NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay. Let’s say that the US never went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power and he continued he reign uninterrupted until his death, at which point, one of his crazy sons would inherit the mantle of “President” of Iraq. Now, let’s say his son commits even more violations of human rights because of his obvious insanity, and then starts another war with Iran. Would you blame the US for his rise to power, his crimes and the war? The idea that people would was put forth in another thread, and I thought it was ridiculous, so I decided to start a thread about it.

That's a proposterous idea. You couldn't just blame the US for that.

Although, the US has to have some blame for supporting him in the past.

I am sure many would. They would say it was America's resposibilty as the only remaning superpower to control animals like Hussein.

No, because it isn't our damn business.

There are plenty other horrendous things happening around the world that the US hasn't stopped, so I don't see why anyone could blame them for not stopping that.

Everyone that could have helped prevent it and didn't are to blame.

There are plenty other horrendous things happening around the world that the US hasn't stopped, so I don't see why anyone could blame them for not stopping that.

Rwanda...and Darfur for example?

there is only possible reason I would blame the US for that and it would be if they funded the insane heir.

under all other circumstances it is that person acting of their own free will and the blame falls on none but themselves

Great topic... I think that somewhere, somehow there would be alot of anti-american rhetoric about "surely your inteligence showed you Saddam was ammassing an army and WMD's, why didn't you try to stop him"... It is strange, if the US does something like to into Iraq, we are verbally assaulted for being a bully, but if we do nothing or very little, like in Sudan, we are verbally attacked for "not being the worlds policeman or acting like a superpower" thus being irresponsible no matter what we as a nation do.

No, I would blame the world community for not stepping in and doing something to help. That's why we have a UN. Now, if the UN tried to do something and one nation vetoed the action, then yes, they would be to blame.

Okay. Let’s say that the US never went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power and he continued he reign uninterrupted until his death, at which point, one of his crazy sons would inherit the mantle of “President” of Iraq. Now, let’s say his son commits even more violations of human rights because of his obvious insanity, and then starts another war with Iran. Would you blame the US for his rise to power, his crimes and the war? The idea that people would was put forth in another thread, and I thought it was ridiculous, so I decided to start a thread about it.
This thread is based on something that is not going to happen and any possible answers would be pure speculation.

This thread is redundant.

This thread is based on something that is not going to happen and any possible answers would be pure speculation.
Of course it’s pure speculation. That’s the point. I don’t see why that is a bad thing.

No, I would blame the world community for not stepping in and doing something to help. That's why we have a UN. Now, if the UN tried to do something and one nation vetoed the action, then yes, they would be to blame.
Veto has no place (or ought not, rather) in the UN.

Veto has no place (or ought not, rather) in the UN.
I absolutely agree.

Veto has no place (or ought not, rather) in the UN.
Well if we are going to start stating our opinions on the UN;
I think the UN has no place (or shouldn’t).

Veto has no place (or ought not, rather) in the UN.
Hey Dobbs, check your TG's.

Hey Dobbs, check your TG's.
Checked, replied, sent.

Another great day for Democracy!

Saddam wasn't killing his people fast enough, so Bush decided to go and teach him how to do it.

Great topic... I think that somewhere, somehow there would be alot of anti-american rhetoric about "surely your inteligence showed you Saddam was ammassing an army and WMD's, why didn't you try to stop him"... It is strange, if the US does something like to into Iraq, we are verbally assaulted for being a bully, but if we do nothing or very little, like in Sudan, we are verbally attacked for "not being the worlds policeman or acting like a superpower" thus being irresponsible no matter what we as a nation do.

Somehow i sort of agree about this... but then again, not many people like us here in the USA :(

This thread is based on something that is not going to happen and any possible answers would be pure speculation.

This thread is redundant.
I guess I should have read the First Post before voting. *I* blame the US for dypepsia. Makes my vote a little less meaningfull. :(

Noboby is going to admit it, but I believe if that happened you would have a lot of people yelling at the US to do something about it.

Id have to say it wouldnt be the US or any other counties fault if that happened. The only people who should step in and change what is going on is the people its directly effecting, which would be the people of Iraq. If they want to be free of a dictator who kills them at will, they would have to do it as a group and be willing to fight and die for it, not expect some other country to give them their freedom. But if Saddam or one of his sons happened to invade another country such as Iran, then it would be ok if the international community stepped in and helped the country being attacked if they were asked for the help. I know some people might argue that the people of Iraq did try to fight for their freedom but got stomped on, but they were also told that the US would back them, they werent ready to try and take it on their own. So i figure if your not ready to fight and die to gain freedom on your own, then your not ready to fight and die to keep your freedom on your own.

No, because it isn't our damn business.

HOLY HELL! THIS MAN JUST WON THE INTERNET!