The Capture of Saddam Hussein - A Non American Perspective

Maybe it's me, but I always thought that invading Kuwait was a bad thing, but I guess they might have deserved it. I also can't feel sorry for Hussein, as he was more than reluctant to show the UN what it wanted to see for years. If he cooperated with them in the first place, he might still have had Iraq.
Although Bush made some exagerations, I don't see him as being more of a threat than other clearly evil leaders simply because he's a Republican.

At no point did I defend Hussein. Regardless of anyone's motivations for driving him out of Kuwait, I believe that it was the right thing to do. Also, I am anything but sympathetic to Hussein, as I said in the article, he is truly an evil man. Calling Bush's claims about Iraq "exaggerations" is like saying that Hitler was "a bit of a racist", woefully understated. The threats that Bush poses to the world have nothing to do with him being a republican, and I'd welcome a replacement for him from any party. In my opinion, the two main American political parties both suffer from the same problems of greed, self servitude, and corruption. There are people in both parties that do not fall into this category, and I'd happily give any of them my support if their alleigance is to doing what is right, as opposed to doing what is most beneficial for them personally.

>>a minimal amount of research would reveal that the only WMDs that he ever possesed were supplied to him by his old ally - the USA. >>





Funny how none of the "made in" labels on Iraq's weapons do not bare the USA label, but France, Russia & China's labels instead.





Chirac with Saddam inspecting Iraq's nuclear facility that France sold them and Israel took out.

Like most arguments that oppose Hussein’s ouster, this is a dichotomous riddle. On one hand, you claim that Hussein was an evil man; on the other hand, Hussein’s brutality combined with his sworn hatred of western civilization and his weapon program was not a threat. Maybe it’s not a threat if you don’t live in the US, Israel, Iraq, or Kuwait. You need to put yourself in the shoes of the people he threatened. Hussein’s human rights abuses include many barbaric acts, such as sending human beings head first into industrial meat grinders, decapitated heads being displayed in front of family members, and other human rights violations. You claim Hussein is a feeble old man brutalized by US forces in your warped perception of reality, you think that Bush is a tyrant.

The capture of Saddam Huessin was important to the future stability of the region, if for no other reason than removing him as a rallying point. But if you believe in justice, then his capture certainly was important to the families of those who were buried in the mass graves. Why was Eichmann's capture and trial so important? It was long after WWII, he wasn't going to build new concentration camps after all. But it was important to those of us that believe mass murderers should be punished.

The first fallacy that I see in your arguments is the assumption that the search for Saddam in some way takes away from the search for Bin Laden. It doesn't. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

The second fallacy seems to shared by millions of people world-wide. That is that Europe (and Canada) bears no responsibility for what went on in Iraq. It was all the fault of the United States. Thats just not true. France and Germany gave Saddam billions of dollars and provided the means to build the chemical weapons used to kill thousands of Iraqis. The Scud missles fired from Iraq at Kuwait and Israel came from Russia and China.

Let me go one step further. Europe and Canada can't keep supporting tin dictators around the world and then wash their hands of the evil that these men do. France, for example, sheltered Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini for years from the Shah. When Khomeini ushered in a barbaric and repressive regime in Iran, France was his ally. When Khomeini took the US Embassy staff hostage, a clear violation of international law, France did NOTHING. Could they have exerted political and economic pressure to free the hostages? Most certainly. Why then didn't they?

Bear this in mind. Britain and France sent soldiers to the Middle East in 1956 because Nasser had "nationalized" the Suez canal. They did this despite UN resolutions to the contrary, because it was in their national interests. Times may change, but the principles remain.

It's good to see that James Carville has time enough to submit an article. It's good to see Terry McAuliffe's talking points have fallen on fertile ground. It's good that the Democrat Party isn't in charge of our national defense. It's a good day in America....

I can't believe you can look at Saddam's record of murder, torture, genocide, and other systematic abuse and killings and say "what did he do to deserve this?".

I also find your implication that we should IMMEDIATELY set up a democratic government and get out to be laughable. What makes you think that the government would not immediately degenerate into a duplicate of the one that we just spent "trillions of dollars" getting rid of? If our goal was to remove a threat, then we have to stick around to make sure that the threat is indeed truly eliminated.

I agree that Bush deceived the country into supporting his war effort. I agree that as such, he should be voted out of office as soon as possible. His deception was of a much more severe nature than Clinton's (who never should have served a second term). And I believe that many of his governmental initiatives here in the USA are dangerous to our own liberties. But to call him a greater evil than Saddam Hussein is, quite frankly, an insanely idiotic position.

We'll run our affairs in America to suit ourselves and protect our nnational security whenever and however we see fit. We could care less about your non-American perspective, furthermore, the fact that you are not an American suits us just fine. GCJ

When I wrote this article, I obviously expected and intended for it to illicit a strong reaction from readers, whether they disagree wholeheartedly with me, or feel that it's refreshing to see somebody talking sense in the face of the onslaught of mindless flag waving that has ensued since the capture of Hussein. In that vein, I'd like to thank all the users that have responded so far for doing so in a mature and rational manner, rather than the usual torrent of "you are anti-American", "you are a communist" and "you are a terrorist", which are the unfounded and irrelevant responses that I'd expect from people who disagree with me on most sites.

I'm going to respond to a few of the points raised here, and after that, I'm going to try to resist the temptation to respond any more, and let the article speak for itself, and allow people to discuss it freely.

In response to the claim that Iraqi WMDs don't bear the US seal, according to a 1994 US senate report, here's a list of some of the nasties sold to Iraq from US corporations, with the blessing of the White House of course:

Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

A dream shopping list for any madman for sure.

Regarding the capture of Saddam, I didn't say at any time that he had been brutalised by American troops. In fact, all I know of his treatment since his capture is that he was subject to a free dental examination, something that most Americans don't get to enjoy. I have little doubt that his treatment since his capture has been second to none. Certainly a higher standard of treatment than has been given to people that have been snatched in the night, and shipped off to Cuba without charge or trial in the name of "Homeland Security".

I believe that the removal of Hussein from power was a good thing, though it wasn't really the US's place to do it, given their implication in many of the crimes for which Saddam should be tried. Just to give an example, when Saddam was gassing Iranian troops with the goodies given to him by his buddies in the Regan White House, he was able to do so thanks to some handy-dandy satellite images of Iranian troop movements, again, given to him by the US (and in the full knowledge of what he was going to use them for, I have no doubt). At the moment, the people of Iraq are arguably no better off living under US dictatorship than they were living under Hussein's dictatorship. Whether or not their situation will improve after the reconstruction is complete, and the US has withdrawn its troops and returned control of the country to the Iraqi people, who is to say? I for one believe that they will be better off, but only time will tell.

However, though what has happened on a local level is that the Iraqi's have gone from one dictatorship to another, with the hope of things getting better in time, what has happened on a global level is extremely disturbing - the president has used to best funded and equipped army in the world to settle a personal score, with the only justification being given a litany of lies. There is little doubt that this isn't the first time that a government has lead a nation to war on the pretense of falsehoods, but this is to my knowledge, the first time that such a thing has been done on this scale, and from a country that largely believes that they have divine sanction in their actions (another dangerous thing).

I'm trying not to go too far off topic here, but I'd just like to respond in brief to Larry's reference to the Iranian Ayatullah. If you read the history on this issue, such leaders do not come to power under happy circumstances. Khomeni came to power in the wake of the Shah, who was one of history's most brutal dictators, and placed in power largely with the assistance of the USA. For the USA to claim hatred of dictatorships is hypocrisy, from their present day love affair with the rulers of Saudi Arabia, to their meddling in the affairs of other countries, giving rise to brutal dictators in the belief that they would do as they were told (which they rarely do, but some lessons are hard ruled). Look at the American complicity in the rise of Pinochet in Chile, or Somoza in Nicuragua.

Of course, the USA isn't the only country guilty of such evils and hypocrisy, not by a long shot, but in the present day, you'd be hard pressed to find another contender that even comes close for the top spot.

Please don't villianize the United States just because you feel we are a threat to whatever puny country you live in. I suppose you would feel safer if the Communists would have won the cold war? You think the Soviet Union would fight to preserve your current way of life, or would they have taken it away in the absence of an equal and opposite force. I understand your paranoia, but I can assure you that as long as we are still a democracy, you are far better off with us on your side, defending the free world, than you would be with say...China, or France (lol, back you bad old dictatorsss... back!). Nobody should be completely comfortable with only one major superpower in the world, but really... who else would you want it to be than us? This sense of unrest everyone gets in the presence of a country with this much power in the world should be a clear warning to all who support one world governing body like the UN, or the recently formed E.U.. I say, stop consolidating the governments of the world.
You clearly live in a fantasy world, if you can watch these events unfold, and still cast the U.S. taxpayer as the bad guy. It makes me wish people like you (whatever country you are in) did not live under the protective umbrella HELD UP by the very people you seek to villianize.
Have a nice day.
God Bless America!

Losers waffle and criticize solutions to problems. Winners do something about problems. A psychopath was removed from power and a precedent of accountability was set for the entire Middle East. Net positive. It's just that simple.

Blah blah blah blah.

Allow me to fisk your ass.

"So, at a cost of trillions of dollars to the American taxpayer, George Bush finally got his bogey-man. The broken man was pulled from his "spider hole" by heroic American troops, and the world is once again a safe place, but what did "The Butcher of Bagdad" do to deserve this?"

It's spelled 'Baghdad', by the way. The poor broken man you speak of is responsible for over one million deaths, not to mention the torture, rape, and miscellaneous repression.

"For years, he was the darling of the American right wing, but one day, he stepped out of line by threatening America's favourite dictatorship in the region, Saudi Arabia, by invading Kuwait."

Pure, unsubstantiated bullshit. The Gulf War was approved by the UN. Iraq was attacked because they defied a UNSC resolution telling them to get out of Kuwait. Saddam was not the 'darling' of the American right wing. The US supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war because Iraq was fighting... guess who? Iran, a totalitarian theocracy, and a declared enemy of the US. If you'd bother to do your homework, the US was not alone in supporting the Ba'athists back then.

"Of course, we all remember what happened then, a war was fought and won, and all was well with the world again. So what was the reason for going back? According to George Bush, Hussein was the world's most dangerous man, hoarding huge stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, aiding and abetting the terrorists that attacked America on 9/11/2001, seeking nuclear armament, and threatening the security of the free world. Of course, even an idiot could see that these were all blatant lies..."

Yes, of course it's a blatant lie that Bush said he's hoarding huge stockpiles of WMD, aiding and abetting Al Qaeda. It is FACT that Saddam was a dangerous man - just go ask the Kurds, the Iranians, or the Kuwaitis. It is FACT that Saddam was seeking nuclear armament. It is FACT that a dictator who gassed his own population and started two expansionist wars against his neighbours, launched SCUDs at Israel, possessed WMD, sought nuclear weapons, held himself to be the Second Coming of Saladin, and was quite certifiably insane is a fucking threat to the security of the free world.

"...and while Hussein was truly an evil man, he wasn't capable of threatening the security of any other nation after having virtually all of his military hardware destroyed in the first Gulf War conflict, and being worn down by a plethora of sanctions, embargos, and continued bombing of his country."

So the US had three options - leave him in power, and keep the sanctions in place, allowing Saddam complete freedom to pursue WMD programs funded by his pillaging of the Oil for Food program, while the Iraqi people suffer under a brutal dictator AND United Nations sanctions. Or, the US could leave him in power, and lift the sanctions, and just HOPE that Hussein had mended his ways and would not use the situation to rearm himself (or buy a nuke). Think of all the Palestinian homicide bombers Saddam could afford to buy with that kind of money. Third, the US could demand that Iraq unconditionally subjects to UNSC resolutions and disarms, failure to do this resulting in toppling Saddam by force. I guess leftist asshats like you prefer that those distant brown people starve to death under sanctions, or, Chomsky forbid, they might one day open a McDonalds in Baghdad.

"As for the terrorist connection, anyone who took the time to even do 10 minutes of research on the matter would know that Hussein ruled with an iron fist, and terrorist groups were not tolerated in the regions of Iraq that he controlled. Despite the implied and specifc connections between Hussein and the September 11th terrorist attacks constantly fed to us through the American media, and George Bush, anyone who knew anything about the matter was fully aware that not only did Hussein not assist al-Quaeda in any manner, but he positively hated them."

Bullshit. Saddam financed nearly every terrorist organization in the Middle East. And no, Saddam wasn't behind 9/11. No one ever said he was. This is not the War on Al Qaeda. This is the War on Terrorism. No one in the Bush Administration has ever claimed otherwise.

"The feeling was mutual, with one of the tenet's of al-Quaeda's beliefs calling for the destruction of Hussein's secular government. The man was clearly an infidel - he even allowed synagogues into his country."

Ever heard that old saying - the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Like, you know, the West teaming up with Stalin to defeat Hitler? The one common ground every Islamofascist nutball has is blind, unconditional hatred of the USA and everything for which she stands. You know, like your blind, unconditional hatred for everything to the right of Fidel.

"On the subject of his alleged stockpiles of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", again, a minimal amount of research would reveal that the only WMDs that he ever possesed were supplied to him by his old ally - the USA."

Total, utter, laughable BULLSHIT. It is well documented that Iraq had piles and piles of weaponized anthrax, which the US has never given anyone. The vast majority of Iraq's weapons, both conventional and chemical, were supplied by the French, the Russians, and various other commie regimes around the world.

" The reason that the UN inspections didn't reveal any stockpiles of these deadly armaments were simply that he no longer had any - not that the UN inspection teams were inefficient, or that he was a master of hiding them. Again, many people could have told you this before the sequel to the Gulf War was ever launched, but for even the staunchest believer in the deceptions of George Bush, the truth is now painfully obvious."

Bullcrap. Saddam was under sanctions because he was known to have WMD in 1991, and he refused to give them up. So you're saying he destroyed them all, but didn't tell anyone, like, say the goddamn inspectors so he COULD LIFT THE SANCTIONS?

"Though Americans will bear a burden of financial debt for this farce for years to come, the real victims are the Iraqi people who have been murdered in the course of the American lead war. The 3,000 people that died on September 11th pales in comparison with the number of Iraqis murdered in the period from the first Gulf War to the present day."

Fuck you. Go ask the vast majority of Iraqis if they preferred Saddam's plastic shredders to a few errant JDAMs. Saddam killed nearly TWO MILLION people over the course of two decades. He showed no signs of stopping. You don't even have any numbers or sources to substantuate your shrill leftist lies. A suggestion - go find out exactly how many civilians were killed by Coalition forces since March. Then keep in mind that Saddam's track record was 270 people dead every single day. How many fucking WEEKS would it take to catch up with ACCIDENTAL civilian casualties?

"We've all heard the stories of "mistakes", such as a bus load of unarmed women and children being gunned down by nervous American troops at a checkpoint, but you can rest assured that there's a great deal more that we don't hear about in the mainstream media."

Why the fuck not? It's not as if the mainstream media misses any chance to criticize the Bush 'junta', now does it? Your tired little leftist rant would be so much less retarded if you actually tried to justify your hatred of Bush with actual FACTS.


"Every American who supported this war is guilty of one of two things - either willfully and knowingly supporting an unjustifiable war for purely jingoistic reasons, or being so staggeringly stupid as to have not seen through the lies of their government and media in building up support for this invasion. Either way, they're as guilty as the men who flew jets into skyscrapers."

And every dickless little Marx-reading hippie like you is responsible for the 100+ million deaths caused by leftist regimes in the 20th century. And, no, I'm not American. I'm Estonian, and that means I grew up with a bit more insight into the alternative to 'right wing oil juntas'. It was the US and her uber-right-wing president, Reagan, that freed me and my country.

Here's a pop quiz - name any country the US has waged war against that is occupied and whose oil is being stolen. THERE IS NO SUCH COUNTRY.

"Of course, the lies don't end here. Amerca's stated goal of promoting democracy in the region is yet another totally transparent deception. America's refusal to turn over control of the country to Iraqi authorities, and their refusal to allow allow free elections to take place can only be for one reason - they know that free elections won't go the way that they want, and so they continue their illegal occupation."

Did you give a rim job to Robert Fisk or is there some other reason you're spouting his crap verbatim? America has NOT refused to turn over control to Iraqi authorities. There simply aren't any damn authorities to begin with - Germany was occupied for DECADES after World War II, yet you want control of a war-torn, volatile country turned over to god knows who because of what exactly? Oh, I'm sorry, how stupid of me. It's your blinding anti-americanism, of course. The occupation is not illegal. The war was not illegal. Saddam violated UNSC resolutions, ending the cease-fire of 1991, allowing the US to finish the UNSC-sanctioned war by deposing Iraq's corrupt dictatorship, temporarily occupying the country while any remaining insurgents are eliminated, the infrastructure of the country restored, and a constitutional democracy created. It is Dominique de Villepin's (who is a man) opinion that another resolution was needed. Nowhere in the resolutions passed does it say that.

But why argue? Your capacity for logic has exceeded it's limits whenever anything more complicated than "US = bad" comes up.

"The severity of the wrongs done here can never be righted, but the truly right way to go is another thing that doesn't look like happening any time soon. Control of the reconstruction of Iraq should be turned over to the UN, and be funded exclusively by the countries that took part in this atrocity. Bush, Blair et al should be handed over to international authorities, and tried as war criminals, and financial reparations should be paid to the people of Iraq by the guilty coalition members. Any country that refused to take part in this debacle should be truly proud of themselves. France, Germany, Canada, and all the others that said "No" to Bush, despite the ongoing bribe of lucrative reconstruction contracts should be commended for standing up for what is right and decent, and should be the ONLY countries allowed to bid on reconstruction projects."

Blah blah blah. If wishes were horses, you'd be gang raped by rabid leprechauns.

"So, Bush caught his monster, but there is a far more evil man still at large, who poses a threat to the security of free nations unheard of since the fall of Hitler. To hope that Bush is held accountable for his crimes is a fool's hope, but we can all hope that this monster doesn't get to serve another terms as president, and that maybe somebody with at least a shred of decency will become president at the end of 2004. If you are a citizen of America, use your vote wisely, and don't allow this man to dig your country even deeper into the dirt."

Go look up Godwin's Law, you worthless waste of nerve cells. Go compare Bush and Hitler to an Auschwitz surviver, why don't you. Cretin.

is it just me or is this whole website filled with conservative and ignorant right wingers? AJ was just trying to bring up an idea and now u people r trying to crucify him.

"Please don't villianize the United States just because you feel we are a threat to whatever puny country you live in."
This must be the most arrogant statement ive heard in a long while (kinda refreshing). The current administration isnt just an international loose cannon, it is also a domestic time bomb. That tax cut might have worked temporarily, but its not gonna solve the problem.

"Go look up Godwin's Law, you worthless waste of nerve cells."
While i havent been politically active in the past few years due to 9/11. If this is the typical scene now in the US, than free speech is greatly at risk. The american public has taken on an attitude of ur with us or ur with them attitude, which is, like ive said before, an immature and fundamentally flawed view of the world. let me put this to u in terms u right wingers mite understand. There is another world out there, it doesnt end with ur boarders.

I like what that last guy said...

As long as people are willing to dismiss the majority of the country as 'ignorant right wingers,' I guess free speech is at risk. If the mature worldview requires we spell your as 'ur' and might as 'mite' I'm willing to explore the depths of my immaturity.

There is a world outside the U.S. Actually, there are several, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a world WITHIN our borders. Some of us feel that that way of life is worth protecting. Heck, some idealists even think we should export our system of freedoms to other places where people might enjoy freedom. When the two goals coincide so nicely, such as in Iraq, it's really obvious what to do. You'd have to be amazingly misinformed, and/or ignorant as to what makes it possible for the United States to exist not to see how Iraq is a double-win for U.S. Ideology and Interests.

But, even so, ridicule of the spectrum of blather against the war does not constitute an attack on free speech, only exercise of free speech. Nobody ever claimed Americans were free to speak without consequence. Slander and libel laws have been on the books from the get go; we carried that over from England. Nobody is oppressed in the U.S. for speaking their opinions. Anyone who says differently is just looking for a scapegoat for his various short-comings.

"how Iraq is a double-win for U.S. Ideology and Interests."
this statement illustrates my points exactly. you believe that forcing american ideology and intreasts on another country can improve that country and yours. It doesn't. The american system of mostly unrestricted capatalism may have worked just peachy here but that doesn't mean it will work everywhere else too.

"Some of us feel that that way of life is worth protecting."
Do you honestly consider spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing american and iraqi lives to find WMDs that seeminly vanished into thin air protecting the american way of life?

"That tax cut might have worked temporarily, but its not gonna solve the problem."

The problem being a Republican government, I presume.

"If this is the typical scene now in the US, than free speech is greatly at risk."

No, it isn't. Free speech is at risk when dimwits scream 'free speech is at risk' when someone disagrees with what they say. Like Tim Robbins and his chill winds. Letting everyone speak their mind without being criticized is not free speech, it's Show and Tell in grade three.

"The american public has taken on an attitude of ur with us or ur with them attitude, which is, like ive said before, an immature and fundamentally flawed view of the world. let me put this to u in terms u right wingers mite understand. There is another world out there, it doesnt end with ur boarders."

First of all, it's 'you', and 'your'. Second, it IS a matter of 'with us or against us'. It's very clearly a black and white issue. Either you stand by the US in her fight against terrorists, or you don't, and by that you are allowing them refuge and a cover to work with. You're just as complicit as the Swiss bankers who house the funds of criminals, just as complicit as bystanders who ignore the cries for help of a mugging victim. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And if 'evil' is too gauche a term for your postmodernist sensibilities, go grab a 20th century history book and a calculator. Then come tell me that Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and their ilk are anything other than evil.

Or are they just poor broken bogeymen?

"The american system of mostly unrestricted capatalism may have worked just peachy here but that doesn't mean it will work everywhere else too."

Well, socialist dictatorships seem to work like a charm everywhere.

Can you name a constitutional republic with democratic elections, rule of law, and free-market capitalism that isn't hugely successful, free, and stable, compared to the rest of the world?

Can you see the blatant racism in your statement?

What in the world does racism have to do with anything? grab a dictionary buddy, im not discriminating against any race of people



Your idea of "hugely successful" is just that, your idea. If the people of a certain country prefer a theocracy and they prefer religious unity vs religious dissention, thats their choice. Now I am aware that Iraq is not exactly the best example for this so i dont need you self-rightious hypocrits to tell me saddam was a dictator.



"It's very clearly a black and white issue."

First off, i'd just like to say nothing is just a black and white issue. It has been estimated that five hundred thousand children, not counting the adults, just children, died in iraq since 1990 from US bombings and US sanctions. If the US actually had evidence of the WMD's going in to iraq, than the issue would be completely different, but to this day, not a single WMD has turned up, i guess we should all just assume they disappeared the second america attacked the country, because if Pres Bush said there was WMDs there, i guess there must be WMDs.

Free speech is indead at risk if all of you seem to be so intolerant of other opinions. Unlike you, i choose not to make any personal attacks simply because i believe a debate should be able to be conducted in an orderly, respectful manner. Go back to grade school buddy, learn some courtesy and maybe you'll be able to fit in into an educated\decent society

I applaud you, Sam. I completly agree with your first entry. I actually agree with most of what you have to say. Oh, and the fellow who disagrees with you, Machiavelli_incorporated, i have to ask you something. How can you debate any matter or event in a purely "orderly, respectful" manner? Rarely do you see two opposing sides that differ in opinions with any respect for each other. When two groups clash together someone or somegroup will get resentful of the other when that group eventually comes out on top of the debate. Orderly? Yes, i can see a somewhat orderly debate happening. But how, with a passion for what one is speaking, can one person remain respectful for the opposing group? What you seek is not truly possible. You currently seem to live in a dream world of pink pansies where all species, though they disagree an all issues, can rejoin later with the same amount of respect and love they had for each other before their one debate started. I highly doubt now that i've said what i feel the need to say, you can like me. You don't know me. Do you respect me for my opinions and ideas? Do you respect Sam for HIS opinions and idea? I highly doubt it...

AJCrowley:

Your reply has a couple of lines that are direct quotes from a Michael Moore thesis. called, “We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was in a Spider Hole!”


Next time you should use quotation to avoid plagiarism.

I should have put quotation around the word "thesis," in regard to anything written by Michael Moore.

Anthony R. - You are correct about the quote from Michael Moore, but it is restricted purely to the list of nasties given by the US to Iraq. I guess I didn't see the need or the point of citing a source for a six item list, but there you have it.

As far as your dislike of Michael Moore, I can understand that too. Anyone who believes that children should be given free medical treatment is obviously a dangerous communist, and a threat to your precious way of life. You're obviously much better off listening to reasonable and sane people like Anne "Assasinate their leaders and conver them to Christianity" Coulter.

To also reply to the person who found the keystone to destroying my entire argument, in my spelling of "Baghdad" as "Bagdad", I think you'll find that both are perfectly acceptable spellings of the city. Because Arabic is a different language to English, and does not use the same alphabet as English, you'll find that many words have multiple valid spellings in their English translation. To give another example of this, "Usama" and "Osama", again, both correct.

Regarding the whole free speech issue, I am entitled to state my opinions, and anybody is entitled to respond in any way that they choose, though resorting to personal attacks only serves to highlight your own immaturity, and makes it hard to take seriously any valid points that you may seek to raise, but free speech being what it is - fill your boots.

It amazes me how popular the view is that the ends always justifies the means. Though it's highly dubious that Hussein presented any degree of threat to any free world nation at all, the way in which the war was justified (through lies and scaremongering), in my opinion does not justify the ends of this war. In the end, the people it affects the most are the people of Iraq, and right now, most of them will tell you that they're no better off today living under American dictatorship than they were living under Hussein's dictatorship. Hopefully that will change with time, but there are no guarantees in this world.

If the people behind the war had gone about it in a different manner, stating that Saddam was a brutal dictator, and a danger to his own people, my views on the war would be very different. Instead, however, the war was justified by a series of fictions, probably because Bush and Blair both know full well that their constituants might have not reacted so well to a war that would cost them trillions of dollars if the only stated goal was to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. As things stand, I have a great deal more sympathy for the Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed in the course of this war than for the American and British troops killed by roadside bombs and other insurgents' attacks.

When people talk about exporting the US system of capitalism and democracy to other regions, that's all well and good in theory, but in the case of Iraq, it's simply another lie. Iraq hasn't yet been allowed to hold free elections, simply because such elections would not go the way that the US wants right now. Whether US style capitalism would work in Iraq or not is an extremely complex issue, and one which I'm not going to attempt to tackle here. I'll just say that if exporting the US system to Iraq is a stated goal of this war, then it should be done. As it stands, it's yet another matter of the US saying one thing, and doing another. Also on the subject of exporting the US system to other countries, doing it in this manner is self-destructive to the whole philosophy. Forcing another system on people is just another form of dictatorship, and not freedom at all. If the people of a country largely want to move to a democratic system, but are unable to do so because of a nasty dictator, then I'm all for helping these people out, but storming into another country, destroying it, and then saying, "Ok, you're free, we order you to go and be free" isn't really freedom at all now, is it? Somebody also stated that having a single superpower in the world isn't ideal, but it's the way it is, and asked the question, "Who would you rather it be than the US?". To answer that question, obviously I don't think that we'd be better off (actually we'd be substantially worse off) under a system of either Soviet or Chinese style communism, but if I had to choose, there'd be a number of factors that would have to be taken into consideration. At the top of the list would be, "Is this a peaceful nation, and would they uphold a truly fair and balanced system of justice in the world?". These are traits that I don't see from the US right now, in fact, the largest traits of the US right now as I see it are self interest and hypocrisy, and have been ever since the end of World War 2, when the USA found itself in the unique position of being the only country with nuclear armaments, and therefore pretty much able to impose their will on anyone with little fear of non-compliance. Certainly not traits I'd choose of the world's only remaining superpower. To that situation, nuclear proliferation was certainly a positive thing, at least in free world nations where such a threat would only be used as the very final resort. On a lighter note, it's good to see that this may not be the situation for long. With the EU really starting to get its act together, we may see a more balanced world coming through in the not too distant future.

I do recognize that the US and Hussein aren't the only bad guys in this matter. The sanctions that have served to kill so many Iraqis are not simply the product of US legislation, but the whole UN. However, in the latest chapter of this conflict, the blame does lie fairly solidy and mostly in the hands of the US and the UK.

One aspect of the whole thing that I find particularly offensive is the whole "with us or against us" rhetoric. Despite the views of George Bush, the world isn't such a simple place that things can be cast in such a clear black and white light.

Anyway, that's enough for now, have fun.

Any time you are using info from Michael Moore you should beware. He has very little credibility and makes up much of his "facts" IMO.

Frankly, I rate Michael Moore's credibility way above that of your president, which admittedly doesn't say much. However, the extent of his "facts" that I used was limited to the list, and the list alone. This is information that I've come across time and time again, and the original source was a congressional report, which you're free to look up for yourself if you doubt the solidity of the list. It's by far not complete, but it was more than adequate to illustrate the point that I was making.