Anti-Colonialism and American foreign policy

[Diogenes]

Do you really consider there to be a shadow of a doubt that Saddam wasn't guilty on multiple accounts of genocide and other crimes against humanity?

I dont think anyone doubts that. There are many such dictators all over the world though. Many stay in their positions for a long time. Saddam was there while he fulfilled a purpose. When that was gone, so was he.

I think it still warrants a hurray when the world is relieved of another genocidal monster. Doesn't seem to me that the right response is to attack the ones that got rid of him solely because there are still others that deserve the same.

It has nothing to do with whether or not Saddam Hussein was a genocidal monster. It has to do with whether or not he was able and willing to export misery to us. U.S. Had Saddam been able to make Atomic bombs in onesies or twosies, his only target of significance was Israel.

Recall. Saddam pictured his self as the modern day Saladin. His erotic dream was to unite the Arab nations under his banner. His most obvious method for accomplishing this was to perform (or threaten) a Nuclear strike on Israel. (what else can you do with one or two bombs?)

The possibility that Saddam would plunge the world into a massive war is what warranted taking action against him.

Currently, it appears that Saddam was running a bluff. Unfortunately for him, his major enemies (US) believed his ruse more than his Minor enemies. (Iran.)

[Diogenes]

Just been catching up on the rest of this thread. Gee... I kicked off a hornet's nest there, I guess!?

You guys are just so.... American! Good for you. Must be nice to live in a country that you actually feel loyalty towards... and that you feel sure that you're always the good guys and the others are the baddies. Really, it is to be commended.

Under Reagan I felt this way. I have not felt this way since. All we have had for leaders since are petty and vainglorious men.

Fortunately, one of the Strengths of this nation is that our leaders are not our soul. We the People, are the soul.

[Diogenes]

As I said, Saddam was unbearable once he did not fullfill his purpose anymore. He was, for a while, actually supported by the US and other western nations, because he was against Iran.
Proof of point: Saddam is gone, Iran becomes the next unbearable evil on the map.

I have to point this out every time the subject comes up. Saddam was a counterweight to Islamic extremist Iran. Had JIMMY CARTER not made a complete mess of Iran, Saddam would never have won the support of the United States.

I live next to an Army base. I speak from time to time with soldiers who were there. (stationed in Iran during the reign of the Shah.)Jimmy Carter is the Reason Iran became a problem, and as a result, the reason Saddam became a problem.

[Skipjack]

Your statement makes the gross mistake of looking at Saddam through western eyes. He was unbearable to the Iraqi people from the day he took power. He was unbearable to every single one of his neighbors the moment they understood his true nature, some took longer than others.

I never said that he was great for anyone of his own people, or for his neighbours in his region. He was a monster, noone disputes that. But, he had a purpose. Otherwise they would have removed him much earlier. His purpose was to keep Iran in line. The two are arch enemies.

A few more things:
1. He did not have a nuclear programme at least not at the beginning of this war. In fact, Iran was ahead of him in this regard already at that time.
2. Everybody knows that Saddam was allowed to do his thing because of Iran. As I said, the US supported him with more than just intelligence.
3. The shah of Persia himself was not a nice man either. That is why the islamic fanatics had an easy time starting a revolution.
4. It is pretty obvious, that ever since the war with Iraq has started, Iran has been growing in power rapidly.
5. I do have to wonder how good it is for the US to fight two wars (because the war against Iran is getting more and more certain, Israel will make sure of that) in that region.
6. I am still more concerned about Pakistan than any other country at the moment. People completely disregard this islamic country which is right next to Afghanistan and full of extremists and on top of that already has nukes (Iran does not have nukes yet). I dread the day the wrong guys are asked to guard a nuclear arsenal there.
Plenty of human rights violations there as well. But you hear little about it. Why? Because, at the moment, Pakistan is convenient. I am wondering what happens the day they stop being of use to anyone.

[bcglorf]

It has nothing to do with whether or not Saddam Hussein was a genocidal monster. It has to do with whether or not he was able and willing to export misery to us. U.S.

As a Canadian, I disagree. The 2003 invasion was good not because of the benefit to America, but the benefit to Iraqi's. That has everything to with the fact that Saddam WAS a genocidal monster. As a human being, I chalk his removal up as one more for the good guys, American interests or not.

his only target of significance was Israel.
...
His most obvious method for accomplishing this was to perform (or threaten) a Nuclear strike on Israel.

Nope. Remember all the hand wringing when Saddam torched the oil wells the first time around? Saddam was witihin easy range of the majority of the global oil supply. He'd have been a fool to target Israel when he could hold the global economy hostage instead.

The possibility that Saddam would plunge the world into a massive war is what warranted taking action against him.

Surely it can be both that and his human rights record.

[bcglorf]

I am still more concerned about Pakistan than any other country at the moment.

Amen to that.

People completely disregard this islamic country which is right next to Afghanistan and full of extremists and on top of that already has nukes (Iran does not have nukes yet).

And a double amen.

Because, at the moment, Pakistan is convenient. I am wondering what happens the day they stop being of use to anyone.

I've been following the news out of Paksitan for awhile now and get a different read on things. American patience with the status quo in Pakistan ended on 9/11. Bush's you are with us or against us speech might as well specifically named and been addressed to Pervez. The war on the extremists in Afghanistan was a war against exactly the same groups and enemies that were operating within Pakistan, and in co-operation with the military. The war in Afghanistan made it clear that America was not making idle threats about removing governments that willingly co-operated, or even harbored, Islamic Jihadist militants. The continued drone attacks within Pakistan's borders are still a current reminder to Pakistan's leadership that America will not tolerate elements like Al-Qaeda or the Taliban existing safely in Pakistan. Even with that enormous pressure though, Pakistan is still only slowly casting it's lot against those militants, mostly because the majority in Pakistan still don't take it as serious a threat as India.

[TallDave]

The 2003 invasion was good not because of the benefit to America, but the benefit to Iraqi's.

Much like the invasion of Europe.

Oooooohhhh, I'm not even a big history buff, but I have to jump in here. From MY reading of history, had we NOT armed and supplied the Russians, the Germans would have won.

But even if that's true it's hard to see why it matters: either way, Russia was going to be ruled by really nasty people. Nazism would at least have been more difficult to export. And we could have had them in a two-front war pretty quickly with our naval advantage.

Their take was that the Russian Army and Armament was greatly improved by war's end.

I'm sure they improved, but it's unlikely they were a match for U.S. forces.

[djolds1]

No way to trust it after the Pinochet Precedent of 2000. Still fresh in the minds of all dictators in 2003, still fresh in their minds today. Transnational self-righteousness deep-sixed an effective way of peacefully removing dictators and freeing their subjects from tyranny. Every dictator on Earth now knows his only way out is feet first into a 2 meter deep hole, either as a result of being murdered, or dying of old age. No comfy retirements in the Swiss Alps with 7 billion Euros and ten members of the Swedish Bikini Team as personal attendants.

Words can not express my sadness(though Musharraf seems to be doing alright for himself).

Cheap way to get rid of a dictator and free said dictator's people. If the cost is the dictator gets away with his misdeeds while being chased by well paid 38DD blonde working girls, who cares?

[IntLibber]

I never did like the fact that he was a mass murderer of his own citizens. And he made us keep an air force in place to defend the Kurds (for which they are still rather grateful). Since it was based in Saudi it made Osama unhappy and that led to 9/11.

As to the value? The grand strategy is to change the fundamentals in the ME from autocracy to self government. Will it last? Will it spread? Ask me in 40 years. If I'm still around.

Actually the air force support for the Kurds was based in Turkey at Incirlik AFB. Our jets in Saudi protected the Shiites in the south around Basra in the southern no fly zone.

Osama was no happy cause he went to King Faisal at the start of the invasion of Kuwait and said he would bring the mujahedeen into the Kingdom to take Kuwait back. The last thing the ruling family wanted was a huge combination of afghan hill-barbarians and ultra-conservative exiled Saudi younger sons who make the morality police look like Kennedys to show up back in the Kingdom. Osama's goal even then really wasn't to defend the Kingdom, it was to get forces into the Kingdom to stage a coup. Our presence was merely an excuse to justify his hostility.

[IntLibber]

Their take was that the Russian Army and Armament was greatly improved by war's end.

I'm sure they improved, but it's unlikely they were a match for U.S. forces.

Hardly. The Russians had so much artillery in East Germany at the end of the war, that they had trouble finding enough places to park it all, and most of that, by that time, was manufactured far to the east, out of range of German planes.

For instance, Gorky, which was closed to the west for decades as a primary defense production city, escaped the german invasion, which is why most production, stripped from western provinces, were relocated to places like Gorky.

Throughout the cold war, the warsaw pact held a consistent 20 to 1 advantage in artillery and a 10 to 1 advantage in tanks, starting from the end of WWII.

If western allies were to turn on the soviets at the end of the war, it would have had to have been started by nuking Moscow to decapitate them. However the British were so thoroughly penetrated by the KGB that sharing any information about such a move with the UK would have caused any such plan to fail. Not to mention our own government was penetrated, with Alger Hiss and a number of other high ranking officials being soviet spies.

[Diogenes]

Chris,
What would have been your solution?

Obviously you recognise with clarity that the US, partner nations and UN were wrong. So just as obviously you must have the right answer you are dying to tell us all.

What is it?

I'm not really dying to tell you, but there is the hint!

Just wait for the guy to die. Time fixes everything.

Yes, that method worked so well with Fidel Castro (for whom we have John F. Kennedy to thank.) and Mao Tse Tung. (for whom we have Harry S. Truman to thank.)

[Diogenes]

It has nothing to do with whether or not Saddam Hussein was a genocidal monster. It has to do with whether or not he was able and willing to export misery to us. U.S.

As a Canadian, I disagree. The 2003 invasion was good not because of the benefit to America, but the benefit to Iraqi's. That has everything to with the fact that Saddam WAS a genocidal monster. As a human being, I chalk his removal up as one more for the good guys, American interests or not.

Yes, it was a good thing for people other than Americans as well. However, the U.S. only has an obligation to act in it's own people's interest. If it should happen that this coincides with the intrests of others, so much the better, but make no mistake about what constitutes a legitimate reason under our system of government.

his only target of significance was Israel.
...
His most obvious method for accomplishing this was to perform (or threaten) a Nuclear strike on Israel.

Nope. Remember all the hand wringing when Saddam torched the oil wells the first time around? Saddam was witihin easy range of the majority of the global oil supply. He'd have been a fool to target Israel when he could hold the global economy hostage instead.

It is another aspect to the idea. You must however, recall that Saddam already attacked Israel with Scud Missiles in 1991, and attempted to do so again in 2003. Likewise consider that egotistical dictators do not always follow a course of action that others would regard as in their own self interest. (In simple terms, who can say what a mad man will do ?)

The possibility that Saddam would plunge the world into a massive war is what warranted taking action against him.

Surely it can be both that and his human rights record.

It benefits a lot of people, yes. Fortunately for everyone, U.S. aims coincided with what was also best for Human rights. However, we cannot use Human rights as our standard for action. (Ala Jimmy Carter.) If that were the standard we would never be at peace, for the entire world is full of human rights violations.

I personally think that Britain's ban on people having guns is a Human rights violation.

[Diogenes]

The 2003 invasion was good not because of the benefit to America, but the benefit to Iraqi's.

Much like the invasion of Europe.

Oooooohhhh, I'm not even a big history buff, but I have to jump in here. From MY reading of history, had we NOT armed and supplied the Russians, the Germans would have won.

But even if that's true it's hard to see why it matters: either way, Russia was going to be ruled by really nasty people. Nazism would at least have been more difficult to export. And we could have had them in a two-front war pretty quickly with our naval advantage.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. However, my gut instinct leads me to believe the Germans (with Russian Resources and man power) may very well have been a far greater threat than the Russians (with Russian Resources and man power.)

[Diogenes]

No way to trust it after the Pinochet Precedent of 2000. Still fresh in the minds of all dictators in 2003, still fresh in their minds today. Transnational self-righteousness deep-sixed an effective way of peacefully removing dictators and freeing their subjects from tyranny. Every dictator on Earth now knows his only way out is feet first into a 2 meter deep hole, either as a result of being murdered, or dying of old age. No comfy retirements in the Swiss Alps with 7 billion Euros and ten members of the Swedish Bikini Team as personal attendants.

Words can not express my sadness(though Musharraf seems to be doing alright for himself).

Cheap way to get rid of a dictator and free said dictator's people. If the cost is the dictator gets away with his misdeeds while being chased by well paid 38DD blonde working girls, who cares?

I have occasionally made the point that Bill Clinton actually did one thing right during his presidency. He paid for housing for Russian Officers stationed in East Germany, to be built back in Russia. I could think of a no more cost effective method of getting the Russian troops out of East Germany. It is the only good thing I will give Bill Clinton credit for.

[TallDave]

Hardly. The Russians had so much artillery in East Germany at the end of the war, that they had trouble finding enough places to park it all, and most of that, by that time, was manufactured far to the east, out of range of German planes.

Heh, that's what carriers are for. The Russian coast was vulnerable.

Had we been bombing them instead of arming them, they would have (at best) been bogged down with the Germans in Eastern Europe. Even if we didn't actually invade them, we could have contained the Communist disease within Russia. Along with conventional forces, the threat of nukes could have convinced Stalin to remain within Russian borders.

We even had a legitimate cassus belli in the Hitler-Stalin pact. After all, the original aim of WW II was the restoration of Poland, by which measure the western Allies lost the war.

Throughout the cold war, the warsaw pact held a consistent 20 to 1 advantage in artillery and a 10 to 1 advantage in tanks, starting from the end of WWII.

Not much good against planes. The P51s were great tank-killers (they're the reason we have Ford Mustangs, too). The Soviets were always too enamored of quantity over quality.