Sorry about the double post, but I didn't want to add to an already lengthy post.
Originally Posted by Steve
So even if the evidence isn't concrete, it's still reasonable to assume Saddam and the al Qaeda network were bedfellows.
I'm not sure it's necessarily reasonable. Al Qaeda is both directed and sponsored by fundamentalist Muslims, of which Saddam is most definitely not. And especially now, when we're in Iraq, any link to al Qaeda the government could dredge up would be too useful. It would give them justification on too many levels. The fact that we've heard nothing about this is indicative that there is no real connection.
What do you mean by Hitler proportions? Maybe not in territory, but Saddam was a genocidal maniac.
Yes, but he was not also running a campaign to bring Iraqi pride into the forefront. One of the reasons Hitler was able to begin his campaign to take over Europe was because he fed on the emotions of the German people, who had been in severe financial straits since WWI and who no longer had any sense of national identity. Cripes, I can't think of any other way to put it--they were depressed, and he came in and said, "Hey, you're something special." They believed him, to the point that he was able to say Jews were vermin that needed to be exterminated.
That's what I mean when I say Saddam was not of Hitler proportions.
Liberia doesn't pose a threat to us, either. Should we stand by and watch thousands be murdered?
Nope. And I don't think I've ever said anything of the kind--I think we should help them, and we should help any country that needs our help. What I said was Iraq was singled out because of its attractiveness in terms of resources, position, etc.
But we aren't exactly charging into Liberia on a white horse to save the day, are we? They asked for 2,000 troops, and we're sending them ten.
They
asked for our help, and this is what happens.
Yoda's disproven this repeatedly. If this war were profit-motivated there'd be a lot more evidence of campaign contributions, etc.
What's not covered here, though, is our government's interests and holdings in big business, both on an individual and a national level. Campaign contributions are not the be-all and end-all of the money that our politicians get or have access to.
You're wrong. It boils down to repeated violations of Resolution 1441, violations of every human-rights standard known, and the war on terror, which, as Afghanistan has proven, applies to terror-regimes as well.
Yes. But I'll say again: we're not charging in to save/liberate every country that has violated these three standards.
The oil probably has something to do with it too, I don't know. But I look at it completely differently. If Iraqi oil is no longer under Saddam's control, that yields two positive things: the Saudi monopoly is cut in half (why do you think Saudi Arabia opposed the war?), and it prevents a potential ecological disaster.
What is the potential ecological disaster?
That doesn't justify anything.
I wasn't trying to justify the attack on Kuwait. I was kind of trying to make the point that trumped-up charges, whether they have a basis in fact or not, don't necessarily make an invasion right.
He used them on the Kurds, who are not technically 'his people.' He also murdered Kuwaiti civilians and launched missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War. And if you use the weapons, period, then it's 'offensive'. Doesn't matter who you're oppressing. That's violating innumerable international agreements and human rights treaties, which is a perfectly good pretext for regime change in itself.
Don't you think that gives us a responsibility to the decent Iraqis and Kurds and ensure their safety from Saddam? I mean, we got ourselves into that mess, we have to get ourselves out. Especially the Kurds...they've been getting screwed by us forever, and we owe it to them.
I'm not saying Saddam didn't deserve to be taken out of power. What I am saying is that we've gone in there and
taken them over--we haven't just deposed Saddam and said, "Here, Iraqis, have your country back." We're putting military bases in place, we're making money from rebuilding, we've put a leader of our choosing in place, and we're gaining a huge stake in the oil there. It was not out of the goodness of our hearts.
About the Kurds: have we done anything for them besides get Saddam out? Sincere question, because I haven't heard anything about this.
You could argue the CIA is a terrorist group. State-sponsored terror is no different, and probably more lethal, than a rogue group like al Qaeda. And the US is guilty of terrorism, and sponsoring terror.
We are in agreement.