10-02-2006, 04:42 PM
Admirable contentions. However, it is clear to me that the current conflict had nothing to do with WMD. This was a tactic to strike out at one of the only focused foes we had in a war against a hidden enemy. This situation in Iraq is very quickly resembling Viet Nam for me and in the minds of many others. We don't really know who our friends or enemies are. For that matter, someone who is our friend could change into our enemy because we aren't doing enough to protect the people who want to have a democracy (even an arabian style democracy, which is somewhat different than our vision but potentially just as able to work over time)
As for him being the lesser of two evils, that may be true in comparission to 80's Iran but he's on trial right now for gassing the Kurds in the 80's so I'm not sure where our head was on that one.
In the end I just think the US should be more careful when dealing with developing nations. We upset the apple cart by supporting the Shaw's oppressive regime in Iran. Then when religious extremists took over (I'm not excusing any atrocious Iranian revolutionary actions mind you) we support a secular madman. Then when he falls out of favor, we go back and sell arms to the Iranian religious extremists, then when Iraq invades a sovereign nation, we force him out but leave him in power, after convicing the Shiites to revolt. (the shiites are subsequently slaughtered when we didn't enforce the no-fly zone - no wonder they don't trust us very much) Then we finally decide that its time to "take out the trash" because he's a threat? I just don't buy it.
BTW, my previous point is that it would be interesting to hear his side of the story. As a US citizen I feel better about the leadership we have that I do about Saddam but I still disagree with the way our leadership is running the show right now.
Also, Stalin and WWII is a different comparission than this situation. Lots of insanity going on there too but also a lot of power and a situation where you had the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if it was a cautious friendship. I might also add that although there were many horrible things going on in the USSR after the war but we never attacked. But that is a whole other debate about the Marxist political philosophy and how it was modified into a totolitarianist Communist ideology.
As for him being the lesser of two evils, that may be true in comparission to 80's Iran but he's on trial right now for gassing the Kurds in the 80's so I'm not sure where our head was on that one.
In the end I just think the US should be more careful when dealing with developing nations. We upset the apple cart by supporting the Shaw's oppressive regime in Iran. Then when religious extremists took over (I'm not excusing any atrocious Iranian revolutionary actions mind you) we support a secular madman. Then when he falls out of favor, we go back and sell arms to the Iranian religious extremists, then when Iraq invades a sovereign nation, we force him out but leave him in power, after convicing the Shiites to revolt. (the shiites are subsequently slaughtered when we didn't enforce the no-fly zone - no wonder they don't trust us very much) Then we finally decide that its time to "take out the trash" because he's a threat? I just don't buy it.
BTW, my previous point is that it would be interesting to hear his side of the story. As a US citizen I feel better about the leadership we have that I do about Saddam but I still disagree with the way our leadership is running the show right now.
Also, Stalin and WWII is a different comparission than this situation. Lots of insanity going on there too but also a lot of power and a situation where you had the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if it was a cautious friendship. I might also add that although there were many horrible things going on in the USSR after the war but we never attacked. But that is a whole other debate about the Marxist political philosophy and how it was modified into a totolitarianist Communist ideology.