Nitro the Guru said:
The last time I checked, being in favor of someone's atrocities (be that as it may) is not a crime by any standard of law. You keep talking about "support" like we gave the go ahead to start prison cleansing in Iraq. Just because we don't stop something doesn't mean we are in favor of it.
That wasn’t my point, but rather, the fact that Saddam wasn’t considered the ”bad guy” then by the US government, but an ALLY. Do you not catch the FAINTEST smell of hypocrisy?
What about aiding someone’s atrocities, as in for example giving him the tools to commit them? ”Weapons of mass destruction? Missiles? Chemical/biological weapons? The US continued to export chemical/biological materials to Iraq until the year 1989, even though it was KNOWN that he had used them against Iranians and Kurds.
Or, as during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s, when the Reagan administration provided him crucial military intelligence and planning assistance to win battles against Iran (Again it was known that Saddam used chemical weapons against them).
Just two examples, of which he is accused (I believe). The list goes on.
Nitro the Guru said:
If we invade based on a leaders attrocities, we are going against international law and/or U.N. regulations. If we don't invade we are in support of whatever they are doing. okaaaaay. Sounds like you typical anti-U.S. "free thinker".
Ehh @ ”Not invading”. See above. Don’t put words in my mouth.
And do you seriously believe that you invaded because of his atrocities even when simple study of the history US foreign policy would indicate that the atrocities committed by a ruthless regime are A O-K as long as the regime obeys the US?
Needless to say what you sound like.
Nitro the Guru said:
George H.W. Bush did not put him in presidency or give him any tools. No one knows how long he was supported by the U.S., but I'm sure most of the support came when he was actually a half decent leader. How do you know the U.S. even knew about, let alone supported most of his crimes when they occured?
No, Bush didn’t. You are right. But basically, the CIA-orchestrated military coup in 1963 set Saddam on the road to absolute power, AND CIA was kind enough to give him a long list of people (opposition) to kill. Since then he was a friend of the US. He was the head of state since 1979.
No one knows? No one knew, when they occurred? Really? It was well known at the time what he was doing with US-provided chemical/biological materials, for instance.
Half-decent? What do you mean by this? Like when he committed genocide by gassing the Kurds of Northern Iraq? (and the Reagan admnistration, while claiming neutrality, suppressed motions to act against the genocide in the US senate). You seem to be unable to fathom that the US would knowingly support a ”bad guy”, what with it being the voice of democracy and all that.
Nitro the Guru said:
It works both ways, they have committed crimes, and they have done this world a lot of good. Without the United States, I think this world would be far worse off.
I disagree. Shorly put, what the United States has done for the world is protect the interests of the economic elite while making the world open to globalization and preserving and propagating a system of world trade that benefits the rich industrialized countries and exploits the third world countries -- i.e. capitalism .. or imperialism.
Yes, and before you put words in my mouth: NO, United States is not the only country to blame – Just about every industrialized western country is for perpetuating this type of economic system. And NO, I am not saying that any good hasn’t been done along the way, but when it has, you have to seriously consider the motives. As said, the US has practiced and continues to practice selfish foreign policy, whether you are willing to come into terms with it or not.
What I am trying to say is that to act ethically correctly is not as such the objective/principle/ideal of US foreign policy. If ”justice” coincides with the international interests of USA (or is all the same), the US government has no difficulty to refer to reasons of high morality.
Nitro the Guru said:
Have you seen the way people live around the "rest of the world"? Do I believe in installing "America" in places where people are not allowed to travel without permission? Absolutely. I believe in nationalism, but I prioritize freedom above it. When your human will is stripped away, then something needs to change, if even by military action. People don't flee to America because they love their country's standard of living.
The way people live around the ”rest of the world” is for a large part the result of the economic phenomenon that I described above. What you apparently fail to understand is that the US, by lobbying for globalization and by driving the interests of transnational corporations, UPHOLDS these kinds of conditions.
And if by ”places where people are allowed to travel without permission” you are referring to Cuba – The US has done practically EVERYTHING in its power to ensure that countries that might evolve into a succesful alternative to its system and free from its political pressures, would FAIL. I am not glorifying Cuba – I am aware of the social ills and human rights abuses in its system and am in no way condoning them (although aware of their origins) – but almost 50 years of US economic sanctions have impoverished Cuba (and STILL they have an education and healthcare system better than in most of Latin America.. tells you something.)
And Freedom. Its funny how easily US leaders speak about freedom and democracy WHILST being adroit supporters of dictatorships. Ahh. Generally, in countries where USA has introduced freedom, people are languishing helplessly below the poverty line while bitterly wondering what the FUCK those magical letters, F-R-E-E-D-O-M, that US politicians so passionately use, really mean. Again, consider Latin America and look at what ”US imposed freedom” has resulted in – Abject poverty, corruption, famine.. etc.
Nitro the Guru said:
I found that "you guys" are quick to point the finger at the U.S. whenever someone else is at question. Saddam is a tyrant... "ohhh yeah!! well the U.S. did this!"... what is the relevance? You're comparing the name of a country with a person.
To give you some kind of perspective, since you believe you are invading Iraq on the basis of Saddam’s atrocities. Because evaluating the history of US interventions can help you decide how much to believe in that claim. Saddam was a horrible tyrant, and the US supported him. In fact, it would be hard to name a right-wing dictatorship not supported by the US, post-WWII.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
About 40 times (1972-2004) and alone against an otherwise unanimous vote. Why isn't USA fighting against atrocities there, rather than defending them?
But yeah, sorry for going way off topic.
