A Political muse or I am flamebait

[commander bunnypants]

I fully believe that the invasion of Irag was illegal. But if it had been sanctioned by the UN i would of supported the effort.



Was taking out Saddam wrong? He was pretty evil. Tortured others, gassed others. I just want opinions.

DDQM

[trumad]

1. Even the UN would have been wrong

Remember...He gassed with us knowing and us giving him the wink of an eye....

[Brewman_Jax]

8. Good point

...and he had been doing it for years, but he was our good friend against those damned Iranians. We always support our good friends! <wink! wink!>

[rock]

2. Admittedly, UN support would have made it a lot more legit

But it still would have been wrong IMHO.

[meegbear]

3. Agreed ...

[Solomon]

4. All of it was wrong.

The sanctions, the invasion, the assasination hits on Saddam and his sons, the bombing of Afghanistan, the signing of re-building contracts, the taking of the oil fields, the lies about the threats, the theft of american civil liberties, the LIHOP of 9-11, the threats against Syria, the threats against Iran, the tax cuts, the bashing of the French, the bashing of the Germans, the bashing of Turkey, the theft of the 2000 election, allowing Enron to dictate energy policies, letting the Bin Ladens leave after 9-11,...
where does it end?

As to Saddam, I'm beginning to think that his "evilness" was also "sexed up" as the British say. I'd be interested in seeing how many people he executed over the same span as Bush. Not to say he was NOT a bad guy, but, given the hell he was holding together over there, you gotta wonder.

Besides, at this point I shy away from the word "evil". I don't think it's appropriate to use that word. "Bad" - yes. "Evil" - no. Stuff like that get's us into trouble. Makes it a religious thing.

[LittleApple81]

5. Look at this link. Article from the UK mirror cited

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=9458

[PATRICK]

6. how many poisoned pills will

you swallow before you get a fatal dose? Every Bush policy might be candy--coated but they are the wrong people to do anything it seems, even when action might be dictated by all kinds of righteous justification. The more so on life and death matters, esepcially the tremdous loss of innocent life when other options are brushed aside. It was murder plain and simple.

If the entire world leadership went along, if the mjority of the people thought the whole thing a good idea it still would be wrong because the moral poison is still there in the act and in the perpetrators. Or maybe Beelzebub has a fair point to make at bargain prices? Don't get trapped by the sophistry.

[GOPisEvil]

7. Taking him out w/o finding banned weapons was wrong.

It would have been no more right if the UN had sanctioned it.

[onecitizen]

9. IMHO, it was the.............

right thing to do(get rid of Saddam) at the worse possible time. And I wouldn't have started a war to get rid of him. All we have accomplished with this fiasco is the killing of many American soldiers, thousands of innocent Iraqi people and making a whole lot of $$$ for bush and friends. What a shame. Oh and stirred up the very people we want to leave us alone.

[library_max]

10. Big Picture

There are approximately 45 nations in the world today ruled by dictators, single-party governments, or hereditary monarchies. Some are better than Saddam, some worse. The biggest is China. There is no rationale (that hasn't been discredited, like WMD) for invading Iraq that doesn't hold equally for invading China, Pakistan, etc. A lot of the "mass graves" stuff is trumped up, using the results of the earlier gulf wars and our own sanctions. The gassing took place during an armed uprising of Kurds - other countries, including our own, don't tolerate armed uprisings of regional separatists (cf. Fort Sumter).

One nation doesn't have the right to decide how another nation should be governed. Once you allow exceptions to that logic, there's no end to it. Should socialist nations have the right to invade the U.S. because of the evils of capitalism? Should democratic nations have the right to invade because of the 2000 presidential election? We laugh at these examples because we are far and away the greatest military power on the globe, but that doesn't change the morality of the question - might doesn't make right. To say that nations have the right to invade if they have the power is to return us to the bad old days that led to World War I and World War II.