Saddam was a bad man, but as Human Rights Watch (a group probably going to be disparaged by some idiot, but the group who historically been most critical of HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS even the ones in USA) has pointed out that if the invasion of Iraq was to stop human rights violations it was a decade late.
The majority of Saddam's injustices happened in the 1980's by using the chemical weapons we gave him to gas Iranians and to gas the Kurds. After the 1991 Gulf War We largely contained Saddam and so the majority of his attacks i.e. on the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South were stopped by the NO FLY ZONES.
So in terms of Dictators his human rights violations were largely behind him and certainly not worse than hmm… General Pervez Musharraf who came to power by military coup and who is our "friend," President NIYAZOV President of Turkmenistan (another illustrious friend where we have bases) who according to the CIA "retains absolute control over the country and opposition is not tolerated." We won't get into all the "stan's" and how we prop up those brutal dictatorships.
Lets focus on worse dictators, President Mugabe, who has rapes his POLITICAL OPPONENTS WIVES, starves his people, kills white farm owners (if that doesn't piss off republicans I don't know what will) and threatens to destabilize all of Southern Africa. How about Burma where the Military government holds in house arrest the Nobel Peace Prize Winner Aung San Suu Kyi whose party was elected to power with an overwhelming majority in 1995 yet has never been allowed to come to power. Although President George has spoken out against the action, he has never threatened them with violence. Yet they repress their people, kill more harshly and poses a threat to the security of the region. The best part, the CIA website even admits they have attempted to acquire nuclear technology as well as chemical and biological weapons.
I could go on.
So stop pretending you care about Iraqis, you didn't before 1991 When Saddam did the majority of his atrocities; and don't care about others suffering from repression and fear of death daily.
Saddam posed no IMMEDIATE threat. Certainly the arms inspections George was quick to dismiss as well as the claim by Iraq to the UN that they indeed had no weapons of mass destruction (a fact often glossed over).
Look you support the War because you are a republican and since he is your president you support him. Just admit it. If Bush was a Dem you would be on this very board condemning the same war under the same pretense as an unnecessary US involvement and a waste of our time.
Lets finish with my favorite quote:
“Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. ... [T]here was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." George Bush the First |
Mass Alliance has no association with content or production of this blog
RSS Feed
