[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

You're distorting my point. Saying we put Saddam in power is STUPID. It ignores the previous influence in the region of the Baathist, or Saddam...before we got involved....and it shifts all the blame on us regardless. That's juvenile finger pointing. Saddam was going to happen with or without our assistance....the Baathists weren't going away.

But he wasn't commenting on the power struggle in Iraq, he was addressing internal criticismsin the United States. People say "people like you would allow Iraq to suffer under Saddam," etc., you read the article. He isn't saying point the finger at us we created a despot, however it can't hurt that we turned a blind eye to his activities until 1990, right? Kid and the cookie jar?

Look that region is fucked...it's a human rights nightmare... I'd love to see uprisings overthrow those evil regimes...but it's not happening....

The hope in some democratic libertarian rounding up a army and disposing of the waste is silly, I agree. But that's why I feel the hope in "lets allow the U.S. to come and free us" argument is dangerous. It makes these nations beholden to us for a LONG time, and if they step out of line, who knows.

I think there's a lot we could be doing there, and NOT doing there. One would be to stop pretending there's "good" oppressive regimes, and "bad" oppressive regimes. If our interest is humanitarian, we need to stoptalking to these figure heads in Syria, Qatar, S.A., and Jordan like they represent their people. They don't.

Israel is often cited as a glowing success in that region, but I feel that Iran stands out as a HUGE statement of what can happen if a REALLY fucked up country is allowed to liberalize and open its markets up a bit. That's why I strongly opposed the sanctions in Iraq, and that's why I oppose using bombs to fix these problems.

but honestly the Middle East ISN'T stable at all, and it hasn't been stable for decades...and removing Saddam and a host of other evil regimes will improve the climate between nations there,

The climate between whom, the .0000001% of these nations that the heads of state represent? Maybe this will make the King of Jordan happier, but you can clearly tell me, will this/is this making your average Jordanian happier???

and the quality of life WILL improve for Iraqi citizens. What serious good does Saddam do for his people or the region?

Well, you'll never allow this argument to occur, so I won't go there, but I do agree that no Saddam is better than with Saddam. However, I feel we need to look at this in a broader context. Do we mean to allow Iraq to run democratically, elect their own leaders? What are the chances that someone from the Islamic majority might be elected there? Don't you agree that there's a good chance the next leader of Iraq will be a West hating extremist? Saddam was a poor muslim at best, but what if an Osama type gets elected? Do we negate the results? Is Iraq truly free then? What hapens then? More terrorism? More "liberations"???

Think of how many human rights catastrophes we've sat back and allowed to happen, and how many times we've wished our country had stepped in somehow because simply put -- we have the resources to do it.If the Bush family weren't involved...if the oil factor wasn't a consideration... if Imperialist guilt was never worth mentioning...then really our perception would be rather different now wouldn't it?

Don't you think if these things were a factor in Rwanda that there'd be a lot more Tutsis alive today? We can't call it humanitarianism and "liberation" if it only extends as far as our own self-interest, period. That was the crux of the commentary, too.

I think we have more of a resonsibility to rebuild and restructure Iraq then we do Afghanistan. Turning our back now after years of sanctions, and bombing would just be irresponsible. What's happened to Baghdad is a shame...and it needs to change... and while this might not be the ideal way for it to happen, it's just stupid to ignore the merit in removing Saddam. Liberation or not.

Ends can't always justify the means, because, as I've said, it's that very same logic that has in the past allowed the tolerance of Saddam, allowed the financing of the "Afghan" revolutionaries, etc.

It's no a popularity contest. Afghanistan certainly was worse off before our bombing then Iraq, but you could also say that Iraq waas functioning in some form before we got to it. Then again you could also say that about Rwanda, or Bosnia too. I think it's becoming pretty obvious that our hatred for Bush has clouded the judgement of even our most outspoken humanitarians. It's embaressing.

But the game doesn't end after you blow up the place and leave. We can't say "Afghanistan is a better place" now, we need to be able to say Afghanistan will be better off TEN years from now, or 20. The areas we have provided aid and infrastructure to issmall, and the other regions have become destabilized by drug runners and war lords. UN aid workers get shot at. This is not a good thing, and although I do believe we will do a MUCH better job in Iraq, if for nothing other than good p.r., I however fear that we may have done more harm than good to the entire Middle East.

You see, even if Bush pops up and makes his dog the president of Iraq, turns the place intoa big golf range, and pastes his face all over Baghdad... if it means getting Saddam out of there, then their lives will improve. I'm being sarcastic of course...I'm just saying that even at it's worst... if the US begins to "occupy" Iraq, life will improve for the citizens of Iraq. It's not wishful thinking if you know what life there has been like.

Life may take an immediate spike, but if they realize that their "liberation" means being the little brother of America, I think that might change.

And I pose the same questions. Will we allow free, democratic elections? What if they elect a Muslim? It certainly wouldn't be odd for a country just "liberated" by America to hold negative feelings towards us, look at Kuwait.

As for afghanistan? You can't compare the two... like you said, even the drug trade wasn't working as an economy... the place was nearly rubble before we got there. I know of a 250 bed hostpital with 85 female doctors that was set to open last month. I know about 75,000 girls allowed to go to school now. That is an improvement isn't it? All of the "ifs" only matter if you hate our government more then you hate the benefits of fair human rights. Now you can say "oh Bush is taking OUR human rights, grumble grumble" or "he's not doing it for human rights" but that's again...an American sitting cush and putting their perspective, and lifestyle expectations on things.

I'd be willing to bet that most Afghans are still living pretty poorly, and in fairly dangerous conditions, by ANYONE'S lifestyle expectations. If we allow this to remain unchanged, and if we likewise allow this to happen in Iraq (we won't, but for sake of argument), then no, neither of these countries are better off in the long run, in my mind.

7) Aside from Iran, and Syria, most every nation in the area has assisted the Allies in some form. Iran and Syria were on our axis of evil right?

Not Syria, but Sharon added them to it for us.

These same countries that "support" American invasion in some way also have their own citizens going into Iraq to fight the "American Devil." It's not like these countries put up a referendum, or allowed their citizens a ballot initiative to vote on whether or not to support an American invasion of Iraq. I wonder why? This is why I feel Iraq IS a destabilizing issue, because if people in the M.E. will go as far to fight for SADDAM HUSSEIN, what will happen when/if we come knocking on Syria's door? Or even Saudi Arabia's door for that matter?

In the case of Saddam, he had his hands in every cookie jar. Where's the "poetry of suicide bombing" involved in protecting Sadddam? That's not about land or desperation, that's just about money and manipulation inspiring some poor kids to kill themselves. They are a threat to the whole world, because you can suicide bomb anywhere.

You don't see this activity increasing with an unrest and unhappiness over our actions in Iraq?