Originally Posted by SDW2001
His was completely illegitimate. Ours was done with good intentions, but clearly the main reason for going to war turned out not too exist. That reason was supported by all of the world's major intelligence agencies.
It turned out to not exist because it had been lied about - that's what makes it illegitimate.
Intelligence Agency line is wrong. Please stop repeating it.
Uh, thanks for history lesson, ass.
Please do not resort to insult. Thank you. It demeans you and your theories.
I don't need an apology but you might adjust your behaviour for the common good.
I understand the history and don't need you to post it. None of it...NONE of it makes Saddam Hussein's invasion legit or "good." I mean really....I need to do a reality check here. Christ, I'm really talking to someone that believes Saddam was entitled to Kuwait and that their people would have been better off under him. Just need to let that sink in for a moment, because I don't think I've ever heard it before.
Iraq - not Saddam but the country of Iraq - had and still does have a legitimate claim on Kuwait because the area now called Kuwait was once part of the area now called Iraq.
This is exactly the sort of thing 90% of wars and territorial disputes have always been about - in fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard you support exactly the same argument re Israel. And even if not, that is the argument Israel uses: that Palestinian land was once Israeli land and that justifies fighting and occupying it.
So it is with Iraq and Kuwait.
Of course, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about at all.
But it does: your argument is that Saddam's people are better off because a fascist dictator has been removed.
Therefore you are using a yardstick of degrees of 'fascist dictatorness' and as evidence of this you cite Kuwait.
I am pointing out that by your own yardstick
the people of Kuwait were suffering from a worse dictator, therefore, even if both were 'utterly evil' if one is worse than the other than it still qualifies as 'better off' to be toiling under the lesser.
I would be better off living under Hitler's control than Ghengis Khan's for example. You really need to rid yourself of the reductionist mentality that makes you think Hitler would be 'good'.
Either that or stop making silly comparisons.
Now hold on. You focused on KUWAIT. Short term, I will grant you Iraq was far more stable. But it was also ruled by a brutal dictator. Your doctor friend might have been better off, but the people who had their tongues cut out and appendages put through plastic shredders, they may not have been.
And here we have it. Your whole 'Saddam is evil' myopia is almost on the level of an implant. It is based on just such propaganda as you have just shown.
The problem is that this is all lies too.
The plastic shredder story is now proved to be false.
And there you have the long and short of the available evidence for a human-shredding machine an uncorroborated statement made by an individual in northern Iraq, hearsay comments made by someone widely suspected of being a bullshitter (who, like the Australian Prime Minister, made his comments about the shredder shortly after Clwyd first wrote of it in the Times), and a record book, in Arabic, that mentions mincing but whose whereabouts are presently unknown.
Other groups have no recorded accounts of a human shredder.
A spokesman at Amnesty International tells me that his inquiries into the shredder story drew a blank. We checked it with our people here, and we have no information about a shredder. Widney Brown, deputy programme director of Human Rights Watch, says: We dont know anything about a shredder, and have not heard of that particular form of execution or torture.
They can't even cite where it came from - the article above claims it was from a prisoner at Abu Ghraib (real reliable source there) while this article
claims it was from an Iraqi woman.
By the way, why don't we just do the stats to find out how bad things were? It's quite simple.
From the above first linked article:Saddam was a cruel and ruthless tyrant who murdered many thousands of his own people (at least 17,000 according to Amnesty; 290,000 according to Human Rights Watch)
Let's take the median figure: 130,000 murders in 24 years.
I put it to you that if you want to compare him with other dictators to find out how bad he was - and if you do not then please provide your reasons why he is so special even if he is not as bad as them (or is it that the worse ones are somehow 'ok'?) - you will find he is nowhere near the top of the league.
Btw, I notice you always cite Kuwait as one of Saddam's crimes but never Iran which he also invaded. Without any legitimacy at all.
I wonder why this is?
Perhaps we can discuss the analogy in depth when you are supporting the Iraqification of Iran after the next US blood-letting begins and we can compare the deaths there.
Iraq had no legit claim, not according to oh, the United Nations. And life under Saddam, yeah...I bet it was a picnic.
Well, you could have picnics for sure. Unlike in Saudi and Kuwait.
But let's look at some comparisons if you like. We can choose Saudi and Kuwait again because we are already in the area but also these two States have Western approval - and are widely regarded as 'good' and 'friends' so let's see what we see.
Saddam's Iraq: gasp! Women were allowed to drive!!!!
Saudi: er...that would be a couple of hundred lashes in public.... Kuwait, well, no-one ever tried it.
Saddam's Iraq: women could work! They even had great jobs - my friend I told you about, his wife was a surgeon. That's how they got to own several luxurious properties - one even in here name!!!!!!!
Saudi and Kuwait: women can't own property. But it's ok - they are not allowed outside without a male family member.
Saddam's Iraq: no burkas
Saudi and Kuwait: burkas
Saddam's Iraq: Diverse society - Jews and Christians living together
Saudi and Kuwait: Jews thrown out - Christians persecuted and tortured
Saddam's Iraq: bars, restaurants, clubs
Saudi and Kuwait: err....no, public beheading for drinking instead.
And on and on and on.....
Still, you can do your picknicking in Saudi if you like.
I wonder if you have ever been to a country which is under dictatorship? Do you really know what it is like?
I lived in Damascus for a while under the old man Asad. Yes, people lived in fear, yes, people were tortured and murdered and yes, everyone wanted 'freedom' but you know what? They managed to live, love and do business while waiting for it...
I really don't think you should be claiming that they would be better off living in a bombed out shell with no electricity, no water, dead family members and no hope for the future. I really don't.
I'm sure there were positive aspects to living under Hitler and Saddam. But that doesn't change the fact that both were brutal dictators, now does it?
No, it doesn't
It doesn't mean they should be in power.
Nor does it mean that:
a) the US should be the ones to 'fix it'
b) that it should be fixed in the way you have 'fixed' Iraq
And I've never claimed that I love the Saudis either. Clearly we've been in bed with them for oil, which I support ending ASAP, not that it'll happen.
If you knew what you were talking about you would claim the Saudis are far, far worse than Saddam ever was. In fact, if (big if) they ever come with in the US cross-hairs and the propaganda ratchets up that is exactly
what you will be claiming.
But as much as I despise the Saudi regime and want to see it removed, I would never in a million years support a US action to do it.
It's not the fact that they do
these things. it's the manner
of the doing...they are like a malfunctioning Terminator drone with the Brain Chip fried and the phaser gun stuck on 11......
The problem is here you're making a number of assumptions and then trying argue on them. Of course, many are false. I don't think Saudi Arabia is "good." I don't claim there were zero positive aspects of life under Saddam. I am aware of the way Iraq was carved up by the Brits. None of changes the here and now. None of it changes the brutality of Saddam and his defiance of the entire world.
No, the problem is that the arguments you have marshalled in support of your contention do not hold water.
You simply can produce no justifying evidence for your position - and this is hardly surprising as it is based solely on emotion and not logic.
You remind me in many ways of those rumoured Japanese troops still fighting WW2 somewhere in a jungle 50 years after the war ended.
The government that sent them there has forgotten all about them and the world has changed irrevocably but there they are...still fighting for the 'Fatherland', still repeating the propaganda, still 'doing their duty'.....
And everyone else in the real world has moved on....