Yeah, I think we've managed to avoid a flame war or direct attacks on people for their opinions.
Quote: "I don't give a damn, and I don't think Bush does either (which is a credit to his character) if international law dictates that it's wrong to undermine a dictator who slaughters thousands of innocent civilians every year and makes a policy of attacking neighboring countries and using illegal chemical weapons."
International law does not say that at all. Intervention is allowed with a United Nations Security Council resolution. It does say that it is not ok for states to act alone or virtually alone in an invasion of a sovereign nation.
There are plenty of dictators in the world, many of them much more brutal and sadistic than Saddam.
To quote some examples:
Saudi Arabia has a history of repression of its own people. In fact, I understand it has the worst human rights of all the countries in the region including Iraq.
Turkey has within the last ten years perpetrated hideous acts on its kurdish population in the south of the country, which bears a very close approximation to ethnic cleansing. Israel has for years crushed the palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
What is the difference between those countries and Iraq. I'll tell you, the USA has in the past and continues to economically or politicly or militarily (or in all 3 ways) help those countries.
When the rest of the world sees double standards on that scale, it has to suspect the US administrations motives. Ask yourself, how can it not?
In fact, to raise a point that was mentioned before, during the time of Saddams worst atrocity - the gassing of the kurds, both the US and UK actually INCREASED arms sales to Iraq. What are we saying with actions like that - its obvious. We are saying "Its ok. Go ahead. Kill some more.".
The undermining of international law will never be a good thing, trust me on this. You may not see it now, but you will.
Quote: "It's right, and we have saved heaven knows how many lives by doing this. Millions probably. The Iraqi people are now trying Saddam in their own court, writing their own constitution and laying down there own laws, as it should be. And IMHO, anyone who thinks it's wrong to save so many lives and give so many people freedom... has a problem. (Not pointing a finger at anyone here. I think it's ignorance that makes so many people hate the war.)"
Your point about ignorance is a very interesting one, because I believe the exact opposite. I think if the pro war people knew more about the ramifications, the broader picture, our own actions and culpability in the existance of these dictators, they might well take a different viewpoint.
Anyway, nobody argued with that objective. Nobody argued that Saddam was a good guy. People were arguing about whether it is the appropriate means to do it and the real motives for the USA action.
Let me tell you a few facts about Iraq that you probably did not know.
1. Before the sanctions Iraq had the highest literacy rate of all the middle eastern countries.
2. Before the sanctions Iraq had the best record on education (including the education of women).
3. After the first gulf war, Iraqis were encouraged to rise up against Saddam Hussein. They did.
In the south in March of 1991 (immediately after the first gulf war), there was a major uprising in the South by the Shias. It included Iraqi generals who were rebelling. The only thing they asked of the USA was access to iraqi army equipment captured by the US military and protection from Saddams counterattack. Instead the US troops in the region stood by and let them get slaughtered.
Following this the kurds in the north rebelled and, again, the USA (who had troops all over the area) refused to help them.
Had the USA allowed the rebellion in the south access to that equipment, they would have had weapons to defend themselves with - it was a opportunity to get rid of Saddam Hussein, yet it wasn't taken.
Also, you paint a very rosy picture of Iraq now. It sounds all lovely and cuddly, did you forget the daily bombings? All I say to that one is we have to wait and see what the eventual outcome of all this is. I see a very huge potential for the country to descend into anarchy or back into dictatorship, and the book is not yet closed on whether things will eventually be better for the Iraqis.
Incidentally, have you forgotton about afghanistans. The power of the USA puppet president, Karzai, does not extend far beyond Kabul's borders and the country is now under the control of warlords. And the taliban is coming back. Even if you cannot accept the arguments about Iraq, surely you accept that you should finish the first before you go onto the next?
