Saddam offered to go into exile 1 month before Iraq war

[CNHT]

Well, assuming there was NO history of us propping up Saddam and assuming we were totally minding our own business all along, I don't know whether it's our purview to interfere even when we see a tyrannical government abusing its own people.

Sort of like, you can hear the neighbors fighting and you know he's beating the crap out of her, but what do you do? You're pretty good friends with him otherwise, so do you call the cops to stop it or do you go over there yourself and chance getting hurt or told to MYOB?

It's a tough call because no one likes to see anyone abused. I have been in that position myself and believe me, I was very glad the neighbors interfered.

[CNHT]

Iraq was a very prosperous country prior to the original U.S. attacks in 1991, and the subsequent sanctions.

Yes but you have to wonder -- they had the oil money but only the people in power got wealthy, the ordinary people did not benefit -- they did not even have the comforts we have; indoor plumbing, telephones, some of them never saw a telephone on a wall before, only cell phones.

[J’raxis 270145]

So doesn't that make it even more incumbent upon the US to take him out and put an end to his reign of terror which our nation callously treated as blood-spattered background noise to the proxy war being waged against the Soviet Union?

Because interventionism almost always makes things worse. What's going on in Iraq right now is case in point; in place of an iron-fisted dictator you have a sectarian bloodbath. Far more people are being subjected to arbitrary death and destruction on a daily basis than they ever had been Saddam.

And more importantly, most—if not all—wars justified as trying to intervene on behalf of some oppressed people have much more selfish ulterior motives. Considering how U.S. corporations are profiting so mightily off of the Iraq war, considering how one of Israel's biggest enemies has been neutralized, considering how one of China's biggest oil suppliers has now fallen under the control of the U.S., considering how one of the biggest proponents within OPEC of Euro-ization has now been hanged... there are plenty of shady ulterior motives to choose from.

And so many obviously self-serving wars and interventions have been justified using such trickery that such a rationale for a war should be treated as automatically suspicious. Hitler's invasion of eastern Europe was to protect Germans in Slavic countries, according to Hitler. Stalin's invasion of eastern Europe was to protect the proletariat against the capitalists, according to Stalin. And so on.

If it's about being against aggressive war, why were so many among the anti-war crowd content to let Iraq's invasion and overthrow of a neighboring sovereign nation stand?

It's not our place to intervene in internal conflicts in nations (e.g., whatever Saddam was doing to his own people within Iraq's borders), nor is it our place to intervene in localized international conflicts (e.g., Saddam invading Kuwait). I can't speak for others in the anti-war crowd, but my own political beliefs are best described as realist on the global level and idealist on the U.S. and local level—leave the other countries alone, and concentrate on trying to change your own country for the better.


By the way, what's your opinion on Clinton's intervention in Somalia and Yugoslavia?

[EthanAllen]

So again I ask, doesn't the blood on the hands of the US through our exploitation of the Ba'athist's brutal regime as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism burden our nation with the responsibility to make amends for the crimes committed against innocent Iraqis while LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, and Bush the Elder turned a blind eye?

Does our nation bear any responsibility for the dispossession and genocide of Native Americans?  For the racist internment of Japanese-Americans?  For slavery and Jim Crow?

If so, then why not for Iraq?

With the help we have given them who needs enemies?

[J’raxis 270145]

Iraq was a very prosperous country prior to the original U.S. attacks in 1991, and the subsequent sanctions.

Yes but you have to wonder -- they had the oil money but only the people in power got wealthy, the ordinary people did not benefit -- they did not even have the comforts we have; indoor plumbing, telephones, some of them never saw a telephone on a wall before, only cell phones.

Do you have a cite on this? It wouldn't surprise me if people in the non-urban parts of the country had never seen a telephone, but that's not necessarily indicative of government oppression: In much of the Arab world, there are still people living traditionally, as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. See, for example, the Marsh Arabs in Iraq, living in straw huts in the river deltas, or the Bedwins in Saudi Arabia, who still wander the desert as nomads.

And, lack of such technological niceties isn't necessarily a bad thing: After all, the only reason so much of the U.S. has electricity and communications access is because of FDR's social programs, shoving "modernization" down the throats of our own rural population back in the 1930s. Perhaps Saddam, even though he was a socialist (Stalinist variety), never felt the need to embark on such a program.

[J’raxis 270145]

So again I ask, doesn't the blood on the hands of the US through our exploitation of the Ba'athist's brutal regime as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism burden our nation with the responsibility to make amends for the crimes committed against innocent Iraqis while LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, and Bush the Elder turned a blind eye?

Your justification for intervention is now predicated on fixing past interventions? Do you see any evidence that this intervention is, in fact, not just the same kind of intervention that Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, and Bush the Elder engaged in? Remember the actual, stated justifications for this war, in the beginning, were self-defense against weapons of mass destruction that Saddam allegedly still possessed. It wasn't even viewed as a humanitarian intervention until the WMD justification went up in smoke.

I can't wait for the next time the U.S. invades Iraq. We can justify it by pointing to this intervention, and how bad it was, and how this new intervention is trying to make amends for the current one.

[CNHT]

Do you have a cite on this? It wouldn't surprise me if people in the non-urban parts of the country had never seen a telephone, but that's not necessarily indicative of government oppression: In much of the Arab world, there are still people living traditionally, as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. See, for example, the Marsh Arabs in Iraq, living in straw huts in the river deltas, or the Bedwins in Saudi Arabia, who still wander the desert as nomads.

And, lack of such technological niceties isn't necessarily a bad thing: After all, the only reason so much of the U.S. has electricity and communications access is because of FDR's social programs, shoving "modernization" down the throats of our own rural population back in the 1930s. Perhaps Saddam, even though he was a socialist (Stalinist variety), never felt the need to embark on such a program.

Well I must say I never heard that argument before, that people did not want modern conveniences. It is typical of dicatatorships for the ones at the top to have all the money while the masses go poor, especially in socialism where you are taught that being poor is somehow noble and 'correct'. Saddam had even intercepted and stolen things sent from UN that were supposed to be charitable, like childrens dolls or something.

As for what they had before even when the country was supposed to be oil rich like Kuwait, which DOES allow its people to accumulate wealth, I heard it from someone who lived there and saw that cell phones were the first time they had anything like that...they skipped a whole century.

[toowm]

Not to lessen the horror of Saddam's reign, but the arguments for "buying him off" are similar to those for high executive pay, even for horrible CEOs. It's almost always true that it's better to pay off a bad leader to leave quickly and never come back, than to have them in charge even one more day.

[CNHT]

Not to lessen the horror of Saddam's reign, but the arguments for "buying him off" are similar to those for high executive pay, even for horrible CEOs. It's almost always true that it's better to pay off a bad leader to leave quickly and never come back, than to have them in charge even one more day.

I'm not sure what you mean by buying him off?

I'm just commenting on the fact that socialist dictators don't suffer from lack of luxuries, but they force the people to because the government is in control of the wealth and it always takes care of its own bureaucrats...we see that here. Have you ever seen a school administration building?

[J’raxis 270145]

Do you have a cite on this? It wouldn't surprise me if people in the non-urban parts of the country had never seen a telephone, but that's not necessarily indicative of government oppression: In much of the Arab world, there are still people living traditionally, as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. See, for example, the Marsh Arabs in Iraq, living in straw huts in the river deltas, or the Bedwins in Saudi Arabia, who still wander the desert as nomads.

And, lack of such technological niceties isn't necessarily a bad thing: After all, the only reason so much of the U.S. has electricity and communications access is because of FDR's social programs, shoving "modernization" down the throats of our own rural population back in the 1930s. Perhaps Saddam, even though he was a socialist (Stalinist variety), never felt the need to embark on such a program.

Well I must say I never heard that argument before, that people did not want modern conveniences.

I don't know if such people would reject modern conveniences if actually given them, but there are certainly millions of people throughout the world, who are by no means "poor" (meaning in need of something), but who live without modern conveniences or technology. The specific Arab tribes I mentioned earlier, most of the people living throughout eastern Russia and Mongolia, people living in the rainforests in South America, are just a few that come to mind.

It is typical of dicatatorships for the ones at the top to have all the money while the masses go poor, especially in socialism where you are taught that being poor is somehow noble and 'correct'. Saddam had even intercepted and stolen things sent from UN that were supposed to be charitable, like childrens dolls or something.

After the sanctions, when the country became dependent on U.N. largesse, the government sucked up as much of the goods sent to the country as they could. The whole oil-for-food scandal is probably the biggest example of this corruption. But before that, they were much better off in the material sense. Remember, not all socalists, even the autocratic ones, try to keep their people in abject poverty—look at Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, for example: His entire movement is to try to raise the indigenous peoples out of poverty through various social programs and state control of the economy.

[alohamonkey]

Well I must say I never heard that argument before, that people did not want modern conveniences. It is typical of dicatatorships for the ones at the top to have all the money while the masses go poor, especially in socialism where you are taught that being poor is somehow noble and 'correct'.

I agree that income and wealth in dictatorships is usually concentrated at the top.  But take a step back . . . where is all the wealth in the U.S. concentrated?  90% of American wealth is held by 10% of the population.  I'm not trying to say that the poor American citizens are as bad off as poor Iraqi citizens but it is all relative. 

Not all societies desire the American way of life.  I lived in Spain for a while and many of my friends were glad that they didn't have cell phones, internet, fancy cars, etc.  Some of them made fun of me for wanting to be "in constant contact" with the world.  Hell, there are many days when I think life would be much better without all the extra stuff.  Some people are content farming or hunting and socializing with their immediate neighbors.  This is the problem with the American mindset right now.  It's not our job to tell everyone that our lifestyles are the best . . . especially when we're saying it while they're looking down the barrel of a gun. 

The world is a heterogeneous place . . . it's not our job to make it homogeneous.  The war would've been a hard sell if the citizens of the U.S. would have been told that we were going to war to give Iraqi citizens access to flip phones and Jay Z ring tones.     We were told Iraq was a threat with WMD and that's why we went to war. 

[CNHT]

After the sanctions, when the country became dependent on U.N. largesse, the government sucked up as much of the goods sent to the country as they could. The whole oil-for-food scandal is probably the biggest example of this corruption. But before that, they were much better off in the material sense. Remember, not all socalists, even the autocratic ones, try to keep their people in abject poverty—look at Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, for example: His entire movement is to try to raise the indigenous peoples out of poverty through various social programs and state control of the economy.

I don't say the war was worth all the conveniences they are now availed of, just saying that is indeed how it was and this was just a consequence.

As for Hugo Chavez, he's one of the worst offenders...Venezuela has never been so poor under his regime.
He held corrupt elections, people were forced to vote for him, and he won by 90%. He then declared himself lifelong dictator.

[CNHT]

I agree that income and wealth in dictatorships is usually concentrated at the top.  But take a step back . . . where is all the wealth in the U.S. concentrated?  90% of American wealth is held by 10% of the population.  I'm not trying to say that the poor American citizens are as bad off as poor Iraqi citizens but it is all relative. 

Americans are still wealthier and comparatively not poor compared to 'really' poor. And they have a better chance to not be poor.

Not all societies desire the American way of life. 

I never said the American way of life, but at least in this century, which Iraq was not. They skipped a whole century in progress.

I lived in Spain for a while and many of my friends were glad that they didn't have cell phones, internet, fancy cars, etc.  Some of them made fun of me for wanting to be "in constant contact" with the world.  Hell, there are many days when I think life would be much better without all the extra stuff.  Some people are content farming or hunting and socializing with their immediate neighbors.  This is the problem with the American mindset right now.  It's not our job to tell everyone that our lifestyles are the best . . . especially when we're saying it while they're looking down the barrel of a gun. 

No one is trying to force a lifestyle at the barrel of a gun - that was not even the point.

I was simply explaining how dictatorships no matter how benevolent they try to portray themsleves, are usually part of the least successful and least free societies and less apt to be modern as a result... and when I said they had never seen a phone, it was just an observation about that.

The world is a heterogeneous place . . . it's not our job to make it homogeneous.

That's right, but that's what the UN wants...socialization and equalization of all countries.

The war would've been a hard sell if the citizens of the U.S. would have been told that we were going to war to give Iraqi citizens access to flip phones and Jay Z ring tones.     We were told Iraq was a threat with WMD and that's why we went to war. 

But my comments on Iraqis not being in the 20th century had nothing to do with war.......it was totally on another topic.

[J’raxis 270145]

As for Hugo Chavez, he's one of the worst offenders...Venezuela has never been so poor under his regime.

Not really. Considering that Chávez's opponents are mostly U.S. corporations, there's an incredible amount of propaganda flying around in the mainstream media in the U.S., but here are some numbers that show otherwise:—

Has Poverty in Venezuela Fallen or Risen Under President Hugo Chavez?
The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years

He held corrupt elections, people were forced to vote for him, and he won by 90%. He then declared himself lifelong dictator.

Yeah, looks like he's turning out to be an autocrat, but I already agreed with that.

[CNHT]

You believe what you read in our press about Chavez?

Actually our corporations are working for him --- Rudy Giuliani's for one. :-)