Saddam Guilty, Sentenced to Death!

[pat]

Boy, I am going to have a heart-attack and die from that surprise. They should have shot him in his rabit hole and spared us 3 years of bullshit trials.

[pookie]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hang’em high. If one good thing comes out of this whole bullshit mess, it’ll be that the piece of shit is dead.[/quote]

The piece of shit is out of play anyway.

Why give them a martyr when you don’t have to? Why allow him to become a symbol for their propaganda?

Let him die a slow, boring death in prison.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]pookie wrote:

Still, people the world over are not blind to the effects of US foreign policy. You can’t expect the people of the various countries where you support oppressive regimes to understand “your need” for stability in the region.[/quote]

A fair point, but I would argue a limited one, in that much of the anger at the US comes from a different impulse that does not stem from the US supporting a regime that denies people of their liberties.

In other words, are you one of those who wonders “Why do they hate us so?” or who subscribes to the “They hate us for our freedom” mantra?

More in the latter camp. While I don’t think US foreign policy is pefect and I would like to see some changes, I think much of the hatred - that is the truly dangerous kind that manifests itself in acts of war and terror - exists and will exist largely independent of what the US does.

You make it sound as if the US’s hands are tied. As if it’s past and current foreign policy is the only way to do it.

I don’t want it to sound that way, because I personally would love to see a shift from the old way of doing things to a very new way. That said, the difference is I don’t evaluate previous realpolitik through the lens of post hoc idealism.

Some of us disagree. You might be right that our view could be unrealistic. Maybe having the US “play nice” would allow China or the soviets to manoeuvre and end up controlling important resources. There are probably classified facts available to whoever’s in power to which the public is not privy to which influence the various decisions taken…

Well said on all counts here.

Might it not be wiser to not create monsters in the first place? Although the choices might appear unavoidable at the time, it seems to me that some of those countries, and the US and by extension the whole West, are worse off later. The post-Shah Iran; the current (and apparently future) Iraq, etc.

It might, but again, you have the benefit of Monday morning quarterbacking. Letting Stalin off the hook at the Yalta conference was probably a bad idea. Do we allow Soviet penetration into the Persian Gulf to avoid creating a monster? Do we allow a terrorist state like Iran too much room to maneuver by avoiding helping a creature like Saddam?

One may think those were bad choices - but no one should look at those choices and think they were no-brainers that should have gone the other way. That is the biggest problem I have - I am fine with people saying “that wasn’t a good idea in retrospect”, what I don’t care for is when people smugly assume that the past decision was ridiculously obvious and that the only explanation was that the decision made was done in bad faith.

Imposing stability for a while seems to eventually create a new, angrier enemy for the US.

Yes, I think there is a lesson to be learned here - and it harkens back to Washington’s warnings of ‘entangling alliances’. This is what I am talking about when I say I would like to see change in this area.

I said “the idiots.” While I disagree with you on many points, I certainly don’t think you’re an idiot.

Oh, no worries - I just wanted to be clear that I didn’t believe that and that I don’t like that line of argumentation.

The basic concept I get from US foreign policy is that the US does whatever is in it’s best interest (which is understandable, every country does the same) even at the expense of human lives, environmental resources, etc. (which, when avoidable, is reprehensible.)

I think you are right - this is how countries act and we should have no illusions to the contrary. That said, I would disagree with you on the last points, but I can agree that I would like to seriously reconsider the US’ role in the world with an eye to becoming more independent. I think independence is exactly in line with our long term interest. But I don’t support isolationism, especially as it applies to ‘gathering storms’.

It might have been. Saudi Arabia is probably a similar case. But you can’t expect the millions of oppressed Saudis to take the US seriously when it calls itself “a beacon of freedom” while supporting the House of Saud because it needs stability in the region.

Well, interestingly though, Islamists aren’t mad at the US for supporting the House of Saud because it oppresses Arabs - they are mad because the US helps support apostates who aren’t harsh enough under a pure Sharia law. So while I take your point, the true anger is not from a people who feel their liberties are being deprived, but rather the exact opposite - the US supports a government that isn’t ‘fundamentalist’ enough. That changes things.

That said, I believe that the relationship with SA - which is a policy that extends back to FDR - has been a mixed experience that we should, by now, have learned from and we should end that relationship. No question.

FDR wasn’t responsible for Stalin’s rise to power.

But FDR was complicit in keeping Stalin there. We didn’t just ally with the USSR - we sent them GMC trucks, munitions, and immeasurable aid. Stalin was a monster prior to WWII, but we armed him anyway.

And FDR didn’t later start a war with the USSR to get rid of him either.

Well, we didn’t have to - but the Cold War was an extension of getting rid of Stalin and its totalitarian creation.

There are important differences. Two “enemy” nations can ally themselves to fight a greater threat. History is replete with those kind of mismatched alliance in times of war.

True.

[quote]The US/Iraq situation is different in many ways. Iraq was never dealing as an equal in whatever deals where being made; it was simply a proxy to fight soviet influence (and to a lesser extent the islamist regime in Iran) in the region. It was more of a puppet than an ally.
[/quote]

I think that is right in terms of the ‘puppet’ label, but is that a tangible difference? Saddam farmed out to many puppeteers - the US was hardly the only one. France supplied Iraq with its second highest amount of aid. Iraq may not have been an equal - but what does it matter? We supplied him with what we needed, regardless of Iraq’s status, in order to achieve our national interests. That is the same principle of WWII.

Good post, btw.

[pookie]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A fair point, but I would argue a limited one, in that much of the anger at the US comes from a different impulse that does not stem from the US supporting a regime that denies people of their liberties.[/quote]

It’s hard to quantify exactly from where all the anger comes from. But the general meddling and the perceived change of heart on a whim is probably a largely contributing factor.

If you support Osama for a decade against the USSR, but then are against him, or support Saddam for years before toppling him; or encourage Shiites and Kurds to rise against Saddam, but then take away any chance at success they might have because keeping Saddam in place, at that time, appears to be a better overall choice for the region; you cannot be surprised that the people of those countries hate and profoundly distrust the US.

Going back in 10 years later and hoping to be greeted as liberators seems to me to be either unrealistic optimism or dangerous ignorance.

Foreign policy does entail tough choices and difficult decisions. I feel that often, though, people in power forget that they’re not playing a chess game; the “pawns” are real human beings who remember the wrongs done to them for many generations.

More in the latter camp. While I don’t think US foreign policy is pefect and I would like to see some changes, I think much of the hatred - that is the truly dangerous kind that manifests itself in acts of war and terror - exists and will exist largely independent of what the US does.

For what reason would the US be the focal point of the hatred then? I understand that a superpower makes an obvious target, but that seems to me to be too simple an explanation.

Other countries are powerful, other coutries also have active foreign policies; yet no other member of the G8, for example, seems to be hated as much as the US.

I don’t want it to sound that way, because I personally would love to see a shift from the old way of doing things to a very new way. That said, the difference is I don’t evaluate previous realpolitik through the lens of post hoc idealism.

Well, any evaluation is speculative at any rate. What is done is done. No “what-if” scenario can ever be tested in history to see what might have been.

Not that that stops anyone from speculating.

It might, but again, you have the benefit of Monday morning quarterbacking. Letting Stalin off the hook at the Yalta conference was probably a bad idea. Do we allow Soviet penetration into the Persian Gulf to avoid creating a monster? Do we allow a terrorist state like Iran too much room to maneuver by avoiding helping a creature like Saddam?

Valid questions. And while I understand (if not necessarily agree with) many of the reasons or arguments for supporting this or that regime; one thing I strongly resent is the bullshit reasons presented to the public to explain those actions.

I never quite understood the sudden urge the US adminstration felt to immediately go in and “liberate” Iraq.

Saddam was adequately contained; inspections weren’t revealing WMDs; link to 9/11 were tenuous at best; etc.

When it becomes difficult to discern the real motives for those actions is when some people start to suspect personal or corporate interests being advanced through public foreign policy.

One may think those were bad choices - but no one should look at those choices and think they were no-brainers that should have gone the other way. That is the biggest problem I have - I am fine with people saying “that wasn’t a good idea in retrospect”, what I don’t care for is when people smugly assume that the past decision was ridiculously obvious and that the only explanation was that the decision made was done in bad faith.

Point taken. Although one should not err in the other direction and automatically assume that all decisions are made with only the public’s best interest at heart. It’s important to remain skeptical and to question motives that appear suspect. The people should be wary of letting any administration pull the wool over their eyes.

If your pet peeve is when people assume that an easy solution was purposely ignored, mine would probably be those who label anyone who dares question the government’s motives as unpatriotic, unamerican, or worse, as outright traitors.

Yes, I think there is a lesson to be learned here - and it harkens back to Washington’s warnings of ‘entangling alliances’. This is what I am talking about when I say I would like to see change in this area.

At least we agree that there’s probably a better way for all involved.

I think you are right - this is how countries act and we should have no illusions to the contrary. That said, I would disagree with you on the last points, but I can agree that I would like to seriously reconsider the US’ role in the world with an eye to becoming more independent. I think independence is exactly in line with our long term interest. But I don’t support isolationism, especially as it applies to ‘gathering storms’.

In this day and age, Isolationism is probably a relic of the past. We’re all interconnected in so many ways, financially, legally, through treaties and various international accord, that for any country, let alone the US, to try and isolate themselves is probably not a realistic goal.

North Korea might be the most isolated country on Earth, and I’m sure no one envies their position.

Well, interestingly though, Islamists aren’t mad at the US for supporting the House of Saud because it oppresses Arabs - they are mad because the US helps support apostates who aren’t harsh enough under a pure Sharia law. So while I take your point, the true anger is not from a people who feel their liberties are being deprived, but rather the exact opposite - the US supports a government that isn’t ‘fundamentalist’ enough. That changes things.

While I don’t want more extremists in power anywhere in the world, the point remains that those people are denied the government they’d like to have.

It’s an interesting paradox too. If you give “democracy” to a country, and they vote for fanatical extremists, do you honor their people’s wishes and recognize the government as legitimate?

Palestinians electing Hamas to power is an example; Hezbollah poses a similar problem in Lebanon.

That said, I believe that the relationship with SA - which is a policy that extends back to FDR - has been a mixed experience that we should, by now, have learned from and we should end that relationship. No question.

I agree; although I wonder if it’s realistic at this point, when they’ve got their fingers in so many pies.

[quote]FDR wasn’t responsible for Stalin’s rise to power.

But FDR was complicit in keeping Stalin there. We didn’t just ally with the USSR - we sent them GMC trucks, munitions, and immeasurable aid.[/quote]

So that they’d be a more effective ally in the war.

Stalin was a monster prior to WWII, but we armed him anyway.

So that he’d be able to help us fight an even more threatening monster. While the fact is often glossed over in history books; the soviet’s contribution to defeating Germany cannot be ignored, nor should it be minimized.

And FDR didn’t later start a war with the USSR to get rid of him either.

I think that is right in terms of the ‘puppet’ label, but is that a tangible difference? Saddam farmed out to many puppeteers - the US was hardly the only one. France supplied Iraq with its second highest amount of aid. Iraq may not have been an equal - but what does it matter? We supplied him with what we needed, regardless of Iraq’s status, in order to achieve our national interests. That is the same principle of WWII.

Maybe the goals of WWII were nobler. Harsh measures required to put a stop to the Nazi atrocities is more easily understood, than similar measure undertaken to insure smooth commerce and cheap oil prices.

Good post, btw.

Thanks. Yours too. You make the conservative viewpoint seem almost reasonable; not an easy feat.

[lovehunter]

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Or this one.

Well. The only telling thing in this photo of Carter and Castro is that you can JUST see that hint of an erection that Carter get’s when he meets murdering dictators, especially Communists.

I think Clinton has a boner in that photo with Nobel Peace Prize Winner (nice choice, liberals) Arafat. But not much can be inferred from that, I’m afraid. [/quote]

You actully look for stuff like that. Disturbing.

[Marmadogg]

[quote]lovehunter wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Or this one.

Well. The only telling thing in this photo of Carter and Castro is that you can JUST see that hint of an erection that Carter get’s when he meets murdering dictators, especially Communists.

I think Clinton has a boner in that photo with Nobel Peace Prize Winner (nice choice, liberals) Arafat. But not much can be inferred from that, I’m afraid.

You actully look for stuff like that. Disturbing.
[/quote]

It figures that Hack is cock checker.