So why did Saddam have to go...

[Zorin Industries 0]

When we give regimes like this millions in aid?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1261480,00.html

 

I remember hearing about this before the war in Iraq, I always wondered why it was not picked up on more? If the West went into Iraq to stop this kind of thing, why is it swept under the rug when it comes to their allies?

[Guest INXS]

Even I believe that Saddam had to go. He WAS a killer and torturer of his own people and for that he has to face justice. The reason and methods of his capture I don't agree with but I don't think anyone can claim that Saddam was innocent.

 

As for other countries and brutal regimes...I agree, something should be done. Zimbabwe also needs to be looked at and Iran DO have WMD and aren't far off developing nuclear weapons.

 

We'll have to wait and see what the leaders in the west deem appropriate - Iraq was a "soft option" in that it was a relatively easy war and that many feel that Saddam had to go.

 

Convincing the voting public that we need to go into Zimbabwe, Iran or Uzbekistan may prove to be particularly difficult.

[Guest Cerebus]

The reason we're friendly with Uzbekistan?

 

Take a look at a map.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Oh yeah, it is in a prime strategic location, but the thing is all we have heard is that its great Saddam is gone and now his people are free. But yet we turn a blind eye when it is convienent. I'm not really surprised, I mean this type of thing has happened for years, look at the Cold War. I'm actually just surprised there hasn't been more talk of this anywhere.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh yeah, it is in a prime strategic location, but the thing is all we have heard is that its great Saddam is gone and now his people are free. But yet we turn a blind eye when it is convienent. I'm not really surprised, I mean this type of thing has happened for years, look at the Cold War. I'm actually just surprised there hasn't been more talk of this anywhere.

Zorin, again, if the US went after every tyrant out there, you'd gripe about that, too.

-=Mike

[Zorin Industries 0]

Do you not think its a little bit two faced for Bush and Blair to sit their and preach about how Iraqis are know free from the tyranny of Saddam, but turn a blind eye to suffering in another regime just because it is convienant? Is this not how we got into this situation in the first place.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Oh yeah, it is in a prime strategic location, but the thing is all we have heard is that its great Saddam is gone and now his people are free. But yet we turn a blind eye when it is convienent. I'm not really surprised, I mean this type of thing has happened for years, look at the Cold War. I'm actually just surprised there hasn't been more talk of this anywhere.

Zorin, again, if the US went after every tyrant out there, you'd gripe about that, too.

-=Mike

Hi, straw man.

[NoCalMike 0]

Oh yeah, it is in a prime strategic location, but the thing is all we have heard is that its great Saddam is gone and now his people are free. But yet we turn a blind eye when it is convienent. I'm not really surprised, I mean this type of thing has happened for years, look at the Cold War. I'm actually just surprised there hasn't been more talk of this anywhere.

Zorin, again, if the US went after every tyrant out there, you'd gripe about that, too.

-=Mike

Hi, straw man.

[Guest Cerebus]

Do you not think its a little bit two faced for Bush and Blair to sit their and preach about how Iraqis are know free from the tyranny of Saddam, but turn a blind eye to suffering in another regime just because it is convienant? Is this not how we got into this situation in the first place.

On the face of it, Uzbekistan would seem like a prime ally in the GWOT. It's a friendly government, it's fighting Islamic rebels, and has prime geopolitical location.

 

Oh yeah they're a brutal dictatorship.

 

One excuse/reason would be what Mike said, but I agree with Tyler on that one.

 

Another reason is that Bush, supposedly, wanted to make an Arab country carved from nothing with a brutal dictator could be turned into a "beacon" of liberalism and democracy. To do this, he needed a country that would make an impact in the minds of Arabs and cause as small of a diplomatic headache as possible.

 

Iraq was prime. It had a history of naked agression (Kuwait), it had spent more on NBC weapons than any other developing nation on Earth (source), it was carved from nothing by the British, it had a diverse population (but not to the extent that other countries such as Lebanon does), it was hardly on good terms with its neighbors (so none of them would rush to defend it militarily), and it was an Arab country.

 

Uzbekistan is a country few people have heard of, a former Soviet sattelite state, only a small percent Arab etc.

[Highland 0]

I'd say China is far more of a threat than North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe or any number of little dictatorships could ever hope to be, but frankly China is also too valuable to trading partner for there to ever be anything more than some sabre-rattling at worst.

[Highland 0]

Kamui or not, I'm glad he's gone. I can't stand people that use their minority status as an excuse to call themselves victims.

 

(damn it wrong thread)

Edited July 15, 2004 by Highland

[Guest GreatOne]

Here's another idea, let's just leave Saddam in power OK? Then Al-Qaeda destroys him, takes over and voila! They now have an entire country to call home, and you think the left is bitching now.

 

Of course you had your legions of leftists crying that we "didn't finish the job" back in '91, so all the sudden it's foul TO THOSE SAME PEOPLE when we do 12 years later......................OK

[Guest Cerebus]

I'd say China is far more of a threat than North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe or any number of little dictatorships could ever hope to be, but frankly China is also too valuable to trading partner for there to ever be anything more than some sabre-rattling at worst.

What I love about China is their new BUTT-buddy.

 

France.

 

Being ex-Navy, I have to tell you few things infuriated me more than this.

 

The Navy, especially the 7th Fleet, is always on high alert during Taiwanese elections because they are always performing "exercises." One miscalculation or overzealous skipper (unlikely, but definetly possible) and an all out naval war could spark in the Pacific.

 

If this had happened, the US Navy would be fighting French frigates. I don't even know how we can even NOMINALLY call France an ally.

 

Anyway, this is off topic. Carry on.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'd say China is far more of a threat than North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe or any number of little dictatorships could ever hope to be, but frankly China is also too valuable to trading partner for there to ever be anything more than some sabre-rattling at worst.

China is hardly a threat. Their government is stable, they're liberalizing their economy and political system, and they have the position as the leader of the Asian hemisphere. They're not going to destablize their geo-political influence.

 

N. Korea is way more of a threat. Their government is unstable, it is largely unfed, poor, and backward. They, have nothing much to lose and alot to gain by making a play.

 

*Of course, I'm referring to the leadership, not to the starving masses*

 

But then again, what do I know, I'm just a *notes sig*

[Guest GreatOne]

Oh and to add to that for all the lefties, I'm positive eventually there will be a strike on North Korea the more Kim Jong Il continues to dick us around as Iraq becomes more their own. This time China won't be there to save them.

[Highland 0]

Don't be silly: There's no real reason for the US to invade North Korea; China will keep them in line.

[Guest MikeSC]

Do you not think its a little bit two faced for Bush and Blair to sit their and preach about how Iraqis are know free from the tyranny of Saddam, but turn a blind eye to suffering in another regime just because it is convienant? Is this not how we got into this situation in the first place.

We're the only ones banging the gong about the horrors in the Sudan. It's not like we ignore other problems.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Don't be silly: There's no real reason for the US to invade North Korea; China will keep them in line.

Well 'Lil' Kim' seems to be resigned to the fact that we'll go in and wipe him out, I'd hate to disappoint him

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The reason we're friendly with Uzbekistan?

 

Take a look at a map.

For the record, DON'T do it by looking up the country name in Google Image Search. I got some nasty photos. Zowie.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Another reason is that Bush, supposedly, wanted to make an Arab country carved from nothing with a brutal dictator could be turned into a "beacon" of liberalism and democracy. To do this, he needed a country that would make an impact in the minds of Arabs and cause as small of a diplomatic headache as possible.

Don't underestimate the Daddy factor, either.

[Guest Doyo]

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, Rumsefeld shook his hand 21 YEARS AGO!

 

OMG!!!

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Yeah and we fought side-by-side with Stalin too! SHOCKING, OUTRAGEOUS, EXPLOSIVE, DYNAMITE, TNT!!!!!!! (Airplane 2 reference)

[tommytomlin 0]

Here's another idea, let's just leave Saddam in power OK? Then Al-Qaeda destroys him, takes over and voila! They now have an entire country to call home, and you think the left is bitching now.

Al Qaeda can take over countries now? What, with their Armoured Divisions and extensive Air Force?

[Guest MikeSC]

Here's another idea, let's just leave Saddam in power OK? Then Al-Qaeda destroys him, takes over and voila! They now have an entire country to call home, and you think the left is bitching now.

Al Qaeda can take over countries now? What, with their Armoured Divisions and extensive Air Force?

Took over Afghanistan nicely.

-=Mike

[tommytomlin 0]

Here's another idea, let's just leave Saddam in power OK? Then Al-Qaeda destroys him, takes over and voila! They now have an entire country to call home, and you think the left is bitching now.

Al Qaeda can take over countries now? What, with their Armoured Divisions and extensive Air Force?

Took over Afghanistan nicely.

-=Mike

Al Qaeda had a relationship with the Taliban. They were never in control of the country.

[Guest MikeSC]

Here's another idea, let's just leave Saddam in power OK? Then Al-Qaeda destroys him, takes over and voila! They now have an entire country to call home, and you think the left is bitching now.

Al Qaeda can take over countries now? What, with their Armoured Divisions and extensive Air Force?

Took over Afghanistan nicely.

-=Mike

Al Qaeda had a relationship with the Taliban. They were never in control of the country.

AQ bankrolled them.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Another reason is that Bush, supposedly, wanted to make an Arab country carved from nothing with a brutal dictator could be turned into a "beacon" of liberalism and democracy. To do this, he needed a country that would make an impact in the minds of Arabs and cause as small of a diplomatic headache as possible.

Don't underestimate the Daddy factor, either.

NIGGA TRIED TO KILL MY FATHAH!

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I think the U.S needs to adopt a foreign policy of "No More Bad Things ." Yes, wherever bad things may be, the U.S will be there with a swift response to make everything A-ok. With our seemingly endless supply of westernized soldiers, we will risk it all to save the helpless the world over. No longer will the poor, undeducated, oppressed and easily manipulated be at the mercy of their corrupt governments. China, Cuba? Bye bye Karl Marx! Africa? We'll just replace those corrput regimes with new one's! Middle East? Goodbye dictators, hello Bibles!

[Vern Gagne 0]

 

OMG! FDR and Churchill must be evil.