StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Has anyone noticed that the Americans could point out that Hussein merits special attention because they gave him assistance in the past, so they are partially responsible for him?

I guess that particular form of moral justification to invade Iraq would not fly well in DC, since it entails admitting that Hussein is a monster partially of American making.

Darth Wong wrote:Has anyone noticed that the Americans could point out that Hussein merits special attention because they gave him assistance in the past, so they are partially responsible for him?

I guess that particular form of moral justification to invade Iraq would not fly well in DC, since it entails admitting that Hussein is a monster partially of American making.

Then we would have to take down all the other dictators we've helped in the past.

This is sort of interesting.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _forgery_6

If the US hadn't given Iraq intelligence to warning it of incoming Iranian offensives we'd have gotten the Gulf War a few years early, only with Iran needing the multi corps ass kicking.

US assistance to Iraq was important but minimal, France or Brazil did far more.

I guess that makes Castro a really nice guy,since day one of Cuba`s takeover every American government wanted him dead

Montcalm wrote:I guess that makes Castro a really nice guy,since day one of Cuba`s takeover every American government wanted him dead

Not really, it just means that the US doesn't have any particular moral reason to depose him.

Darth Wong wrote:Has anyone noticed that the Americans could point out that Hussein merits special attention because they gave him assistance in the past, so they are partially responsible for him?

I guess that particular form of moral justification to invade Iraq would not fly well in DC, since it entails admitting that Hussein is a monster partially of American making.

We could have used the same argument for the Soviet Union, which we greatly supplied, armed and aided in a common struggle against Nazi Germany. No sooner had the last German surrendered, than the grand designs of the Soviet Union under Stalin became apparent, and they transitioned rather quickly from ally to foe.

Master of Ossus wrote:Not really, it just means that the US doesn't have any particular moral reason to depose him.

You'd think they would. After all, the revolution is still going on.

Durran Korr wrote:Then we would have to take down all the other dictators we've helped in the past.

That'd mean there'd be atleast, what, 10 dictators left?

that still isn't going to change the fact that this war is about Islam, Oil, and WoMD.

Has anyone noticed that the Americans could point out that Hussein merits special attention because they gave him assistance in the past, so they are partially responsible for him?

That's a good argument.

But why bother disposing of him at all? Reverse the sanctions and prop him up I say. Use Iraq as a bulwark against the Iranians. It was done in the 80s, well, ok, for the most part Saddam got proped up by the Soviets prior to the Iranians going all fundamental. So, make a deal with him, something like "the past is done, you can do whatever you want within certain boundaries." That would at least shut most of the anti-war protesters up, what would they do then, protest that America didn't go in and remove the man who is gassing his own people. That would be just hypocritical.

Heck, it's in the national interest anyway, what better than having two of the nations you don't agree with kill each other. It's simple, don't fight unless you have to. Everyone else is playing the same game, it's highly unlikely that the Germans and the French are playing their games because they are thinking about the best interest of the Iraqi people.

If a country played the morality game, then it'd have to go and intervene in every shithole on the planet, otherwise, you'd end up like Canada with little responsibility for any of the evils in the world, but also with little serious influence in world events.

BTW: for the critics of this idea, I'm looking at it purely from an influence and power point of view. Never do your own dirty work when someone else can do it for you.

Darth Wong wrote:Has anyone noticed that the Americans could point out that Hussein merits special attention because they gave him assistance in the past, so they are partially responsible for him?

Over the past year or so, the Americans have coughed up so many jusifications for why Iraq deserves special conquest--'scuse me--attention that it has become rather difficult to take any of their justifications with anything more than a very large grain of salt. Adding one more grain to the silo won't make any difference as far as their credibility is concerned.

Darth Wong wrote:Has anyone noticed that the Americans could point out that Hussein merits special attention because they gave him assistance in the past, so they are partially responsible for him?

I guess that particular form of moral justification to invade Iraq would not fly well in DC, since it entails admitting that Hussein is a monster partially of American making.

I think I heard someone making that argument, actually. Basically, the idea behind their argument was that we had to support these guys during the Cold War, but now that the Cold War is over, the least we can do to make up for that necessity is remove the dictators/repressive regimes we supported and install democratic governments in those countries. It's certainly an interesting line of thought.

Darth Wong wrote:Has anyone noticed that the Americans could point out that Hussein merits special attention because they gave him assistance in the past, so they are partially responsible for him?

I guess that particular form of moral justification to invade Iraq would not fly well in DC, since it entails admitting that Hussein is a monster partially of American making.

What America admit culpability for it's past fuck ups? Surely you jest good sir.

It's true that we tend to stray away from talking about some of the more unsavory aspects of our past. We do admit error sometimes, however, and work to rectify it.

Durran Korr wrote:It's true that we tend to stray away from talking about some of the more unsavory aspects of our past. We do admit error sometimes, however, and work to rectify it.

Well Clinton did in 96-98 I believe so that's points to him. Mainly because he didn't have to, he just did.

Crown wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:It's true that we tend to stray away from talking about some of the more unsavory aspects of our past. We do admit error sometimes, however, and work to rectify it.

Well Clinton did in 96-98 I believe so that's points to him. Mainly because he didn't have to, he just did.

I was thinking more along the lines of the reparations paid to Japanese-Americans who were sent to internment camps during WWII.

Durran Korr wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Has anyone noticed that the Americans could point out that Hussein merits special attention because they gave him assistance in the past, so they are partially responsible for him?

I guess that particular form of moral justification to invade Iraq would not fly well in DC, since it entails admitting that Hussein is a monster partially of American making.

Then we would have to take down all the other dictators we've helped in the past.

I thought that most US-backed dictators already have fallen??

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
I thought that most US-backed dictators already have fallen??

If you're talking US backed, that's hardly true- see Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for two examples.

As for US created, most of them are gone- e.g. the Shah of Iran.

All of the reasons I've seen here involving the disasters of US support to dictators serve only to argue for Saddam's removal and replacement by a democratic form of government. Interesting how things come full-circle, eh?

Vympel wrote:

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
I thought that most US-backed dictators already have fallen??

If you're talking US backed, that's hardly true- see Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for two examples.

As for US created, most of them are gone- e.g. the Shah of Iran.

Oops, I must be mixing the two up. But the Shah of Iran was not as bad as his successor Khomenei.

Simon H.Johansen wrote:[

Oops, I must be mixing the two up. But the Shah of Iran was not as bad as his successor Khomenei.

That's right he wasn't, but he was worse than the democratically ellected Mossadeq government that the US had overthrown.

Vympel wrote:If you're talking US backed, that's hardly true- see Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for two examples.

Sadly, in both cases those dictators are much saner and much better for their populations than alternative they would no doubt elect.

Stormbringer wrote:

Vympel wrote:If you're talking US backed, that's hardly true- see Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for two examples.

Sadly, in both cases those dictators are much saner and much better for their populations than alternative they would no doubt elect.

Yep. Most of the populace consists of fundies.