This is true, but I feel that I have addressed this. At the time, comparing Iraq's evil to the evil of Iran, Saddam did seem to be the better choice. Saddam was attacking Iran regardless of how we felt about him anyway, so he became a "friend of convenience". Many people criticized us for supporting a tyrant like him, who's country is rife with human-rights abuses.Alyrium Denryle wrote:To be honest, we are the cause of this in the firstplace. Remember the 80s? We played both sides in the war between Iraq and Iran, we told them to use the very biological weapons that Bush said he has used before.
But now it is time to correct that wrong. Saddam signed the treaties and agreed to abide by the international laws-- then broke those agreements. And as I mentioned previously, we've been very patient with him, lettign him slide on these breaches for twelve years.
Part of the frustration here is that the agreements he signed were UN agreements, the treaties and rules he agreed to were UN brokered. It is clear that if he breaks these treaties he opens himself up for a continuation of war. Now, after 12 years of letting Saddm break international law, we (the US) demanded that the UN enforce its own rules-- and the UN now refuses to do so and blocks any attempts to carry out its own mandates. The fact that the world sees these agitators as "heroic" nations further clouds the issue.
Yes, and this is one of America's worst problems. We have encouraged people to stand up against dictators around the world and then hung these rebels out to dry when it became politically expedient to do so. But the Kurds are now helping us and inviting us in, so perhaps they see us determined to finish the job this time.Not only that, but we encouraged uprisings, and refused to support them. It is no small wonder the iraqis hate the US.
But I think that we have made it clear that the Iraqi people are not our enemy-- the dictator Saddam Hussein is. Emotional hyperbole screams "genocide against Iraqis" and so on but that is irrational. The US gains nothing-- and will lose everything-- by carrying out a "genocide" against Iraqi civilians. (Bear in mind, you cannot commit a "genocide" against a national group. Genocide means eliminating the race not the nation-- so in order to carry out a "genocide" against Iraqis, we'd have to eliminate every single Arab at the same time).
The anti-war arguments are based on emotion and hatred for Bush-- not on reason, not on real political or strategic insight, not on the ethics of energy and resources, and certainly not based on the concern for Iraqi civilians living under Saddam's regime. Anyone who truly cared about the Iraqi people would be criticizing the government for waiting so long before acting. Thousands, more likely more, have died as a result of Saddam's ego and paranoia, while the West hemmed and hawed.
War is bad, and should never be the first choice-- it is what happens when diplomacy fails. But sometimes it really is all that is left. I think we've given plenty of time, chances, and diplomatic opportunities. In this case, I stand by my assertion that this war, at least, is a necessary evil long past due.