03-14-2004, 08:33 PM
Hi,
but what do you do when you have the power to solve a problem
That's a "might makes right" attitude. We (the USA) do not generally operate that way. In addition to the power, we usually seek the moral right to interfere. That's why we haven't invaded Cuba, half of South America, most of Africa, and a goodly part of Asia. We are not, and should not be, the world's policeman. And no country or super-national entity should enforce its mores and attitudes through warfare.
Sanctions have been proven repeatedly to do nothing but hurt the people of the country they are opposed upon, and Saddam had no interest in reforming, so what other options could we have had to deal with him other than removing him or ignoring him?
The number of options were very large, but the two you gave are sufficient. We should have ignored him until such time as he was a (real) threat to us or our allies, until the UN decided to enforce the sanctions, or until the Iraqi people formed some form of revolutionary government that requested our aid.
Although not covered by most of the US media, there are places where the living conditions are worse than Iraq's were under Saddam. Some of these places are even our "allies". Should we then call up some more reserve and Guard units and invade everyplace that is misruled, mismanaged, or has some internal conflict? If the *only* justification for invading Iraq is that we improved their living conditions, then we'd damn well be ready to start invading most of the world.
"Saddam was a bastard" is not a reason, it is a rationalization used when all the previously given reasons have been shown to be lies.
--Pete
but what do you do when you have the power to solve a problem
That's a "might makes right" attitude. We (the USA) do not generally operate that way. In addition to the power, we usually seek the moral right to interfere. That's why we haven't invaded Cuba, half of South America, most of Africa, and a goodly part of Asia. We are not, and should not be, the world's policeman. And no country or super-national entity should enforce its mores and attitudes through warfare.
Sanctions have been proven repeatedly to do nothing but hurt the people of the country they are opposed upon, and Saddam had no interest in reforming, so what other options could we have had to deal with him other than removing him or ignoring him?
The number of options were very large, but the two you gave are sufficient. We should have ignored him until such time as he was a (real) threat to us or our allies, until the UN decided to enforce the sanctions, or until the Iraqi people formed some form of revolutionary government that requested our aid.
Although not covered by most of the US media, there are places where the living conditions are worse than Iraq's were under Saddam. Some of these places are even our "allies". Should we then call up some more reserve and Guard units and invade everyplace that is misruled, mismanaged, or has some internal conflict? If the *only* justification for invading Iraq is that we improved their living conditions, then we'd damn well be ready to start invading most of the world.
"Saddam was a bastard" is not a reason, it is a rationalization used when all the previously given reasons have been shown to be lies.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?