we may even see benefits).
I think the US has been mistake prone in Iraq for a long time. Reagan backing Saddam was a mistake. Bush 1 didn't finish Saddam off in 1991 when he had the chance. And Bush 2 made the mistake of invading Iraq, which has resulted in international condemnation, increased mistrust of the US (especially amongst the Arabs), has increased terrorism, has cost the US Billions of dollars and the lives of over 1700 servicemen, and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Not to mention that the infastructure of Iraq has been devastated. And there are no guarantees that the new government of Iraq will be any more friendly to Americans than the last regime.

However, if we make another big mistake, we're screwed. Right now, we are on the reaaaallllyyy thin line between catastrophe and success. Just one push one way or another will determine the fate of the world for decades to come.
Again, I do agree with you here. IMHO, I don't think that Bush has finished tinkering in the Middle East and I think that does not bode well for your country, the country that gets invaded and the world in general. Only time will tell. In the meantime, the insurgency in Iraq is a continual thorn in the side, and hampers any kind of meaningful reconstruction.

I'm not so sure that Bin Laden may have been caught by now (After all, there are a helluva lotta mountains in that area, and alot of people that support Al-qaeda), but Al-qaeda and the Taliban would be far weaker now.
Again, I do agree with you. It is unfortunate that Bush decided to invade Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Not at all. If we'd gotten our way, the sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted, and perhaps the Iraqis would have had the strength to topple Saddam from within. That's kinda hard to do when you're starving to death.
I agree, and the US approach has just created a whole new bag of problems.

Questions for the Iraq war supporters:

During the '80s/early '90s, the U.S. supplied Turkey with hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid. During this time, thousands of Turkish Kurds were massacred by the Turkish armed forces. Why is this acceptable, but Saddam killing Kurds in Iraq not acceptable?

If Saddam gassing the Kurds was so bad, then why did the U.S. increase support for him following the attacks?

Why is it that Dubya's biggest campaign contributors are the ones getting the best reconstruction contracts?

If the UN inspections were ineffective, then why were there no WMDs found?
You have raised some very good questions. Lets see what kind of response you will get, if any?

I, like the author of the original article, was a very atypical war supporter. I use past tense because I think the Bush administration took a good idea and mauled it.

During the '80s/early '90s, the U.S. supplied Turkey with hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid. During this time, thousands of Turkish Kurds were massacred by the Turkish armed forces. Why is this acceptable, but Saddam killing Kurds in Iraq not acceptable?
It's called pick your battles. Saddam was doing bad things in the status quo. Between him and the embargoes, over one million Iraqis would have died in the next 10 years. We couldn't lift the embargoes because then Saddam would actually have gotten WMDs. There was one option left.

If Saddam gassing the Kurds was so bad, then why did the U.S. increase support for him following the attacks?
Because we fucked up. So we should fix our mistakes.

Why is it that Dubya's biggest campaign contributors are the ones getting the best reconstruction contracts?
Because the Bush administration is terrible. That doesn't make the war a bad idea.

If the UN inspections were ineffective, then why were there no WMDs found?
Because there weren't any WMD. I feel misled and betrayed. That still doesn't change the fact that unilateral humanitarian military intervention is good.

I agree that Afghanistan was a necessary intervention. Unfortunately, as previously stated, the US did not leave enough resources in the country and the shabby results are starting to show.

As far as North Korea is concerned, the US should be engaged in bi-lateral and multi-lateral discussions right now instead of issuing threats. If the US is contemplating an armed confrontation with North Korea, and I think they are, then I honestly believe that in itself would be a greater mistake than Iraq and Vietnam combined. It also increases the possibility of nuclear warfare, which is an extremely unpleasant thought. It is time to put the toys away and initiate meaningful discussions, and by that, I don't mean one side or the other dictating a solution.

Hence, I said maybe North Korea(look at the emphasis on maybe). Talks are still the best action to solve N. Korea.


I think the US has been mistake prone in Iraq for a long time. Reagan backing Saddam was a mistake. Bush 1 didn't finish Saddam off in 1991 when he had the chance. And Bush 2 made the mistake of invading Iraq, which has resulted in international condemnation, increased mistrust of the US (especially amongst the Arabs), has increased terrorism, has cost the US Billions of dollars and the lives of over 1700 servicemen, and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Not to mention that the infastructure of Iraq has been devastated. And there are no guarantees that the new government of Iraq will be any more friendly to Americans than the last regime.

We couldn't have taken Saddam out in Gulf War 1. Ok, we COULD have, but then we'd be in the same predicament we are in today. Everyone would say our invasion of Iraq was illegal, the Sunnis would be rebelling, and more.

Again, I do agree with you here. IMHO, I don't think that Bush has finished tinkering in the Middle East and I think that does not bode well for your country, the country that gets invaded and the world in general. Only time will tell. In the meantime, the insurgency in Iraq is a continual thorn in the side, and hampers any kind of meaningful reconstruction.

Let's just Bush doesn't have any more big plans involving armies in the Middle East. As long as he doesn't invade a country this term, it's fine by me(I don't really care about his domestic policies. After all, I don't live in the U.S. Sure, I'm and American, but I don't live there.)

Again, I do agree with you. It is unfortunate that Bush decided to invade Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Seriously, he could have waited another year. Maybe talks would have gotten somewhere...

Holy...crap... Have I just spent my last 5 posts agreeing with CanuckHeaven!?! My god, the world has gone insane!

This fascinating article, "Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?" is by Norman Geras, professor of government at Manchester university and self-professed Marxist.

It outlines much of what I agree with. That is, the short-sightedness and unthinking oppositionism of the majority of those on the political left with regards to this war. Most of us (on the left) seem to think that because Bush is right-wing and because we oppose most of his policies, then all of his policies must be opposed. Fallacy. Read on.



Italics mine.

Source (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003834)
Incredible. Although if I spoke with this man about issues, I have a high regard and much respect for him for saying "the buck stops here" for the left. It is hard for any person on either side of the political spectrum to say such.

Actually, marxists are anti democracy. Witness the Soviet Union and the People's Republic, not to mention East Germany, North Korea and Cuba.
Those are all states run by marxists and one of them is now extinct.
They were run by Stalinists, not Marxists. And two of them are extinct.

Marxists favour absoute democracy where every citizen votes on every issue. It's completely unworkable, mind you, but that's what they believe in.

Swimmingpool,

You shall be awarded the medal of being "Fair and Balanced" in NS.

Yay! You know, I often feel like I both agree and disagree with everybody.

But it's not about being "balanced" or about partisan politics. For me it's about doing what's not only right but also what works.

I am one of those Rambos, who happens to be a American soldier, that is "kickin' teh ass!!", and I'm damn proud of what I'm doing.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~
You're not an armchair Rambo if you're a soldier! You're an actual Rambo! Not that I have a problem with kicking 'teh' terrorist ass.

PS>.. Satanism ! Total fucking darkness! So do you like black metal?

however, you cannot say that Saddam did not deserve what he got by any means. Saddam was a US puppet for quite some time in the 1980s and the US was fully aware of his crimes in that war, but simply chose to ignore them because of fear of the Islamic Revolution spreading. Only when Saddam started being disobediant is when the US made him their enemy. Saddam was an imperialist puppet and certainly one of the bigger reactionaries of the 20th century along with the other dictators the US supported including, but obviously not limited to Pinochet, Seseko, Somoza, Pol Pot, Papa Doc, Siad Barre, Franco, Batista and Deng Xiaoping.
I agree. However, just beause the US supported these guys in the past, does not mean that they should not have 'taken out' Hussein.

I am writing all this to remind this poster of the article that the so-called left side of politics is huge

You don't need to tell me; I'm on the left (democratic socialist, Irish).

The view points the articles attributes to the left are very limited in scope, representing the liberal left movement in the USA, and ingoring the views of many other groups around the world.

What do you mean? In reality I have never seen a pro-war left wing group of any kind, and I live outside the USA.

The failure of the UN to fulfill its duties has allows a power shift in the international community further benefiting the (super-power of the) USA. For American citizens, this is a good thing. For the rest of us it is probably not.

I agree here about US power. I am in favour of the Iraq war but I am surely not a militaristic Pan-Americanist!

First of all, I am sick of hearing about Stalinism. Can I see a doctrine of Stalinism? no, I can't because Stalin merely carried out the policies of Lenin, even if he made significant errors in the process. Socialism and the rights of man are much more close than Capitalism and the rights of man. As one East German woman put "The media says we were deprived, looking back, I agree, we were deprived of unsafe streets, we were deprived of the lack of healthcare and we were deprived of unemployment." 80% of East Germans according to a recent poll, wish the wall hadn't come down, that part of Germany now has 25% unemployment and sadly, East Germany probably is doing better than most of the rest of Eastern Europe under Capitalism. The fall of the USSR was done illegally by Gorbachev. Nonetheless, the past is the past and we must look to the future of Marxism-Leninism. Honestly, I've heard enough about an ideology that doesn't exist, why not discuss Marxism-Leninism?

I just want to say:

I haven't been on an "American issue" thread in a LONG time. I got sick of reading the same things over and over, so I just stopped. Much like the religious ones.

So I have to thank you for creating one that has sparked my interest THIS MUCH. I even dreamt about the damn thing last night! I don't think I've been this riled up/interested in months. So again, thank you...you've made some very interesting points for me to consider.
Cool! It's not just an American issue though. It's important for people globally to consider.

I'm just saying...I'm glad Saddam is out, but...
...If the anti-war crowd had their way Hussein would still be ruling with an iron fist. These statements can't be reconciled with an anti-war opinion.

Also, I think that actions are more judged by their own merits, not who is doing them. I would not proclaim the US to be trustworthy, though, given their record. Nonetheless, that fact does not make everything they do evil.

How about this article from your own Senator Byrd:

CH is Canadian and thus not a Democrat.

Iraq as you can see, was very well assisted by the US. For posters on here to bleat out the apologetic......"oops we made a mistake and now we are fixing it".....just doesn't cut the mustard.
I hope you're not thinking of me there. That's not what I'm saying at all.

But do we really want to live in a world where individual governments decide to topple other governments? It's a slippery slope...
Yeah, it's a slippery slope, just like gay marriage. :rolleyes:

What makes you think it's a slippery slope? Regime change of dictatorships is nothing new, and it's been done not only by the USA before.

I do think this is the current fear running through the other countries of the world, in that it is feared that the invasion of Iraq is just the beginning of a series of invasions. Iran next, maybe Syria? Who knows?
I don't think Iran would be possible right now. It's just too big. Syria perhaps (though I would not support it), though my personal preference would be Sudan.

Again, if the US had maintained a more intensive force in Afghanistan, Bin Laden and his henchmen might have been caight?
I agree that they really made a blunder by taking all those troops out of Afghanistan in the rush for Iraq. There should be, at my amateur guess, at least 100,000 more troops there.

Honestly, I've heard enough about an ideology that doesn't exist, why not discuss Marxism-Leninism?
Then start your own thread about it!

What makes you think it's a slippery slope? Regime change of dictatorships is nothing new, and it's been done not only by the USA before.
I can't for the death of me think of one right now...

The Iraq war was certainly odd for the US, usually the US is putting in those dictatorships rather than removing them.

The Iraq war was certainly odd for the US, usually the US is putting in those dictatorships rather than removing them.
That's true! Hopefully this is another shift! The last period of US democratising was in 1945-51.

I can't for the death of me think of one right now...
Vietnam changed Cambodia's regime in 1979.

It's called pick your battles. Saddam was doing bad things in the status quo. Between him and the embargoes, over one million Iraqis would have died in the next 10 years. We couldn't lift the embargoes because then Saddam would actually have gotten WMDs. There was one option left.It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. The embargoes could have been lifted on certain things like food (Oil For Food doesn't count), medicine, clothing...the essentials.


Because we fucked up. So we should fix our mistakes.And, of course, the mistake during/after the first Gulf War, where we told the Iraqis that we were going for regime change, got them amassed to take Baghdad, and then watched as Saddam's tanks ran through them.


Because there weren't any WMD. I feel misled and betrayed. That still doesn't change the fact that unilateral humanitarian military intervention is good.Unilateral humanitarian military invention *can* be good, yes. And while it might not end in a total disaster, I still don't think it was the best option.

I, like the author of the original article, was a very atypical war supporter. I use past tense because I think the Bush administration took a good idea and mauled it.-snip-
Because there weren't any WMD. I feel misled and betrayed. That still doesn't change the fact that unilateral humanitarian military intervention is good.

This I question. My biggest problem is that there is no way to determine where intervention is (most) necessary. I agree that humanitarian intervention is a good thing (I would argue that it is often a moral imperative to intervene) in general.

However, I don't think it's appropriate to develope 'A Case For War' in an ad hoc manner. It seems obvious at this point that most of the justification was misleading or outright false. As you say, this does not mean the war was 'bad' per se.

I think when we look at the war which actually occured, and the war that COULD have occured, given the same resources, commitment, etc, we must concede that while intervention in Iraq was acceptable, a lot more could have been done given the money invested. True, thousands would have likely died under Saddam. But millions are dying throughout Africa of war, famine and disease. The billions spent on the war in Iraq could have been better spent addressing more serious (not to say that the situation in Iraq was not serious) problems.

If we're going to defend our interventions on the grounds of humanitarianism, we should be essentially human rights utilitarians. Where can we do the most good given our resources? I don't think the answer to that question would be Iraq.

Not at all. If we'd gotten our way, the sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted, and perhaps the Iraqis would have had the strength to topple Saddam from within. That's kinda hard to do when you're starving to death.
None of which was likely to happen. Even if it did, it would be far more bloody, costly and would have taken much longer to come to pass.

Furthermore, it's reasonable to say that the war created terrorists who wouldn't otherwise have been engaging in acts of terror.
This is true, but try not to think in the short term. Sure, the Iraq Project may cause a slight temporary increase in the short term, but decades down the line Iraq, and perhaps the whole region will be more democratic and prosperous, and peaceful.

Why is this acceptable, but Saddam killing Kurds in Iraq not acceptable?
It is not acceptable. I expect full Turkish admission of war crimes and trial of murderers before they get into the EU.

If Saddam gassing the Kurds was so bad, then why did the U.S. increase support for him following the attacks?

Why is it that Dubya's biggest campaign contributors are the ones getting the best reconstruction contracts?
Because the US Government is very corrupt.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that not all war supporters are Republican party loyalists? I've already said before, the American government is evil. But nowhere near as evil as Hussein's government.

I think when we look at the war which actually occured, and the war that COULD have occured, given the same resources, commitment, etc, we must concede that while intervention in Iraq was acceptable, a lot more could have been done given the money invested. True, thousands would have likely died under Saddam. But millions are dying throughout Africa of war, famine and disease. The billions spent on the war in Iraq could have been better spent addressing more serious (not to say that the situation in Iraq was not serious) problems.

If we're going to defend our interventions on the grounds of humanitarianism, we should be essentially human rights utilitarians. Where can we do the most good given our resources? I don't think the answer to that question would be Iraq.
Wow, that's a good point. That's a very good point, Mallberta. I agree that the countries of the west should be doing more to help Africa.

Vietnam changed Cambodia's regime in 1979.
They did. I'm becoming forgetful these days.
Although the question remains whether that was the actual reason they attacked. Maybe Pol Pot just said something rude...

None of which was likely to happen. Even if it did, it would be far more bloody, costly and would have taken much longer to come to pass.Perhaps this is true, although as the insurgency hasn't ended yet, we can't quite say just how bloody the war is.


This is true, but try not to think in the short term. Sure, the Iraq Project may cause a slight temporary increase in the short term, but decades down the line Iraq, and perhaps the whole region will be more democratic and prosperous, and peaceful.Possibly. But I have little faith in the government to not intervene in the region, given its history of doing so (not just Bush Jr.)


It is not acceptable. I expect full Turkish admission of war crimes and trial of murderers before they get into the EU.Realize that many of these were done with US Foreign Aid.


Because the US Government is very corrupt.True. And what will happen if the Iraqis elect a government that is hostile to US interests?


Why is it so hard for you to believe that not all war supporters are Republican party loyalists? I've already said before, the American government is evil. But nowhere near as evil as Hussein's government.Oh, I believe that they're not all Republicans, given the 70+% the war had (at least at the start). I do enjoy the viewpoint that even though the motivations for the war sucked, the war itself didn't necessarily, for what it accomplished. It's a new viewpoint, and one I have to think about. It goes back to the thread I've seen on here: "Which is better? The wrong action for the right reasons, or the right action for the wrong reasons?"[/QUOTE]

Realize that many of these were done with US Foreign Aid.
Not the Armenian Holocaust though. That was probably done with German help... :D

Cool! It's not just an American issue though. It's important for people globally to consider.
And yet Americans are constantly complaining that people are sticking their noses in their business...I agree that we should be looking at this as a global issue, not a regional one.


...If the anti-war crowd had their way Hussein would still be ruling with an iron fist. These statements can't be reconciled with an anti-war opinion.
If the people who opposed US intervention had their way, Pinochet wouldn't have gained power, along with all the other dictators 'placed' by the US government.

Anti-war does not exist in a vacume. For most, anti-Iraq-war was a suspicion-of-further-US-meddling-in-the-affairs-of-soveriegn-nations kind of stand. I would think by this point in the discussion, you would be willing to back down on the stand that anti-war means pro-Saddam?

Also, I think that actions are more judged by their own merits, not who is doing them.
That's your philosophical view on it. I disagree, but I've already explained why.


I would not proclaim the US to be trustworthy, though, given their record. Nonetheless, that fact does not make everything they do evil.
No, it doesn't. But it does, based on their past record, make them more likely to continue their foreign policy of meddling in the affairs of others for their own gain. Which is why the sudden altruism was suspect. I don't think people buy that a government can so fundamentally change it's tune as to be doing good for others just for the sake of doing good, rather than for a very personal motive of gain. To believe the official line would be to ignore every historical lesson we have of US international involvement in the last century.




Yeah, it's a slippery slope, just like gay marriage. :rolleyes: Comparing the military invention of a nation in the affairs of another sovereign nation to the union of consenting adults is not really going to make any point worth using.



What makes you think it's a slippery slope? Regime change of dictatorships is nothing new, and it's been done not only by the USA before. You're right. It was done by Iraq too, in Kuwait...and look at the response.

After the World Wars, the international community agreed that no one nation state should be able to invade another with impunity. And now, suddenly, because the motives are supposedly 'pure', it's okay? That it's okay to invade a country and impose a political system its people as long as you 'mean well'? Forgive me if I find that a paltry excuse from a nation that has a poor track record in such affairs to begin with. The slippery slope? Is it just the US that gets to do this? Or are other countries going to play this game too? When should we expect the invasion...oops, I mean, LIBERATION of Cuba, by the way?

After the World Wars, the international community agreed that no one nation state should be able to invade another with impunity. And now, suddenly, because the motives are supposedly 'pure', it's okay?

After WW2 the world also got together to define the limits of sovereignty. We decided that governments no longer had the right to commit genocide and mass murder under the protection of "sovereignty". If we can agree to this, why can't we agree to the enforcement of this rule?

That it's okay to invade a country and impose a political system its people as long as you 'mean well'?
What were the occupations of Japan and Germany in 1945 if not this? Why did the allies impose a political system instead of just leaving them to sort out their own mess?

Forgive me if I find that a paltry excuse from a nation that has a poor track record in such affairs to begin with.
America has a better track record than any almost any other nation. Japan and Germany, need I say more?

The slippery slope? Is it just the US that gets to do this? Or are other countries going to play this game too? When should we expect the invasion...oops, I mean, LIBERATION of Cuba, by the way?
Read the thread. I have also highlighted my agreement with the 1979 liberation of Cambodia by Vietnam, and the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh by India. So no, it's not only the US which is allowed to do this.

I would not support a liberation of Cuba. Castro is not that bad. No civil libertarian, but he's not committing mass murder. The results of such and invasion would be worse than any benefits that can be achieved without resort to violence.

After WW2 the world also got together to define the limits of sovereignty. We decided that governments no longer had the right to commit genocide and mass murder under the protection of "sovereignty". If we can agree to this, why can't we agree to the enforcement of this rule?
Good question. Why can't we? Not sure. The point is, we can't. If we COULD we would have AS A GROUP OF NATIONS ousted Saddam long ago. And done something about the Kurds in Turkey. And acted in Rwanda. And everywhere else where nation states do horrible things to their people. But we don't. We do it where our particular interests happen to be.

Until I see Henry Kissinger being tried for crimes against humanity, I'm not going to put too much creedence into any trial the US supports for other monsters.

What were the occupations of Japan and Germany in 1945 if not this? Why did the allies impose a political system instead of just leaving them to sort out their own mess?
Self interest. And it's paid off well.


America has a better track record than any almost any other nation. Japan and Germany, need I say more?
Yeah, I think you actually do.

Japan and Germany may have, as nations, committed some pretty terrible atrocities...as have other nations. But does that make the US BETTER, somehow? Are you just going with body count? Because then I'd have to ask...would you count direct, or indirect deaths caused by US foreign policy?


Read the thread. I have also highlighted my agreement with the 1979 liberation of Cambodia by Vietnam, and the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh by India. So no, it's not only the US which is allowed to do this.
Allowed by whom?

If the people who opposed US intervention had their way, Pinochet wouldn't have gained power, along with all the other dictators 'placed' by the US government.
I didn't say I agreed with every US intervention. I didn't agree with the installation of Pinochet, or the Shah to replace elected socialist leaders. If the opponents of US Intervention had their way another time, Europe would be run by Nazis and Asia would be run by Great Imperial Japan.

Anti-war does not exist in a vacuum. For most, anti-Iraq-war was a suspicion-of-further-US-meddling-in-the-affairs-of-soveriegn-nations kind of stand. I would think by this point in the discussion, you would be willing to back down on the stand that anti-war means pro-Saddam?
No, it's still true. If you are against measures to remove Saddam, but disagree with his policies, you are anti-Saddam in belief, but pro-Saddam in effect. Your verbal disagreement with Saddam's policies made no difference to them. If your disagreement with the Iraq war had made a difference, then the effect would be that Saddam would remain in power. Thus, your beliefs are pro-Saddam in effects.

That's your philosophical view on it. I disagree, but I've already explained why.
It is petulant to be willing to permit the continuation of mass murder, extreme torture, institutionalised rape, just because the only power willing to put an end to it is that which you dislike.

No, it doesn't. But it does, based on their past record, make them more likely to continue their foreign policy of meddling in the affairs of others for their own gain. Which is why the sudden altruism was suspect. I don't think people buy that a government can so fundamentally change it's tune as to be doing good for others just for the sake of doing good, rather than for a very personal motive of gain. To believe the official line would be to ignore every historical lesson we have of US international involvement in the last century.
Everyone knows that altruism is not the real reason for the current US policy. No country guides their foreign policy on anything other than self-interest. But in effect, it was altrustic as it is providing the Iraqis with freedom for the most part. The US did the right thing (liberate Iraq) for the wrong reasons (getting the oil).

Comparing the military invention of a nation in the affairs of another sovereign nation to the union of consenting adults is not really going to make any point worth using.
It's just as irrational as the homophobes.

Good question. Why can't we? Not sure. The point is, we can't. If we COULD we would have AS A GROUP OF NATIONS ousted Saddam long ago.

So because you wish it had been done before, you are against it being done now?

And done something about the Kurds in Turkey. And acted in Rwanda. And everywhere else where nation states do horrible things to their people. But we don't. We do it where our particular interests happen to be.

All of those genocides should have been actively opposed, and stopped.

Yes, governments do it where their interests lie. I don't see how this is a reason to oppose the Iraq war. Are you saying that if we can't protect human rights everywhere, we shouldn't do it anywhere?

Until I see Henry Kissinger being tried for crimes against humanity, I'm not going to put too much credence into any trial the US supports for other monsters.
I agree. Saddam should be tried at the Hague.

No, it's still true. If you are against measures to remove Saddam, but disagree with his policies, you are anti-Saddam in belief, but pro-Saddam in effect. Your verbal disagreement with Saddam's policies made no difference to them. If your disagreement with the Iraq war had made a difference, then the effect would be that Saddam would remain in power. Thus, your beliefs are pro-Saddam in effects.
Sorry, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree.

All of the actions by the US during and after the Perian Gulf War did nothing but solidify support for Saddam in his nation. Had they not so greviously erred in judgement, had they not been key in imposing sanctions than punished the very people they now pretend to be championing, REAL CHANGE could have been possible in that country. Instead, swaths of people have died of hunger and abuse, not solely the responsibility of Saddam, nor of those who helped him into power, but rather a shared culpability that the US refuses to admit to. People who hated Saddam HATED THE US MORE, for the pain they were instrumental in causing. Had Saddam been left to be the focus of hatred he deserved to be, a real uprising could have been possible, and SELF-DETERMINATION for the Iraqi people a reality, instead of a farce.

Saying that we support Saddam in effect, because of our anti-war stance is as erroneous as saying that those who supported the creation of the United States by default supported the genocide of Native Americans, or supported slavery.


It is petulant to be willing to permit the continuation of mass murder, extreme torture, institutionalised rape, just because the only power willing to put an end to it is that which you dislike. No, it is realistic to be outraged that this suddenly became an issue now, after all the damage that has already been done. If the US really gave a shit about Iraqis, it would have gotten rid of its little puppet earlier, and done something other than sanction the life out of Iraqi children over these past decades. One action that had a debatably positive impact does not outweigh the lives that have been lost in Iraq because of direct and indirect US intervention there. Not by far.

So because you wish it had been done before, you are against it being done now? If it is a rogue nation doing it, yes I oppose it. Even with the little 'coalition of the willing', it is not an international effort that has any legitimacy.


Yes, governments do it where their interests lie. I don't see how this is a reason to oppose the Iraq war. Are you saying that if we can't protect human rights everywhere, we shouldn't do it anywhere?No, I just don't think human rights abusers should be in the business of removing other human rights abusers. Not on their own, not 'when they feel like it'...and not with trumped up evidence and lies, turning around and demanding a pat on the back for their 'good deed' afterwards. Not when they have failed to account for the horrible things they have made possible in other nations. The US is acting like a loose cannon here, and it is a destabilizing influence in the world. They've gotten away with it now...and this will likely only encourage them to continue. THAT is what worries me most, and what lays at the heart of my unease and my opposition to their actions.

Very interesting thread. One of the first (if not the first) pro-Iraq war views that's come anywhere near close to swaying me.

I'm basically hoping that I'm wrong and that the war will have been a good thing.

If it is a rogue nation doing it, yes I oppose it. Even with the little 'coalition of the willing', it is not an international effort that has any legitimacy.

This I don't get. Why would it be anymore legitimate if other countries jumped in? I don't think the morality of a war can be determined just cause more people thought it was okey-dokey.

Look at Kosovo: it wasn't put through the UN or other 'international' body (at least not the way you seem to be using international) but surely the intervention there wasn't immoral per se?

The UN does not have the only 'stamp of approval' here, in a moral sense.

This I don't get. Why would it be anymore legitimate if other countries jumped in? I don't think the morality of a war can be determined just cause more people thought it was okey-dokey. Nor do I. It's a desire for checks and balances. Hopefully, with more international involvement, justification would have to be solid.

Look at Kosovo: it wasn't put through the UN or other 'international' body (at least not the way you seem to be using international) but surely the intervention there wasn't immoral per se?

The UN does not have the only 'stamp of approval' here, in a moral sense. No one has a stamp of approval in a moral sense. But again, checks and balances are more likely when nations with divergent motives balance one another out.

Nor do I. It's a desire for checks and balances. Hopefully, with more international involvement, justification would have to be solid.

No one has a stamp of approval in a moral sense. But again, checks and balances are more likely when nations with divergent motives balance one another out.

Not really, because more nations would be inclined to back out due to self-interest. I don't think it's really possible to say international involvement has any real bearing on humanitarian disaster.

For example, we could clearly see that if one nation had the ability to stop the massacre in Rwanda, but every other nation refused to be involved, that one nation would still be morally justified in intervening.

It's the same as on the individual level. Just because a bunch of people think or do a certain thing, doesn't make it right.

By saying that only with international support should we intervene in a humanitarian crisis, I really think you're reducing the possibility of such interventions of EVER occuring, which clearly would not be a good thing.

Not really, because more nations would be inclined to back out due to self-interest. I don't think it's really possible to say international involvement has any real bearing on humanitarian disaster.

For example, we could clearly see that if one nation had the ability to stop the massacre in Rwanda, but every other nation refused to be involved, that one nation would still be morally justified in intervening.

It's the same as on the individual level. Just because a bunch of people think or do a certain thing, doesn't make it right.

By saying that only with international support should we intervene in a humanitarian crisis, I really think you're reducing the possibility of such interventions of EVER occuring, which clearly would not be a good thing.
I don't have a definitive answer of what would be best. I can only say that I fear a world in which various powers are allowed to intervene as they wish. China still says they had the moral responsibility to free Tibetans from an oppressive theocracy. Does that make them right? Who decides that? I don't want single nations having the power to make those decisions on their own. Period.

Unless we get to annex Alaska :D

In any case, I'm just rehashing arguments that have already been made and addressed by others. I would have to say that I agree the most with what Mallberta has said about humanitarian aid and focusing on where we could do the most good. I refuse to accept the label of Saddam-supporter for my lack of support for this war, however, as much as others may wish to land me with it.

This I question. My biggest problem is that there is no way to determine where intervention is (most) necessary. I agree that humanitarian intervention is a good thing (I would argue that it is often a moral imperative to intervene) in general.
I agree. See Rwanda.

However, I don't think it's appropriate to develope 'A Case For War' in an ad hoc manner. It seems obvious at this point that most of the justification was misleading or outright false. As you say, this does not mean the war was 'bad' per se.
Again, I agree. Misleading one's people is not justified.

I think when we look at the war which actually occured, and the war that COULD have occured, given the same resources, commitment, etc, we must concede that while intervention in Iraq was acceptable, a lot more could have been done given the money invested. True, thousands would have likely died under Saddam. But millions are dying throughout Africa of war, famine and disease. The billions spent on the war in Iraq could have been better spent addressing more serious (not to say that the situation in Iraq was not serious) problems.
Every 10 years Saddam would rule, 1 million Iraqis at least would have died as a result of Saddam's rule and the economic sanctions which would not have been lifted in a world where there was no war. These statistics come from Professor Walter Russel Mead, in an article published before the war in the Washington Post.

Further, aid can only do so much. The Oil-for-Food program is a perfect example of how well-intentioned humanitarian aid can be mismanaged by corrupt recipient governments. We're not sure how much money it would take to save the same net amount of people that could be saved by a well-planned war (the way this one went down, it emphatically was not).

If we're going to defend our interventions on the grounds of humanitarianism, we should be essentially human rights utilitarians. Where can we do the most good given our resources? I don't think the answer to that question would be Iraq.
I agree. But I think there are problems with the aid system. I'm not saying we should reject aid entirely - but we should certainly acknowledge its limitations.

Further, a precedent of humanitarian intervention is good. If the US had committed itself to humanitarian military action in 1994, 800,000 lives in Rwanda could potentially have been saved. But we didn't. Perhaps we could use this war to do just that.

Every 10 years Saddam would rule, 1 million Iraqis at least would have died as a result of Saddam's rule and the economic sanctions which would not have been lifted in a world where there was no war. These statistics come from Professor Walter Russel Mead, in an article published before the war in the Washington Post.

Assuming we accept this statistic, we have 100000/year, though I'm not entirely sure this is accurate. I know of no generally agreed upon deaths/year statistic, especially because it is generally assumed Saddam himself exagerated these statistics in order to garner international supports.

That aside, I think there are many situations world wide where more than 100000/year are in peril, and where these problems could be addressed far more easily and cheaper than an invasion and regime change in Iraq.

Further, aid can only do so much. The Oil-for-Food program is a perfect example of how well-intentioned humanitarian aid can be mismanaged by corrupt recipient governments. We're not sure how much money it would take to save the same net amount of people that could be saved by a well-planned war (the way this one went down, it emphatically was not).

That's fair enough, but I'm not JUST saying we should use humanitarian aid. We can intervene militarily, but lets make sure our interventions maximize humanitarian gains. For example, I would argue that military intervention in Sierra Leone would save more lives than in Iraq.

dge its limitations.

Further, a precedent of humanitarian intervention is good. If the US had committed itself to humanitarian military action in 1994, 800,000 lives in Rwanda could potentially have been saved. But we didn't. Perhaps we could use this war to do just that.

I don't think this will happen, most likely because this war has not generally been framed as humanitarian. This war will most likely be remembered and framed as a security matter (this is certainly what the 'Bush Doctrine' means). We can say that it had humanitarian aspects, but this was NOT a humanitarian intervention, and I doubt the world will see it as such.

Every 10 years Saddam would rule, 1 million Iraqis at least would have died as a result of Saddam's rule and the economic sanctions which would not have been lifted in a world where there was no war. These statistics come from Professor Walter Russel Mead, in an article published before the war in the Washington Post.I realize that you're not the one who said that opposing the war means that you're pro-Saddam, but perhaps you feel that way...
If opposing the war means that a person is pro Saddam, does that mean that
supporting the sanctions means that a person is pro the Iraqis starving to death and dying of preventable diseases?