The Cellar - View Single Post

alphageek31337 · 10-11-2004, 01:44 PM

There is one Angel in wartime, Tony. He carries a scythe. I'm not saying that Iraq, and probably the world, isn't significantly better off without Saddam Hussein. What I've said from the beginning, and I think most of the anti-war effort will agree with me on this, is that "Saddam was worse" is not a catch-all excuse to defend the horrible things that happen during a war, when you have no exit strategy and immediately disband any local sources of authority. I'm saying that, not unlike when we installed Saddam in the first place, our mucking about in the middle east is misguided and will probably come back to bite us in the ass. I'm saying that if you want to launch a humanitarian mission for the Iraqi people, that's what you call it. You don't create weapons of mass destruction or a link to al-Quaeda out of thin air, you say, "Hey, look, this guy's an asshole. He kills his own people all the time, and it's our (the world's) duty to see that he is deposed."

I like to think that, as Americans, we are above abusing the basic human rights of the people we are supposedly liberating. Saying that Saddam was worse, though he was, does not exonerate us for our failures. If we are going to try to win the peace, real peace with a stable, US-Friendly democracy, we have to treat these people with dignity and respect. As it stands, if we ever allow a real democracy, with more than our hand-picked candidates, Iraq will no doubt install an Islamic theocracy, and if we pick and groom the candidates, then we haven't really ever brought them democracy, have we?

10-11-2004, 01:44 PM	#2
alphageek31337 Enemy Combatant/Evildoer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 263	There is one Angel in wartime, Tony. He carries a scythe. I'm not saying that Iraq, and probably the world, isn't significantly better off without Saddam Hussein. What I've said from the beginning, and I think most of the anti-war effort will agree with me on this, is that "Saddam was worse" is not a catch-all excuse to defend the horrible things that happen during a war, when you have no exit strategy and immediately disband any local sources of authority. I'm saying that, not unlike when we installed Saddam in the first place, our mucking about in the middle east is misguided and will probably come back to bite us in the ass. I'm saying that if you want to launch a humanitarian mission for the Iraqi people, that's what you call it. You don't create weapons of mass destruction or a link to al-Quaeda out of thin air, you say, "Hey, look, this guy's an asshole. He kills his own people all the time, and it's our (the world's) duty to see that he is deposed." I like to think that, as Americans, we are above abusing the basic human rights of the people we are supposedly liberating. Saying that Saddam was worse, though he was, does not exonerate us for our failures. If we are going to try to win the peace, real peace with a stable, US-Friendly democracy, we have to treat these people with dignity and respect. As it stands, if we ever allow a real democracy, with more than our hand-picked candidates, Iraq will no doubt install an Islamic theocracy, and if we pick and groom the candidates, then we haven't really ever brought them democracy, have we? __________________ The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. ---Friedrich Nietzsche