"In the end, if an American-led invasion ousts Mr. Hussein, and especially if an attack is launched without convincing proof that Iraq is still harboring forbidden arms, history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."
"The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000."
Re: Just for a different perspective...weaklingrecordsApril 24 2009, 15:29:22 UTC
Sure. Did we start that one? Nobody was arguing that Saddam Hussein was an asshole. People *were* arguing that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Cheney continues to repeat this fallacious association.
Would Saddam Hussein have killed 87,000 of his own people in the last five years? It's possible. Again, no one was making the case that Saddam Hussein needed to be unseated simply because he was a tyrant and the People of Iraq deserved better. If that is now supposedly the compelling argument, why hasn't the United States militarily overthrown other regimes around the world who are actively destroying their own people (or segments of them)?
Let's keep our eye on the ball here. BushCo. wanted this war with Iraq. They got it. They are responsible for those deaths, not Saddam Hussein.
p.s. The United States actively supported Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war. The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed
( ... )
Re: Just for a different perspective...mervlurkerApril 24 2009, 16:21:40 UTC
Of course no one was making the case that Saddam needed to be unseated *simply* because he was a tyrant (even the article I posted cites it as only part of the case, even if he feels in the long run in may prove to be the strongest). But it was always one of the reasons. What separates Iraq from the other rogues gallery of nations who act that way was the myriad of *other* reasons we had (which we've discussed several times).
I'm not cheerleading for the USA. I'm just saying that there's a wider perspective.
Comments 4
Reply
"In the end, if an American-led invasion ousts Mr. Hussein, and especially if an attack is launched without convincing proof that Iraq is still harboring forbidden arms, history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."
"The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000."
Reply
Would Saddam Hussein have killed 87,000 of his own people in the last five years? It's possible. Again, no one was making the case that Saddam Hussein needed to be unseated simply because he was a tyrant and the People of Iraq deserved better. If that is now supposedly the compelling argument, why hasn't the United States militarily overthrown other regimes around the world who are actively destroying their own people (or segments of them)?
Let's keep our eye on the ball here. BushCo. wanted this war with Iraq. They got it. They are responsible for those deaths, not Saddam Hussein.
p.s. The United States actively supported Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war. The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed ( ... )
Reply
I'm not cheerleading for the USA. I'm just saying that there's a wider perspective.
Reply
Leave a comment