Can I say this?

Post Reply New Topic

If his opposition cared, then its their fight. It seems cold, but look what happens when you get involved! More people die, you create chaos, you create prejudice, and while you may have freed so many people, you also put YOUR people in MORE danger as now they are 1) not going to be able to travel to freely to that region of the world with comfort and 2). I feel we have to remember that the West fought many wars over many years to get to their "level" of status (governments, beliefs, etc). The Middle East is a relatively new country. They didnt get to go through all these stages, they just had "religious wars" (I assume since everyone did) then WAM, welcome to the world economy where your country can be crushed. We live in societies that are strong because they developed the world, basically, but imagine living in a society coming into that world.

I'm stating that war was an overall "crappy" decision and, where the "West" is, in terms of civilization, I think we could have done better rather then using "force."



No argument, but what can take priority over a horrible dictator? What was America doing all that time from the 1982 (?) murders of the Kurds until 200"1" (9/11 prompted the attack)? Hell, America HAD Iraq already, in the first war, so why wasn't priority then? Why would we let someone continue to be cruel for another 10 years?



We had evidence, though. We didnt need to wait years. If we didn't have evidence, then I can understand such a point.

The whole war just seems to "pick and choose." Where will we go next, is the question! Hopefully we don't go anywhere

National priorities can sometimes override humanitarian concerns. Of course, the Iraq war was never primarily about humanitarian concern. The United States is not so powerful that it can base it's foreign policy exclusively on humanitarian grounds. I wish it could.

As I wrote just a few posts ago, the situation involving supporting Saddam Hussein in the first place was not simple:



This is not the first time (obviously, since this is mentioned many, many times) the United States backed a dictator in an effort to protect it's national interest and national security. The most famous example is the massive funding efforts of the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Without these funding the Soviets would have likely been defeated (this is admitted in recently declassified internal Soviet documents). If the Soviet Union had fallen to Nazi Germany the massive resources of both European and Asiatic Russia could have potentially been turned against both us and our allies (and this does not even take into account the massive brutalities that were planned against the population to Germany's east).

Similarly, had Iran decisively defeated Iraq the United States would have been faced with a self-proclaimed arch-enemy of the United States in a position to attempt to dominate the entire Middle East as well as it's new-found resources*. While, the US did not initiate the Iraq's invasion of Iran, it was forced to consider the situation in accordance to the unstable world situation at the time. It is certainly fair to criticize U.S. policy as unwise. Saddam Hussein did come to the conclusion that the United States would do nothing when he attempted to annex Kuwait, and State Department did a poor job making it clear that such a violation would not be tolerated. However it not fair to criticize it as the products of idiots or intentionally evil

*One can argue against this by saying: Wouldn't Iran face the same type of insurgents the United States would face? Well, absolutely. Yet, Iran would also not allow opposition newspapers and would use much harsher tactics (such as merely leveling neighborhoods that oppose them). Popular insurgencies fair are far less effective against such tactics.

Why did the United States not consider an invasion to depose Saddam in the 1980s while some persons urged it starting in the mid-to-late 1990s?

The circumstances had changed. Until 1989, the Cold War was still underway between The United States of America and The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan began on December 24, 1979. This increased tensions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The United States, worried over the fall of the pro-Western Shah of Iran, explicitly warned the Soviet Union that further military action (such as an attempt to occupy Iran or Iraq) could result in war with the United States. Polls showed a majority of Americans (Americans still war-weary from Vietnam) backing military action against the Soviets if necessary in Afghanistan. Tensions were at their highest level since the Cuban Missile Crisis. These tensions continued with the defeat of Jimmy Carter in the 1980 U.S. presidential election, the death of Leonid Brezhnev in the U.S.S.R, and the rapid succession and deaths by the aged Yuri Andropov, and Konstantin Chernenko.

Only with the arrival of 54-year old Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, and the beginning of arms reductions talks did the Cold War begin to thaw. Before this time the idea of an all-out nuclear exchange between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. was still very much considered a possibility and perhaps a likelihood.

In 1990 Iraq, under the command of Saddam Hussein, invaded and occupied Kuwait. Various war crimes were committed against the Kuwaiti people. A massive coalition was established to force the Iraqi force out and the Iraqis were indeed driven out with light coalition causalities. Iraqi military causalities were massive in comparison. Sadly, this includes those forced into a draftee army. The decision was made not to remove Saddam Hussein himself. The correctness of this decision is debatable. Should coalition forces had removed Saddam it is likely that portions of the coalition would have split off in protest. In addition we now know that Saddam's Republican Guard were preparing to use chemical weapons against Coalition troops if they approached Iraqi interior cities. On the other hand, Iraq's majority Shi'a population as well as the Kurds, both from behavior of U.S. well-meaning soldiers, and the later statements of President George Bush that he thought Saddam would be overthrown by the Iraqi people expected U.S. support. Portions of the Iraqi military, and a majority of the Iraqi provinces rose the flag of revolt against Saddam Hussein but ultimately their efforts were crushed as U.S. support did not come. Smaller scales efforts ultimately throughout the 1990s proved unsuccessful. The only part of Iraq that was able to eventually able to free itself from Saddam's tyranny was the Kurdish north, under the protection of a U.N. no-fly zone (enforced by the United States and Great Britain.

Saddam Hussein's refused to cooperate with weapons inspections throughout the 1990s (who still managed to find massive violations of the the programs they had set up). He played a cat and mouse game to avoid inspections, often allowing them in days before deadlines initiating military air strikes. After letting them in, he would then violate the inspection programs, and finally again kick the inspectors out. He claimed victory in the Persian Gulf War He fired on American and British aircraft enforcing no-fly zones. He also allowed terrorists such as Abu Nidal to set up camp in his country. He authorized the assassination (which failed) of the assembler of the coalition against his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, former President George H. W. Bush of the United States.

In 1993, terrorists led by Ramzi Yousef bombed the World Trade Center in New York City. The bombing was considered a failure by Yousef. Yousef had intended the bombing, which had involved a truck which exploded in a parking garage beneath the two towers, to tip one tower into the other tower. He had estimated that the bombing could kill 25,000 people. Yousef is the nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohommed (now in U.S. custody).

In 1996, Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa that declared a holy war against the United States. His organization bombed the U.S.S. Cole, stationed in Yeman in 1998, and two American Embassies in Africa in attacks that killed scores of people.

On September 11, 2001 as you all know the massive terrorist attacks against New York, and Washington D.C. were made. Saddam Hussein was the only leader of a nation on the planet that praised the attack. On that day his intelligence agency warned him about sensitive information that could prove compromising considering the events that had just occurred in the United States (I am not intending to suggest that Iraq was behind 9/11).

I have written a lot. To be honest, I would like to continue because I have not cover everything I would have liked to. Unfortunately I am tired. I just wanted to try to demonstrate that these are not simple black and whites, in my opinion. The situation is extremely complicated. Just because a country does X in 1975 and Y in 1985 does not demonstrate positively hypocrisy. Sometimes there are additional factors that must be considered.