Let me present some facts regarding Iraq and maybe you can try and argue something rational out of the issue.
President Bush claimed that Iraq and Saddam had weapons of mass destruction stored in Iraq and was harboring terrorism. He used these allegations as a reason for going to war with the dictator. The far left claimed that there were no weapons of mass destuction and that he was not harboring terrorism. They also claimed that Mr. Bush was in Iraq for his oil interests.
Lets define terrorism for those who may not have a clear view on the word. The Cambridge Dictionary defines terrorism as violent actions or treats there of for political purpose. Now I will let you decide if these actions are those of terrorism.
A dictator kills hundreds of thousands of citizens in his own country and claims that they all went missing. Then when a military coalition invades the same country over 250 mass grave sites are discovered. A mass grave site is considered a number of bodies totaling more than one thousand. A paper tail of documents citing decades of murders are then found with pictures of dead civilians with horrifying results. Then torture chambers and jail cells are discovered with dried blood. The same dictator gases his own citizens simply because their religous views were different those his own. Is that terrorism? Wait no Is that volient actions or threat there of for political purpose? The answer is simple Yes. Now was Saddam Huessan harboring terrorism? The answer is Yes.
Then over 500 canisters of chemical weapons are found after the coalition invasion. These weapons consisted of various poisens that are deadly to the human body. Although some were outdated and no longer useless another portion was able to be used. This proves that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction even if they were pre-1991. Some left-wingers will say that these weapons were not the weapons president Bush highlighted as justifications for a war. But the fact is before 1991 Saddam did have Wmd's its just a shame that nobody did anything about them. But Saddam lied to weapons inspectors and said that all of these weapons were disposed of well he was wrong.
So whatever reason the president had for removing the dictator and instituting a democracy, it was the right one. As commander in chief he has the role of commanding the US armed forces. He commited no war crimes but only used his powers to do what was right.
And to those who keep complaining that our faithful soldiers are dying for no reason. Last time I checked these soldiers commited to an oath to defend against all threats foriegn and domestic. It was their choiceto be a soldier. And last time I checked soldiers die in war its just a fact of life. You didn't hear anyone complaining when millions of our men died gallantly in WWII.
In 1945 the US removed evil from Europe and now the US is removing evil fom Iraq. Its the ignorance of liberals that has helped promote this evil from getting out of hand. See Bill Clinton and Neville Chamberlain.
By turning your head evil will not go away, it will only manifest. It takes a fight to overtake evil and instill good.
First off, you cannot use a dictionary to define political issues. The UN does a good job of that on the international level. To date, there are 12 conventions on terrorism, none of which apply to international leaders. You can find them all here. However, the UN still has yet to define exactly what terrorism is, but a draft resolution (found here) offers a definition and if approved would define terrorism as
We see that the acts must be specifically criminal acts. A criminal act is one which is against the law. I have this sneaking suspicion that what Saddam Hussein did wasn't against the law per se solely because he was doing it.
Of course Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction pre-1991--we gave them to him! Remember that whole Iran-Iraq war when we were fighting the evil Soviet empire? Yeah, that one. I think we kept the receipt...
You also say that the President took an oath to "defend against all threats foriegn (sic) and domestic." But it's a shame that that is no where in the oath of office, which actually reads:
Saddam is, in my eyes, justified in his acts against the Kurds. They were guilty of treason. How? Well, during the Iraq-Iran war (yeah, that one we started in which we supplied Saddam with WMD), they decided to take the Iranian side.
What liberals claim is that President Bush lied about his reasons for going into Iraq. He said (actually, he sent Colin Powell to the UN with a vial of Anthrax to say) that Iraq had strong links to Al-Qaeda. He said that Al-Qaeda op Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was Hussein's positive link to Al-Qaeda. Too bad he chose to ignore the fact that Al-Zarqawi was Hussein's greatest opposition.
I am also appalled that you would compare this to WWII. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito were malignant warlords bent on conquest and eventual world domination. Saddam Hussein was a benign dictator doing no different than what the leaders of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan (at the time, they have since had a revolution), Kazakhstan, Bhutan, Sudan, Burma (Myanmar) and many others were doing.
--Mike
The oath I was refering to was to that of the U.S. soldiers not the president. And a violent action doesn't have to be considered criminal to be a terroristic act. You know that. Just look at all the terror attacks that were brought upon the us pearl harbor 9/11 uss cole. There are criminal laws to enforce upon our citizens but as for other coutries these are acts of war.
Maybe Saddam was justified against the Kurds during the war. But after the war hundreds of thousands of not only kurds but shiites and sunnies who did not agree with him were killed and tortured. Or how about when he appointed his brother to the olypic committee to torture and kill the iraqi olympic soccer members after their losses in the olympic games.
Saddam was linked to Al-Queda. Numerous secret Intelligence documents have stated that Saddam's lieutenants regularly had meetings with bin laden and his men from 1990 through 2003. Cia reports from 1993 revealed an i quote that" bin laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq". In fact saddam's vice president and other intelligence officials met with al queda leaders in Bahgdad, Sudan, and Afghanistan in 1998 and 1999.
All of the leaders have one common enemy in common evil.
And also Al-Zarqawi was found in Iraq, he was al-queda's leader there, he must have had some connection to Saddam. I dont think saddam would warrant any terrorism in his country other than that of his regime, unless he was either connected to it.
I dont se how you can use the word terrorism as a political issue.
Its an action of terror that one does for political or some other purpose. I wouldn't refer to it as an issue. The goal is to defeat terrorism not to debate it as you would an issue.
And the fact that the UN doesn't have a specific definition for the word is unacceptable. Once again the acts dont necessarily have to be criminalized if that state warrants terror in the first place. Think about it for a second. If Saddam wanted his men to commit acts of terrorism against his people, he woldn't make mcuh sense to then make it a crime. he would be contradicting himself.
There's a difference between terrorism and acts of war. There's also a difference between being a terrorist and being a brutal dictator.
Al-Qaeda hated the Iraqi regime! Al-Qaeda's mission is to bring the Middle East under one Islamic theocracy. Saddam's reign flew in the face of that, being somwhat secular. Saddam was never positively linked to Al-Qaeda. Al-Zarqawi was a resistance fighter against the Iraqi regime. Do you honestly think that Saddam would have the ability to say, "out of my country," to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi? Look how long it took us to get the Unabomber.
You can't defeat terrorism--period. Terrorism is a result of a political ideology that no one will pay attention to any other way.
Leaders cannot be terrorists, plain and simple. They can be brutal dictators committing crimes against humanity, but they cannot be terrorists.
Even still, Saddam Hussein was only #3 on the list of PARADE magazine's Top Ten World dictators 2003--topped by Kim Jong Il of DRNK, and King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Why is it that we aren't going after Saudi Arabia? They have a reputation (an actual reputation, not a fake one like Iraq) of harboring terrorism, a policy of punative floggings and whippings (for crimes like using a cell phone on an airplane) and beheadings (for talking poorly of the royal family), and there is no democracy (even Iraq had a fake democracy). There was also this incident:
Why is it that we're not invading Saudi Arabia? Could it be that they are our 3rd greatest importer of petroleum?
--Mike
All of the attacks on his own people after 1988 were not acts of war. What would you call killing hundreds of thousands of ciitizens? What would you call torturing soccer players because they did not win. Thats not an act of war. YOu're right there is a difference between a terrorist and a brutal dictator. But neither one has the right to kill in a non-war situation. But a dictator does use terror to keep control of his people. Either way you can not justify killing hundreds of thousands during a time of peace. Whether you want to call someone a brutl dictator or terrorist. And osama bin laden was really the leader of afgahnistan al-queda and the taliban and he is a terrorist.
I'm not really concerned with parade magazine and how they ranked their brutal dictators.
I dont know why we haven't invaded saudi arabia but i do think what they are doing is wrong.
I think saddam would tell zarqawi and all insurgents to get out if he didn't support them. This is the same man who took on the US twice and the iranians. And if zarqawi did oppose him like you said then why weren't there attacks on the iraqis before the us came in. Maybe he didn't care about iraq but he certainly wasn't against saddam.
The acts of war I was referring to were the ones you brought up about Japan, 1941.
Osama bin Laden was not the leader of Afghanistan nor of the Taliban (that was Mullah Mohammed Omar). Just because he had ties with the guy, does not mean he ran the country. That's like saying that Ronald Reagan was a terrorist because he had ties with Osama bin Laden back in the 80s.
Saddam did tell Al-Zarqawi and all of the insurgents to get out (even though, at the time, there were no "insurgents" as insurgents are people who oppose a revolution, but whatever). Does that mean they would listen to him? Hell no! Did the Davidians at Waco or the MOVE organization in Philly listen when the US government (or subsidiaries thereof) told them to "get out?"
Saddam didn't 'take on' the US twice. The first time, he was protecting his country from the Kuwaiti's illegal side-drilling, and for some reason we took Kuwait's side and decided to invade. The second time, the UN wouldn't authorize a strike against Iraq because Hans Blix found no evidence that Iraq had WMD (because they didn't), so we, like police without a warrant or probable cause, decided to kick down the door and interr all those involved even though the reason we interred them had no connection with why we went in in the first place. Saddam 'took on' the Iranians because we employed him to. That whole Iran-Iraq war thing? That was the US fighting against the evil Soviet empire. Learn your history, man.
There were plenty of attacks on the Iraqis before the US came in. The only reason that you never heard about them was because it didn't affect the US soldiers and therefore wasn't US news. That's like wondering why we don't hear about all the terror attacks in North Ireland or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or Tunisia or Angola or Nigeria. Plus, for a while, Al-Zarqawi was in either in Afghanistan or in a Jordanian prison. Not only that, but at the time of our invasion, Al-Zarqawi not only opposed Saddam, but also Osama.
Might want to check out these articles: 1 2 3
Hooray for fact checking!
--Mike
Make up your mind was alzarqawi told to get out or not?
It really doesn't matter if Saddam, Osama, and/or alzarqawi were linked or not. The fact is all three were torturing and/or killing innocent civilians in non-war situations. That is why something needed to be done. One was an oppressive dictator and the other two were terrorists end of story. I dont really care about who had wmds, if they were pre1991, because that really doesn't matter. Saddam killed and tortured hundreds of thousands during a time of peace. His brother tortured and killed an olympic soccer team for failure. Therefore someone needed to step in and kick him and his republican guard out. Please tell me why something shouldn't have been done. THe problem is that the far-left is concerned with why we went to war. Well the president said there were wmd's. THis is what he suspected and this is what his intelligence told him. Maybe he was wrong maybe he was right well never really know b/c saddam did have a time slot to bury weapons or ship them out of the country. But stll people say hes a liar. well let me ask you this if a criminal is found not guilty in a crime then why wouldn't you call the prosecuter and the cop that arrested him a liar too if they suspected something that turned out to be not prooven.
You can sit here and argue that bush is their for oil interests but in the end thats all speculation. The president's salary stays the same no matter what.
And if you wanna sit here and express the facts using rhetoric and expressive grammer to challenge one's historical knowledge then go ahead.
The fact of the matter is that we went in, removed an oppresive dictator and now we are building the country into a democracy. That takes time and money both of which the US has. The reason why the iraqis dont want us in now is b/c they want to be on their own and deserve to be after years of oppresion. This takes time for them to get on their feet and make the country fully stabilized and the insurgency is defeated.
I dont know if we will fully defeat terrorism in the future but i do know that fighting terrorism and oppresive dictators is the only way to win. We cannot use ignorance to solve the situation b/c then the situation will manifest out of control like when neville chamberlien used ignorance during the 1930's. That did not defeat a dictator then and will not do so now. Even if the dictator does or does not have plans to take over the world.
The reason why we haven't invaded the saudi's is simple war should be used as a last option. We gave Saddam numerous warnings. He continued his killings and tortures. I dont think we are at that point with the saudi's yet.
So tell me why a dictator who kills and tortures hundreds of thousands during peace time (this excludes the killings during the war) should not be forcefully evicted from the country.
First off, you talk about democracy in Iraq. That will undoubtedly fail because it goes against the nature of their culture.
It is not America's job to oust leaders of foreign countries, regardless of how corrupt and brutal their reign might be. If we learned anything from the Iran Contra or the Bay of Pigs, we should know that that doesn't work out well. It's not America's private job to stop human rights abuses (if it were then we'd probably be going into Sudan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, etc.). There are private organizations to do that like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as the UN. The UN did not authorize for the US to go into Iraq. The US had no reason to go into Iraq. There were plenty of other countries which actually harbored terrorists and actually had/have WMD. Countries like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan are the countries we should be after. But we refuse to invade them because it would destroy our PR in Iraq, so instead we decide to take out the only dictator whom the Middle East doesn't favor because of his secular stance.
Also, stop making the parallel to WWII. It's completely out of scope. The axis powers were bent on conquest and eventual world domination. Saddam had no power outside his country. It's also disrespectful to everyone involved in that war.
--Mike
You know as well as I do These leaders who kill and toture hundreds of thousands dont care one bit to what the Human Rights Watch, AMnesty International, and especially to what the UN think or have to say about their situations. This is because they know that there are no real military consequence to their actions.
And to harbor means to give shelter to, even if the leader may not support the terrorist. Iraq and saddam did harbor Al-zarqawi and his associates in Iraq. Whether he told them to get out or not they were still in his country.
I mean no disrespect or comparison to WWII and its soldiers. I was just trying to show that ignorance does not solve problems no matter how small or how large. My grandfather fought in the pacific in the infamous battle of Samar during leyte gulf. I have complete respect for these brave people.
Im not so sure that a democracy would definently fail in iraq. But i do agree that its not the best form of gov't in their situation. But you have to remember hoew many different groups are there. The kurds sunnies shiites ect. That may put democracy in their favor to stop the religous tribulations that have separated them over the years.
Yeah, tell Korea that there's no military consequence in the UN.
Your harboring argument does not hold. By your logic, the US harbors terrorists.
As for democracy in Iraq, all that would do would put the hands into the ethnic majority. It would be similar to what is happening in Nigeria right now. Their government is on the brink of collapse. In 2007, their president can't come up for re-election. We'll see what happens with that.
--Mike
As far as im concerned North Korea is on the verge of a nuclear weapons program and missile tests being launched. The lunatic over there is hardly listening to the U.N.
Thats true the U.S is harboring terrorists by the definition of the term. I'm unsure of what defines to harbor in your mind. But we are trying to catch and prosecute these people unlike our former iraqi counterpart.
But our vice president didn't meet with al-queda leaders in Bahgdad, sudan, and afgahnistan in 1998 and 99. That was Huessan's vp. Well lets focus on Al-zarqawi for now.
But whats really interesting to note is the fact that when Jordanian authorities led by King abdallah II asked Saddam to hand over Al-zarqawi in Amman, saddam refused. THese were repeated requests. This was confirmed by the iraqi politician Iyad allawi and by the jordanian king himself. "Al-Zarqawi entered Iraq from a neighbouring country shortly before the downfall of the old regime. At the time, we made every effort to bring him back to Jordan to put him on trial, but our extradition request was unsuccessful," the king told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat.
Why would he do so if he wanted al-zarqawi out?
The answer.
Al-zarqawi was attempting to win support of sunni muslims (saddam is a sunni) to kill the shiites in iraq.
by the way, what form of gov't is in their favor and would not fail?
The KOREAN WAR!! The Korean was fought with UN troops.
Harboring terrorism is giving them aid and comfort, sort of like part of the definition of treason. Saddam would have done anything to capture anyone who opposed his reign.
He didn't want to hand over Al-Zarqawi because he neither had the power nor the time. He was in the midst of fighting the beginnings of a war with America, plus he couldn't get the guy. First rule of being a brutal dictator is that you must look powerful at all times. So naturally, instead of saying that he didn't have the power to get Al-Zarqawi, he said he refused to hand him over.
There aren't very many (if any) forms of government that would work in the region now deemed Iraq. The problem is, that when the UK split up the Ottoman empire, they just followed a river for a while, drew a straight line, followed another river, drew another line, and then followed another river and closed up the country. They didn't much care for religious sects or anything like that. Chances are they split up the sects intentionally (like how they did in Africa with Nigeria, among other countries).
--Mike
Do you really want to know why the Un force is so ineffective. The blue helmets as they are called. In 1993 in Rwanda? The Hutu majority killed over 800,000 tutu minorities as the UN soldiers sat and watched. The UN tried to pass embargos and resolutions but in the end 10% of the population was slautered and 2 million more became refugees, hardly a success.
Spliting the sects perhaps is the only way to improve the situation now. No real progress will occur until the fighting between the sects stops. Thats the real problem. The US cant control the fighting in this type of war.
As far as Saddam goes, I dont think anybody can justify killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. For this alone he should have been kicked out. I do admit the Bush administration has its flaws. The entrance into Iraq was to early. Not because of the UN inspector ordeal but b/c the US was not prepared with a plan for rebuilding. Everyone knew the US would easily kick the old regime out.
Although the country is in mild chaos lets remember what it was like before the US came in. I would repeat some of the terrifying torture accounts but that list is too long and im sure you dont question them.
And also lets remember these soldiers took an oath and volunteered their services. There was no draft. So nobody can speak for them but themselves.