"The policies of my opponent [Kerry] are dangerous for world peace," [George W.] Bush said. "If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."
1) Agreed. WMDs were a side-show, as Tony Blair has found out to his cost. At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed". You may or may not agree with the reasons for doing so, but that he had to be removed was a moral imperative. That is why folks who describe the liberation as "immoral" really rile me. The consequences of not liberating Iraq was to leave Saddam in charge. And this is "moral"? (not directed at you of course, but a general question).
2) I doubt it. What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established. Any brutal regime, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and so on are shown the door. The idea of a security council is a good idea. BUt I think the seats need to be revamped. US, Russia, UK, Germany, India, Brazil perhaps?
3) Rather cynical viewpoint, but one I think that has a degree of truth.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation. Though there's a case of ifs-and-ands and pots-and-pans there. But the liberation of Iraq was the least he (i.e. GWB) could have done after the disgusting betrayal of the Iraqis by his father.
At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed".
Rubbish. George W. Bush and crowd lied up and down about the WMD as an excuse for invading Iraq - when they weren't lying up and down about a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In contrast, Tony Blair desperately tried to put forward a humanitarian motive for invading Iraq.
What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established.
Wouldn't work if the US were running it: the US has a poor track record for supporting democracies, and many of its loyal and rewarded allies aren't democracies. Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was a US ally, as opposed to Iran: and Iran was and is nearer democracy than Iraq.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation.
And instead, they were replaced by Donald Rumsfeld's torture chambers...
Well, there's at least one murder charge pending, and a several more under investigation. Then there's the unknown number who got "disappeared" to Guantanamo et al.
Throw in somewhere north of 13k civilian casualties so far, presently increasing at something like 400-500 a month, and things really don't look peachy.
Pointing to the other guy and saying "he was worse" doesn't make us the good guys.
yonmei's comment stands, they lost a regime which tortures people, and got... a regime which tortures people. Ok, the flag changed. Rumsfeld says it was a few bad apples, while burying official reports which trace it back to the Pentagon, and GWB says Rumsfeld is doing a grand job and everything's wonderful. We should all be happy and grateful and praise Bush to the ends of the earth.
How long was Saddam Hussein in power? And how long has it been since the invasion (I refuse to call it "liberation") started? I'd be seriously worried if the USA/UK forces had caught up already.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:39 (UTC)Again, answers corresponding to your paragraphs:
1) Agreed. WMDs were a side-show, as Tony Blair has found out to his cost. At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed". You may or may not agree with the reasons for doing so, but that he had to be removed was a moral imperative. That is why folks who describe the liberation as "immoral" really rile me. The consequences of not liberating Iraq was to leave Saddam in charge. And this is "moral"? (not directed at you of course, but a general question).
2) I doubt it. What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established. Any brutal regime, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and so on are shown the door. The idea of a security council is a good idea. BUt I think the seats need to be revamped. US, Russia, UK, Germany, India, Brazil perhaps?
3) Rather cynical viewpoint, but one I think that has a degree of truth.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation. Though there's a case of ifs-and-ands and pots-and-pans there. But the liberation of Iraq was the least he (i.e. GWB) could have done after the disgusting betrayal of the Iraqis by his father.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 11:02 (UTC)Rubbish. George W. Bush and crowd lied up and down about the WMD as an excuse for invading Iraq - when they weren't lying up and down about a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In contrast, Tony Blair desperately tried to put forward a humanitarian motive for invading Iraq.
What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established.
Wouldn't work if the US were running it: the US has a poor track record for supporting democracies, and many of its loyal and rewarded allies aren't democracies. Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was a US ally, as opposed to Iran: and Iran was and is nearer democracy than Iraq.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation.
And instead, they were replaced by Donald Rumsfeld's torture chambers...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 12:05 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 14:45 (UTC)Throw in somewhere north of 13k civilian casualties so far, presently increasing at something like 400-500 a month, and things really don't look peachy.
Pointing to the other guy and saying "he was worse" doesn't make us the good guys.
Forgive my lack of enthusiasm.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 17:55 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 13:57 (UTC)