Re: Saddam Hussein
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:36 pm
I have read the posts on this topic with interest, however they do seem to either miss a few key points or ignore certain historical concerns.
For those who believed that we should have left Iraq as it was, shame on you. We left a beleagured people to be abused for too long as it was. The appalling treatment of a population by a brutal dictator should never be acceptable under any circumstances. The unrest now is primarily a result of hard-core islamic extremists fuelled by hate-ridden mullahs who are on an ideological crusade against democracy.
The craven apologists of the UN and Europe, did, as usual, stand and snipe from the sidelines as once again it was left to the few countries with balls to deal with the rough stuff. it has always been the Brits and the Yanks who have stood against tyranny while others have capitulated.
The US is a large and complex country, a union of disparate social and economic groups that often don't agree. Because it is a democracy, these groups have the ability to voice and often act on their own agendas. The Noraid movement was an example of this. Without a doubt the USA does not always get it right - but it is certainly not an evil empire. It's usual failings are in taking a too insular view of global matters.
The Middle East is full of resource rich countries that have failed socailly, politically and economically because of staggering levels of corruption and mismanagment.
It suits these governments and religious groups to blame their failings on the great satan in the West, and to divert the attention from their own failings by channelling the anger of their own people away from their leaders and towards the democracies. It is a very effective way of avoiding responsibility.
We certainly did assist Saddam during the 1980's. It was the correct thing to do at the time. The alternative was to risk Iran invading Iraq and forming an Islamic Superstate which would then have had direct access to the smaller soviet moslim states to the north. The notion of a United States of Islam with huge resources and run by a totalitarian regime that uses extreme religious views of supremacy as a basic tenet should fill any intelligent person with horror.
What a number of posters here seem to fail to realise is that the international situation is fluid. Today's friend may indeed become tomorrow's enemy, but circumstances dictate a certain position at that particular point in time.
Islamic extremists view the West as evil, corrupt and weak. Every time we fail to act decisively and with resolve we strengthen that view. Unfortunately sanctions don't work. Libya has only shifted it's position because Gaddafi fianlly realised he would probably rather not be put in a position where he would have to answer to his own people, as Saddam Hussein will.
For those who believed that we should have left Iraq as it was, shame on you. We left a beleagured people to be abused for too long as it was. The appalling treatment of a population by a brutal dictator should never be acceptable under any circumstances. The unrest now is primarily a result of hard-core islamic extremists fuelled by hate-ridden mullahs who are on an ideological crusade against democracy.
The craven apologists of the UN and Europe, did, as usual, stand and snipe from the sidelines as once again it was left to the few countries with balls to deal with the rough stuff. it has always been the Brits and the Yanks who have stood against tyranny while others have capitulated.
The US is a large and complex country, a union of disparate social and economic groups that often don't agree. Because it is a democracy, these groups have the ability to voice and often act on their own agendas. The Noraid movement was an example of this. Without a doubt the USA does not always get it right - but it is certainly not an evil empire. It's usual failings are in taking a too insular view of global matters.
The Middle East is full of resource rich countries that have failed socailly, politically and economically because of staggering levels of corruption and mismanagment.
It suits these governments and religious groups to blame their failings on the great satan in the West, and to divert the attention from their own failings by channelling the anger of their own people away from their leaders and towards the democracies. It is a very effective way of avoiding responsibility.
We certainly did assist Saddam during the 1980's. It was the correct thing to do at the time. The alternative was to risk Iran invading Iraq and forming an Islamic Superstate which would then have had direct access to the smaller soviet moslim states to the north. The notion of a United States of Islam with huge resources and run by a totalitarian regime that uses extreme religious views of supremacy as a basic tenet should fill any intelligent person with horror.
What a number of posters here seem to fail to realise is that the international situation is fluid. Today's friend may indeed become tomorrow's enemy, but circumstances dictate a certain position at that particular point in time.
Islamic extremists view the West as evil, corrupt and weak. Every time we fail to act decisively and with resolve we strengthen that view. Unfortunately sanctions don't work. Libya has only shifted it's position because Gaddafi fianlly realised he would probably rather not be put in a position where he would have to answer to his own people, as Saddam Hussein will.
