: Taking into account the very nature of a tyrant or
: dictator, there is not "good" way to remove
: them. They will not listen to UN resolutions, they
: will not take suggestions, and even military
: persuasion has barely moved them. The only way to
: remove a tyrant is the bad way, bombing the living
: crap out of him and all the people we are trying to
: liberate.
That sounds more like WWII Germany than Iraq. Very little damage was done to the "people", as you say, the civilians, as compared with almost any war. But it is true that, when a dictator surrounds himself with his own people for protection, it is an awful, terrible deed that must be done...
: As far as threats against our country, the UN doesn't
: look kindly on ousting a leader because we don't like
: his policies. I'm just dubious since there are so many
: dictators in oil-poor countries that we never touch,
: but many threats in oil-rich countries that only
: conquest and occupation can solve.
If you're referring to the African countries, the French tend to express desire to adminster control in the contries they used to emperialize. Otherwise, the governments change too quickly to even figure out what's going on half the time.
And we did try in Somalia, if you recall, and that did not end well.
Iraq was a good place to start. We'll get to all of them and make the world a better place, eventually, I hope.
: In my mind, if the people of Iraq really wanted Saddam
: out, those 500 different resistance factions should
: have put there bickering aside, organized a
: revolution, and kicked him out.
Pfft, that's nonsense. Even if they could get together (which the Shi'ites did in 1991), they would be stomped by the regime (which also happened to the Shi'ites).
: The earlier refusals
: of these factions to cooperate suggests to me that if
: one group had succeeded, they would simply have
: replaced one dictator with another. The approach used
: in Afghanistan wouldn't work because in Afghanistan
: the different factions had allied themselves into a
: single political force. The Iraqi factions are still
: bickering over who runs the country.
The United Kingdom, Denmark, and the United States presently "run" the country of Iraq.
: When we find those macguffins of mass destruction, I will
: argue that we had some legal pre-text for a regime
: change.
The mobile biological weapons laboratories weren't enough for you? Exactly how many smoking guns do you need?
: I still won't agree with it, though. America
: has a bad habit of fixing one problem by creating
: another one later. We tried to fix the Nazi problem by
: letting them annex half of Europe.
What? That was the fault of France and England, who were sworn as members of the League of Nations to prevent Germany from rearming. Poor Poland trusted its allies, but realized the betrayal when the Blitzkrieg finally happened. It was because of years of inaction by Western Europe that "half of Europe", as you say, was conquered by the Nazis.
The US had no part in the League of Nations; it was the responsibility of the League of Nations countries to prevent Fascism from even coming about, in Italy, in Germany, in Japan. They did nothing when Japan began its own conquests.
As for creating the Nazi problem, like you seem to infer... if you recall, the United States is the one that ended up saving Europe and the world from Fascism, from Naziism, from Imperialism. We have the nasty habit of fixing things. Period.
: We tried to fix the
: Vietnam problem by putting dictators in power to crush
: communist sentiments.
And supporting tyrants elsewhere, exactly, like in Cuba. And it worked, and was justified because Communism was a greater threat to the world. And now that that threat is gone for the most part, we can get down to the basics of morality again and help to bring down malign regimes.
: In Iraq, the Kurds will likely
: take power.
What the heck? What on earth are you talking about? The Kurds just want to make the region of Kurdistan their own country and separate, if they want anything but unification. Most want to go along with the Coalition anyway with staying together. You might mean the Shi'ites and the extremist leaders of the religious factions.
: As soon as we leave, the ethnic cleansing
: will begin,
What?
: but we'll turn our backs as long as the
: oil keeps flowing.
This isn't totally unfounded; we have been lenient on the Saudis because of our military alliance, and in small but admitted part to the oil supply. Nevertheless, that military necessity is no longer there, and we are going to be free very soon to be tougher on them, which we are already doing.
: 20 years down the road some
: hard-liner will take a stance against 'western
: imperialism' and stop being so generous with the oil.
You seem to state that history will repeat itself. History does this less frequently and exactly as you seem to indicate; things change, and radically, and never go back to how they were, no matter how hard we try or how much we want them to.
: The CIA will find evidence of weapons of mass hysteria
: and we're back in the same place we left off. I'm not
: anit-war, I just think we need better reasons for our
: wars.
There was no better reason than freeing an oppressed people, destroying a malignant dictator, getting rid of the rape rooms, ending the massacring, and eliminating torture chambers ex-patriate Iraqis talked about all the time for years. Breaking the law by possessing weapons of mass destruction is a minor reason in comparison.
Besides, the justification was that it broke the UN Resolutions, not that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. It did indeed break all 16 Resolutions, which were signed under Chapter V of the UN Charter, which indicate military action to enforce them. Everything's perfectly legal, and justified.
: If the people of Iraq had gotten their
: priorities straight and risen against Saddam, I would
: have supported American "military
: assistance." We shouldn't jump start the
: revolution with troop landings in Basra.
Well that's perfectly illogical. That means we shouldn't help those who are too weak to defend themselves. Since when were we so coldhearted and immoral?
