1reguL8NSTi

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10318347/

Alright, I was reading up on current events this morning and I couldn't help but notice this article about the Saddam trial. This brings the torture and human rights violations to the forefront and Saddam was clearly accountable for them as he was in power and his lieutenants administered these inhumane acts. Do you guys feel that, even without WMDs, things like this justify out invasion of Iraq?


*legal disclaimer*

I'm not trying to start a pissing contest, I just wanted to start some educated conversation on the topic at hand.

dub2w

No, they definitely do not. It is terrible what happens to innocent people around the world, but we can't break international norms / codes of conduct to go in and trample on the rights of other sovereign nations.

1reguL8NSTi

I can see that prespective but to play devil's advocate, Bush (and apparently Congress at the time) forsaw Iraq as a potential threat AND it was the home of an aggregate proportion of oppressed peoples. They were also a threat to their bordering nations (they invaded Kuwait and fought a serious war with Iran for an extended period of time) Call me wrong if you'd like but **** Germany fell into about the same cercumstances.

lojasmo

No, absolutely not.

And your analogy to **** Germany does not hold. Iraq may have been a threat to neighboring countries, but it was not a forseeable threat to the United states. Also:

The Iran/Iraq war took place approximately twenty years ago, and Iraq has not been a threat to Iran for many years.

Also:

Iraq informed U.S. diplomats before they invaded Kuwait, and were told "the united states has no position on your relationship with Kuwait"

1reguL8NSTi

So you think it would have been O.K. to ignore the Iraqis suffering or just turn a blind eye to it? Call me a war mongling ultra-conservative if you want but I think that's just outright wrong and I would definetly have moral reservations with doing it.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Yeah.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

And Slobodan Milosevic was? Oh that's right! Bushy wasn't behind that one. Let's face it... Liberals and Dems still would have raised hell if we went into Darfur and other parts of Africa under Bush.

I say yeah myself. The opposition isn't there because they have a stern love for Saddam. Damn near all the Sunnis abandoned Saddam by instantly digging their talons into other Sunni leaders a long time ago. They enjoyed what he offered, not his company. Also, there was no system of rights set-up unless you were in the Sunni minority. And because of that Iraq has always been a threat to Iran. I can go on and on but it’s pointless….

So what's everyone’s' criteria for invasion? There better not be ANY criterion regarding humanitarian effort. Enlighten me, please

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I love the video.

You have to be an idiot to compare the incident at Abu Ghirab with the countless atrocities committed by Saddam's regime. The major differences is that those involved with Abu Ghirab were tried and not given orders from higher.

Magish

iTrader: (2)

Ok heres my opinion:

At the time we went into Iraq, no the torture and other things were not enough.

Why? To this day, many countries continue to use torture and even execution as poilitical tactics. What was used by Saddam at the time we invaded were proably not much more than other countries, INCLUDING US, used.

Years ago, yes, Saddam did commit horrible attrocites that we should have stopped, but did not because of Clinton and congress' inability. Coming into Iraq in 2003 was like invading Rwanda right now for human rights violations from 1994. Yes, the leaders committed horrible things, but isn't it more worth our while to help out masses of people who are suffering right now?

I do not believe the U.S. should be international police, but I think there is better ways to use our military than invading a country which at the time was probably not commiting a insane amount of human rights violations. I believe our recources would have been much better used in fighting the horrible fammine that was/is happening in Etheopia, or the Genocide in Sudan. And in those cases we would have not been going into it alone, as we would have had full U.N. support and troops.

My reason for deeply disagreing with the war in the first place was our utter disrespect for the U.N. I realize many people here think the U.N. is worthless, but I am a firm believer in what it can do given the right tools. When we went around the U.N., we completely drained any power over any country it may have posssesed. Leaders can now think, "Hey, if the country that HAS the U.N. within its boarders bypasses it, why can't I!". When the U.N. works together it can have great results. However, when we are not willing to front recources and set a precedent for other countries, it fails (see Rwanda).

I supported Bush after 9.11, and into the Afghani war. After he played the fear card on the American public and Congress, and completely disgraced the U.N. I lost all respect for him.
-Jeff

EDIT: Just for the record, I believe the most unforgiveable mistake Clinton made was NOT pushing to intervene in Rwanda.

Magish

iTrader: (2)

See my above post for an answer.

My question to you:
Do you believe that Saddam was violating Human Rights at the time of invasion to a greater extent than any other leader?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

You think what's happening in Africa would come without opposition if we were to invade Sudan? 70% of them are Sunni! If Dean thinks Iraq is un-winnable then he damn well better say the same for Sudan if we were there (he wouldn’t if a Dem made the call). This is my point... how can you weigh one human life to another in this regard? Do you weigh it on support from other countries?!

The answer can only be that of extreme selfishness by not taking a stance in anything that does not pose "a foreseeable threat to the United states." Maybe just a petty check to countries in need during a natural disaster at the very most.


So what are you trying to say here? That we should tackle every nation that poses an equal problem at once? Might as well just not do anything unless it poses "a foreseeable threat to the United States." Why draw straws?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

...starting to sound a little white-man's-burdon-ish around here...I thought everyone agreed that was a bad idea ~100 years ago...

Magish

iTrader: (2)

Salty: You utterly, 100% missed my point.

Every human life is equal. However, most countries today commit human rights violations on one level or another, and the only way to stop them is groups like Amnesty (great organization) and Human Rights Watch's efforts. However, there ARE tremendous human rights violations currently occuring on a scale much greater than Saddam was at the time of invasion! SUDAN was one of them. Going into Sudan, or helping in Etheopia would be less about a regime change than protecting the people there. We wouldn't go into Sudan to put in a "beacon of democracy in the middle east", we would simply go in to protect the people who are being slaughttered.

And the support from other countries: somewhat, yes. I am convinced that had we not bypassed the U.N. and had U.N. forces and support in Iraq, the insurgency would have been MUCH less.

And forseeable threat: **** that. There are so many countries that are a "forseeable threat" against us right now, and we can't attack all of them. Might as well give us a better name in the world by unselfishly protecting people who have no defense (Sudan, would have been Rwanda).

And finally: in NO WAY am I saying we should tackle everyone at once. The lesser human rights violations CAN be reduced through organizations such as Amnesty and HRW. I just believe that the larger ones that are ONGOING should be tackled. The only reason I believe that the Human rights violations in Iraq were not a suitable reason to go in there is that he was not currently commiting a extreme amount of them. Going in now was nearlry pointless.

Magish

iTrader: (2)

I'm saying its the WORLD's burdon, not just ours or the "white men". Thats what the UN was built to protect against, and thats what we should help it do.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

Iraq was no more a threat then north carolina is and was...

We had him contained, now we are looking at a possible situation where the new iraqi goverment will be backed by iran, that means all that oily goodness will be under the control of a goverment with CLOSE TIES to IRAN.

Way to ****ing go, did i mention that entire region is that much closer to an all out war? (with the various arab and islamic sects?)

Anyways its retarded, and time will prove that...