Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:29:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
333 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> By and large, I agree with DaveK's attack on our president. He lied to us and I
> believe, still, that he is a bad man. But that doesn't change the fact that
> Saddam Hussein is also a bad man. Really bad! I do believe that the world is a
> better place with him gone. I think that Iraq has a chance to become a better
> place now that he's gone.
>
> And while I would have opposed a war on these grounds, I think, it would have
> been much better if Bush and friends had simply told us that Hussein is a
> constant threat to the human rights of his people and we have the ability to do
> something about it (unlike China or North Korea where the same is true) and we
> feel that it is our duty to make the world better when and where we can.
>
> The claim that no one was turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein is silly. We
> were. We all were. For thirty years (or whatever). And either a) shame on us
> for not helping the Iraqi people before now or b) it was never our business to
> get involved and we never should have. I see both points. But we were letting
> him get away with amazing human rights violations.
Perfectly agreed--SH's finagling and ousting inspectors and flaunting UN
resolutions was a terrible thing. No one has ever stated that SH wasn't a
tyrannical dictator with much blood on his hands.
But at the time in question--from just before 9/11 right up to and including the
invasion of Iraq is the real issue. There were inspectors doing what the UN
wanted them to. Why then the US administration saying that nothing was being
done, or that things were moving too slowly? It wasn't a perfect solution, but
it was working, and, in order to save hundreds of soldiers and thousands of
civilians, I think it was a definite workable solution for now.
People say that hind-sight's 20/20. Well, in this instance, all the relevant
data was there before the invasion, and there were many contries that said that
invading was wrong. Now, for any sense of credibility, Dubya must stand up and
say that the invasion was wrong and unjust. The ends, in this particular
case--getting SH, justifies the means--thousands dead?
> Not only that, but we
> compounded the suffering of the Iraqi people through our sanctions. I still
> think we should have assassinated him in '91.
Agreed.
>
> But, if we're goig to give PNTR to China, why not stay in bed with petty,
> murderous, torturers like Hussein? Our hands are bloody either way.
>
> Chris
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sux to be the US.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| By and large, I agree with DaveK's attack on our president. He lied to us and I believe, still, that he is a bad man. But that doesn't change the fact that Saddam Hussein is also a bad man. Really bad! I do believe that the world is a better place (...) (20 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
