Yeah, before the terrorist regime of Hussein was toppled there was no violence in Iraq. :halo:
Sorry, but your revisionist history lessons lack any credibility. There were murders, imprisonment, torture, rapes, displacement, suppression, etc on a monumental scale pre-invasion. But the majority of Muslims gave Saddam a free pass (maybe because he was Muslim and Arab) More Muslim Sudanese are killed on a daily basis than will ever be killed in Iraq by Americans. But once again they are being killed by Arab Muslims.
Let’s not forget who was supporting this tyrant all those years till suddenly he stopped taking orders from them. Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam were very paly. I wonder why there was no concern about democracy and human rights than. Why the sudden crocodile tears now.
Why the sudden crocodile tears now?? C'mon, we all know that is more appropriate to say for all the Muslims crying now - instead of during the decades of his tyrannical rule.
The fact is that one picture of Dumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands does not = taking orders and support all these years. More history revisionism.
He massacred Musims for years and years and years and if gupshup existed during this terrorist reign, we all know there would have been scant (if any) angry outbursts- as it is today with the millions of Muslims REALLY suffering in the Sudan and elsewhere.
Well if crocodile tears are not being shed than why is it that there are many regimes worse than Saddam's even today. How about liberating them. As I said before if only Sudan had oil, the occupying American forces would have been in Khartoum liberating the people of Sudan from a wretched regime.
i never supported the invasion of iraq....while i did support the US removal of the taliban government in afghanistan..........
as for iraq, dwelling over the past is not gonna help the present situation
right now we need to think as to what is better for the iraqi people and that is a stable democratic government.........
the insurgents cant deliver on that
like it or not, the US aim of creating a democratic government is the best course that iraq can take and we need to support that....
even though you were against the war like I was, or against US policies which to some extent I disagree with, etc.....
we have to put that aside and think what is best for the iraqi people and not to score points against USA by siding with people who will bring nothing but misery to iraq like the insurgents taking over iraq
1) Invaded and started wars with not one but two of it's neighbors
2) Provided blood money to the families of suicide bombers.
3) Killed hundreds of thousands of political opponents.
4) Used weapons of Mass destruction against his own people.
5) Tortured and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of his own people.
6) Had two sons who stood to inherit the throne who were world class sociopaths.
7) Run on a party platform that called for an Iraq which stretched from Kuwait to Egypt.
8) Squandered immense oil wealth on weapons and personal palaces. Never mind that these weapons had a massively destabilizing effect on the region.
If you read up on the Anfal Campaigns, you will find that Saddam was undoubtedly guilty of Genocide against Muslims. How many Genocides does one have to commit? Saddam may not be the worlds only dictator, but he was certainly a good place to start. There are a Billion Muslims in this world. How about you take Sudan and fix it? Leap into action, don't throw stones.....
1) Invaded and started wars with not one but two of it's neighbors
Well, i don't think neighbour is the operative word there...perhaps invaded and started wars...well, I can name one country that invaded and started wars in countries that arent' even it's neighbours...now tell me, how committed to war must you be for that?
[quote]
2) Provided blood money to the families of suicide bombers.
[/quote]
Compinsation is paid to the family, blood money to the victims. And why not? The family didn't do anything wrong...did the Israeli govt. compensate any Palesitnian family for lives lost during their raids? NO.
[quote]
3) Killed hundreds of thousands of political opponents.
[/quote]
Sure he did. But oh wait...he was YOUR ALLY when he was doing that....
[quote]
4) Used weapons of Mass destruction against his own people.
[/quote]
Ditto above.
[quote]
5) Tortured and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of his own people.
[/quote]
sigh..ditto....
[quote]
6) Had two sons who stood to inherit the throne who were world class sociopaths.
[/quote]
That is NO way to talk about George Bush Sr....
[quote]
7) Run on a party platform that called for an Iraq which stretched from Kuwait o Egypt.
[/quote]
LOL, would it have made any difference? No, but I suppose bombing the **** out of that country for one big freedom zone (i.e regions filled with pro-American puppets) is a-okay...
[quote]
8) Squandered immense oil wealth on weapons and personal palaces. Never mind that these weapons had a massively destabilizing effect on the region.
[/quote]
Guilty as charged...hey, he was a prick after all...
[quote]
If you read up on the Anfal Campaigns, you will find that Saddam was undoubtedly guilty of Genocide against Muslims. How many Genocides does one have to commit?
[/quote]
Again, he was your ally at the time. How long does it take for the reality of a genocide to sink in? Duh....
Your problem with Saddam wasn't any of the above. There was no active genocide at the time of invasion.
If your going to support the invasion, then clearly you should kind of like...unh....pick actual reasons for invading Iraq....
The Northern Alliance which governs Afghanistan today are just as brutal as Saddam, albeit on a smaller scale. General Dostum is guilty of genocide...so was General Fahim. But hey, it's all good when they're on you're side, right?
Wishful thinking. Muslim-on-Muslim violence is recognized as bad, but no one knows what to do about it...you can't really 'resist' it as it's not an outside problem threatening you, it's an internal one that's more complex to deal with.
The Arab press has been slapping itself for a) focusing on Iraq, and b) not knowing what the hell to do about Sudan.
Of course, as far as the Western powers are concerned, it's an oil-rich area and if an oppourtinity arises to wrestle the oil fields away from the Kharathoum government (which is anti-West), then it should be taken.
Perhaps you guys should read a little Gupshup history before you say Saddam was our ally. Years ago we debated this, and found that the US provided perhaps 1% of Saddams weaponry, and 2% of his financing. During the years Saddam siezed power, the US had diplomatic realtions with Iraq for 4 of 20 years. Now who did support Saddam? The Russians mostly, as well as the French and Germans. Name one major weapons sytem provided to Iraq by the US for example. Go ahead, try. To paint him as a US puppet is factually incorrect, and is one of the grandest Muslim Myths. Use the search function to find discussions of the real facts behind the notorious picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam. Or perhaps it is simply better for you to maintain your current brainwashed state.....
Again you are saying as if US is really there to "fix things" up, and "Islamic countries" are against "helping".... there is difference in "helping" and "invading", no?
Actually I posted this years ago, and I still very much believe it. I believe that the US should be an “Agent for Change”. Some of the cahnge will be easy, ie Libya, some will be hard, like Iraq. I never cared about Saddam and WMD. He committed genocide and the world failed to act. So the US took him out. Genocidal dictators cannot be tolerated. If Bush had simply put this forward we ould all be much better off. The WMD issue I believe was an effort by Colin Powell, and probably Bush Sr. to rally world support and build a coalition. In the end, I think the following article frames what the US is doing as going back to it’s revolutionary roots.
The diplomats and decisionmakers of the United States believe, habitually and uncritically, that stability abroad is our most important strategic objective. They may insist, with fragile sincerity, that democracy and human rights are our international priorities–although our policymakers do not seem to understand the requirements of the first and refuse to meet the requirements of the second. The United States will go to war over economic threats, as in Desert Storm. At present, we are preoccupied with a crusade against terrorism, which is as worthy as it is difficult. But the consistent, pervasive goal of Washington’s foreign policy is stability. America’s finest values are sacrificed to keep bad governments in place, dysfunctional borders intact, and oppressed human beings well-behaved. In one of the greatest acts of self-betrayal in history, the nation that long was the catalyst of global change and which remains the beneficiary of international upheaval has made stability its diplomatic god.
Our insistence on stability above all stands against the tides of history, and that is always a losing proposition. Nonetheless, our efforts might be understandable were they in our national interest. But they are not. Historically, instability abroad has been to America’s advantage, bringing us enhanced prestige and influence, safe-haven-seeking investment, a peerless national currency, and flows of refugees that have proven to be rivers of diamonds (imagine how much poorer our lives would be, in virtually every regard, had our nation not been enriched by refugees from Europe’s disturbances in the last century).
Without the instability of the declining 18th century, as the old European order decayed, we would not have gained the French assistance decisive to our struggle for independence. Without the instability of the 20th century, protectionist imperial regimes might have lingered on to stymie our economic expansion. And without the turbulence that seeks to rebalance the world today, much of humanity would continue to rot under the corrupt, oppressive regimes that are falling everywhere, from the Balkans to Southeast Asia. A free world subject to popular decision is impossible without the dismantling of the obsolete governments we rush to defend. In one of history’s bitterest ironies, the United States finally became, in the 1990s, the reactionary power leftists painted us during the Cold War.
Before examining in greater detail why instability abroad is often to America’s long-term benefit, let us consider the foolish manner in which we have descended from being a nation that championed change and human freedom to one that squanders its wealth, power, and lives in defense of a very bad status quo. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01winter/peters.htm
Perhaps you guys should read a little Gupshup history before you say Saddam was our ally. Years ago we debated this, and found that the US provided perhaps 1% of Saddams weaponry, and 2% of his financing.
Ohioguy,
America only truly blesses a handful of regimes with direct and material support. For others, they activly forbid and threaten other nations from supporting. Saddam should have been one of the latter, but he certainly wasn't. Other than that, he was definitely supported by the West, including the US, if not as a client than as something close. He was the "good" Arab in American eyes. The Iranians, who Saddam was slaughtering before the Kurds, were the ones who were his victims, and that was much to the delight of Washington. Washington certainly wasn't calling him the Butcher of Baghdad until he got out of line and invaded Kuwait.
Was he a US puppet? Who claimed he was? He was definitely not chastised by the West, and definitely encouraged. What material form that support took place is inconsequential. The point was, his brutality towards his own people and others did not raise eyebrows in the West. Not until he became the villain, of course.
This talk of puppets and clients is irrelevant. The point being, of course, his brutal nature had NOTHING to do with why the regime was toppled or why Iraq was invaded in 2003. Oh, the lies you tell yourselves...
We’ll the fact is that Bush presented Iraq as a direct threat to to the U.S. He used 9/11 over and over again to stroke the fears of U.S. citizens into supporting war with Iraq. Bush sold the war on the false premise that Saddam was a direct threat to the U.S. and he took advantage of the fears caused by 9/11 to do this.
OG, I agree with you that Saddam was a bad guy but can’t let you sit there and let Bush off the hook, he is the one who brought and sold the case to go to war with Iraq because Saddam was a threat, the buck stops with him, not Powell, not Bush Sr. It is simply a travisity and injustice that he has not been held accountable.
**President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat **
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
Gentlemen, if you choose not to believe me, here is what Human Rights Watch says about the knowledge and documentation behind the Genocide of the Kurds. Decide for yourselves what the timeframe is for discovery and recognition of this genocide. Be sure to read the entire article for a description of which countries blocked an indictment of Saddam which may have prevented a war.
“The full scope of the Anfal horror became known only after Saddam’s defeat in the Gulf War. The Iraqi military’s withdrawal from the region in October 1991 after the imposition of a no-fly zone made it feasible for the first time in years for outsiders to reach the area.
Human Rights Watch investigators took advantage of this opening to enter northern Iraq and document Saddam’s crimes. Some 350 witnesses and survivors were interviewed. Mass graves were exhumed. And Kurdish rebels were convinced to hand over some 18 tons of documents that they had seized during the brief post-war uprising from Iraqi police stations. These documents were airlifted to Washington, where Human Rights Watch researchers poured through this treasure trove of information about the inner workings of a ruthless regime.”
And, Bush Sr. SHOULD have backed the Shia uprising after the 1991 war, but he was so multi-lateral that he would never do so without UN backing. Clinton bravely called for “regime change” for 8 years or so but did nothing but get hummers in the oval office.
underthedome bhai, Iraq's mess not only affects Bush, but Democrats, too. They had 'problems' from day one on how to define and approach views on Iraq, and still they can't get it straight.
