We put Saddam in power

[American]

That's exactly why we're obligated to get rid of him. It's our responsibility to fix the mess that we created.

Pinkos claim that because we put him in power, it's a point AGAINST the war.

It's all about characterizing the other side. I think the former logic is more prudent than the pinko logic. Pinko logic writes a few words that rhyme on a poster (remember: rhyme=truth!!!) and pretends that it constitutes an insightful argument.

The lines are drawn. You can ignore them, but they are there nonetheless. Choose your position, but don't get in our way.

Saddam is going down. Down like a porn star.

[aerocontrols]

The claim is highly dubious.

We supported him after he came to power. I don't believe we put him in power.

Still, I agree that my country's support for Hussein in the 80s makes us responsible for removing him.

MattJ

[circuitslave]

I liked your thread topic wording, American. I was expecting some anti-bush/war manifesto. :D

[fidiot]

Originally posted by American
Pinkos claim that because we put him in power, it's a point AGAINST the war.

It's not a point against the war. It's more of a point against the pro-war argument that we need to help out the Iraqi people because Saddam is an evil tyrant. The point is that we had no problem with him in the 80's, when he was as much of a menace to the Iraqis. Sounds very hypocritical to me, and I just happen to dislike hypocrites.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by fidiot


It's not a point against the war. It's more of a point against the pro-war argument that we need to help out the Iraqi people because Saddam is an evil tyrant. The point is that we had no problem with him in the 80's, when he was as much of a menace to the Iraqis. Sounds very hypocritical to me, and I just happen to dislike hypocrites.

This makes no sense to me. And I have heard this argument from a number of people.

It is like saying if you make the wrong decision once, you are obliged to never change because it would be "hypocritical."

If some country wants to make a change to repair something that might have done wrong in the past, more power to it.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by fidiot


It's not a point against the war. It's more of a point against the pro-war argument that we need to help out the Iraqi people because Saddam is an evil tyrant. The point is that we had no problem with him in the 80's, when he was as much of a menace to the Iraqis. Sounds very hypocritical to me, and I just happen to dislike hypocrites.
You're right; the west had no problem (or much less problem) supporting him in the 80s.

But, there were reasons for that:
- They were in a war against Iran, and the U.S. didn't want Iran taking over (They had to select the lesser of 2 evils.) Of course, the U.S. may have had a little revenge in mind (considering Iran had just held several Americans hostage)
- The soviet Union was still in power. Of course, the U.S. ended up supporting a lot of right wing dictators, just to keep pro-soviet dictators from getting power. (Was it a good idea? Not sure... that's for the historians to decide in 50 years.)

Of course, the other argument against the people who say "we supported him before" is a big "so what?" If you make one mistake, does that mean you can never go back and try to rectify that mistake? Or try to do anything good again?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


This makes no sense to me. And I have heard this argument from a number of people.

It is like saying if you make the wrong decision once, you are obliged to never change because it would be "hypocritical."

If some country wants to make a change to repair something that might have done wrong in the past, more power to it.
there is nothing wrong with changing your mind, if you are prepared to acknowledge you have made a mistake, what you have learned from that mistake and how you have intended to change your behaviour. I hear none of that from dubya or his friends, many of whom were around in the 80's.

[Mike B.]

Hey Segnosaur,

We must have some sort of weird mind meld...since we are always saying the same things....;)

[fidiot]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Of course, the other argument against the people who say "we supported him before" is a big "so what?" If you make one mistake, does that mean you can never go back and try to rectify that mistake? Or try to do anything good again?

First of all you have to acknowledge the mistake, and then go ahead and rectify it. And "do anything good again" sounds more like a nice slogan for directing people's attention away from the real intentions, no wonder people are buying it - it is much easier to support your country when they claim that they're the good guys. What about the other oppressive and outright dictatorship regimes (Indonesia comes to mind) that we have supported? I'm sure that there's plenty. The point is, that U.S. foreign policy is not as "humanitarian" as people want to see it. And going to war unilaterally doesn't seem like the best choice if you want to rectify past mistakes.

[crackmonkey]

First of all, the US had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. Iraq was firmly in the Soviet camp until the late 70s - the Ba'ath party is a pan-Arab Socialist party. We started a limited relationship with Iraq after Saddam began a war with Iran, at the time our nemesis.
Are those of you criticizing the original post saying that it's wrong to correct a mistake unless you admit the mistake? If you break a neighbor's window, it's more virtuous to leave it broken than to replace it without his knowledge?
Madness.

[fidiot]

Supporting a dictator is analogous to breaking the window? I'm done arguing in this thread.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
First of all, the US had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. Iraq was firmly in the Soviet camp until the late 70s - the Ba'ath party is a pan-Arab Socialist party. We started a limited relationship with Iraq after Saddam began a war with Iran, at the time our nemesis.
Are those of you criticizing the original post saying that it's wrong to correct a mistake unless you admit the mistake? If you break a neighbor's window, it's more virtuous to leave it broken than to replace it without his knowledge?
Madness.

there is some debate about that. while he was 'socialist', he was also not a nationalist out to control the oil to the same degree as his predessor. there are claims he was aided in his coup by the CIA, and given lists of people to kill by them.

As for being a socialist, I am sure it was just a means of helping him get into power at the time. He is more of an 'opportunist' than socialist.

[crackmonkey]

As far as Saddam being an opportunist, I heartily agree. At the exclusion of just about everything else. Frankly, I think the Ba'athists aren't much different...

[corplinx]

Supposedly we greenlighted his war against Iran. At the time, we wanted some major payback against Iran. I think the thought was that if they wiped each other out the world would be a better place.

Unfortunately, they are still there and still making trouble.