The USA had a responsibility to depose Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator that oppressed the Iraqi people. By all accounts, he was hated by the population, and his crimes are not in question.

The USA had a *responsibility* to depose Hussein, if only because the USA has supported him for so many years, provided diplomatic support for him, and gave him access to weapons that threatened Iraqis and their neighbors. When the USA and the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq, this forced Iraqis to rely on Hussein even more for their daily survival. When Clinton bombed Iraq on a consistent basis for years, destroying their water supplies, polluting the atmosphere with DU weapons, and creating a humanitarian disaster, we gave ourselves the responsibility to correct a situation that we helped create.

The correct way to go about deposing Hussein was through the United Nations. Bush was clear that he was not going to follow what the UN decided, and France made clear it wasn't going to allow the UN to proceed with deposing Saddam Hussein. Both the USA and France had their own oil interests at stake - USA wanted the oil, and France wanted to maintain their lucrative contracts with Hussein. There is plenty of blame to go around.

I don't think it's even a question that the sanctions killed more Iraqis than the recent invasion, but of course the war isn't over yet.

Allowing Saddam Hussein to continue to terrorize Iraqis, with the tacit support and sometimes outright collaboration (as by the French and Russians) would have been a greater crime, in my opinion. This should have been done legally through the UN, and Bush, and the French government, should have to take the blame for putting their own political needs over that of the Iraqis.

The idea that the USA can collaborate with tyrants, then leave the people helpless to defend themselves against him, is immoral beyond belief. Saddam was our monster, and we had the responsibility to remove him from power. The best thing we can do now is get the UN to take over the rebuilding process.

We've heard it all before. Blahblahblah...

France and other European countries have large Muslim populations within their borders and they didn't want to do anything to set them off.

I disagree with how Bush pursued this war. I do think Sadaam needed to go, but the methods used by Bush have done harm to the world. And thus I was against the idea of the war because of it.

We had no fly zones over two-thirds of his country... He was not a threat to us...certainly not an imminent threat. It was like killing a gnat with a nine-pound hammer...

obviously. This is about freeing Iraqis from a dictator that the USA helped put into power. Bush's words and actions were clear - he wanted an illegal war of conquest for oil, and there is no excuse for that. I think Bush should be charged with crimes for that.

Nothing new there, What I don't like is that we wagged war on an entire country to get one man(actually to get his oil) and even in this we failed.

Saddam, or Kim Jong Il?

So by that logic we must now kill Castro?

Nor helped him into power, nor gave him access to weapons. From everything I have heard about Castro and Cuba, he's a dictator, but I'm seriously skeptical that he is on the same level as Hussein.

In any case, you can't place blame for Castro on the USA, but you certainly can for Hussein.

Also I was no fan of the former President of Syria, but you know what happened to him....he died just as Saddam(an Arab man pushing 70) will.

Castro lived in Miami, FL and Flushing, NY before the revolution. The US supported his movement to overthrow the Batista government. It wasn't until shortly after Castro took power that the US realized they made a big oops.

The CIA sure does make a lot of those, oops.

Overthrow the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Israel, and arguably even China.

There are dictators all over the globe that we have installed and supported and are not willing to take out. Sadaam is simply someone that 'attempted to kill my daddy' and is 'swimming on a sea of oil'...gee and you REALLY believe it is because we (the neocons) feel guilty)) is why we took him out?

There is one born every minute!

Perhaps you should read the post again, because you obviously either did not, or didn't understand it.

"There is one born every minute!" - you got that right. Rove is laughing all the way to the bank with his rhetorical coup about the war. Millions of Americans now think that Democrats supported Hussein, because we have not taken a strong stance against Hussein and the Reagan/Bush administration that (basically) put him in power.

France is a democracy. The people of France were opposed to the US conquest of Iraq, and Chirac followed their wishes. It is that simple. There is no convoluted explanation necessary.

France has collaborated with Saddam Hussein for many years, and the French government and French oil corporations did not want to interfere with their cozy relationship. Same with the Russians.

France did not, and could not, block Bush from taking illegal unilateral action against Iraq. They should have used the UN to dispose Hussein, instead of their brazenly dishonest propaganda that they were somehow concerned for the Iraqis - a total lie, since France *helped* Hussein stay in power.

The CEO of a European company only makes up to 40 times the base salary of the lowest employee as opposed to the hundreds-infinite times greater salary of US management. Also Haliburton/Kellog Brown rape and destroy everything they see.

based on concerns for the Iraqis. All I ever heard was their insistence that a unilateral preemptive attack would be a breach of international law.

Bush has broken international law, and he should be tried and punished for it. He has also lied to the American public over and over again. For me personally, one of Bush's worst lies was that Hussein was somehow involved in 911, which is a total lie. The French pushed propaganda that they were concerned for Iraqis in the same way that the US did.

Hopefully, no one is going to say that France is an upstanding world citizen and the USA is the world's evil, because that is clearly not the case. France has a LOT of blood on their hands, same as the USA.

propaganda about concern for the Iraqi people. I do remember many statements from Chirac condemning the US short-circuiting diplomacy for a rush to war.

and replace them with democratically elected leaders? But gee, we seem to have missed out on those ones.

Or perhaps you mean the responsibility the US had to depose the Shah of Iran. Oops, didn't do that either.

Only when there was a pile of oil to be had and our weight to through around in the world's powderkeg did that responsibility somehow come blazing through.

The Iraqis still favor the invasion, and because there are no WMD or terrorist connections, the administration is forced to make it look like they care about the plight of the Iraqis (unlike afghanistan).

And Bush has been proven for the pathological liar that he is.

I'm happy.

There's been some damage to america's credibility etc., but most of the world knows the difference between the democrats and the repukes, so it just makes them look bad.

From what I have seen and read they want the invaders OUT of their country. Prior to our illegal invasion, the only thing they had asked for was that the sanctions be ended, which the US was blocking all by themselves. They did not ask us to 'liberate' them.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_3/images/iraq_survey.html

it says 50% said the coalition was right to invade, 27% thought we were wrong. it was higher earlier too, but i'm sure the incompetence of the us leadership and the lack of electricity has been pushing it down.

it's especially funny that when you learn that 47% think we invaded for oil, and only 27% are against the invasion.

either way, only 13% of iraqis want the US to leave by this poll. I'm sure they are pretty vocal, but even they said they were glad hussein was out (the chant i remember being "we don't want saddam or the US").

"...When Clinton bombed Iraq on a consistent basis for years, destroying their water supplies, polluting the atmosphere with DU weapons, creating a humanitarian disaster..."

Clinton did not use DU weapons: convention explosives only - not DU anti-tank rounds.

Clinton did not "destroy their water supplies" - like Bush did in the Great Patriotic War. All targets were either air defense, command and control, or suspected WMD sites (during Desert Fox).

The sanctions against I-raq were UN sanctions put in place during Poppy Bush's reign.

All fucking lies.

High posting Clinton Hating/ Bush Lovers....pa-thetic.

He also proposed an invasion. Clinton did not use DU weapons on Iraq? Perhaps I am mistaken. If that's true, I apologize. Civilian infrastructure was most certainly destroyed by Clinton's bombing.

The sanctions were supported by the Clinton administration, who could have at any time approached the UN to remove them - as he was asked to many times - but he chose not to.

"All fucking lies." Pretending that the Clinton administration acting honorably towards the Iraqis is a "fucking lie" that's for sure. You could make the argument that Bush I and Bush II were much worse, and I personally believe that to be true.

On edit:

Did not Clinton excuse damage done to civilian infrastructure by saying that Hussein was purposefully locating civilian infrastructure next to military targets? Isn't this what they said about Serbia as well?

They must have infiltrated DU early on, and continue to try to paint Democrats as weak on defense and foreign affairs, and coddling to dictators.

and Bush for "liberating" them

and the families of the 20,000 injured...

and the dozens of families subjected to violent home searches on a daily basis....

and the millions without electricity and water, and no jobs.

yup

Thanks a lot.

Oh yeah - and Kellogg Brown and Root sez Way Big Thank You too!!

Seriously? I bet you were marching to stop the sanctions against the Iraqis that killed more than 7000? No? The dead Iraqis thank you.

And Rove thanks you for helping to paint Democrats as weak on defense and tyrant-loving.

He was deposed because he no longer suited the interests that kept him propped up for so long.

I'll agree with you that he should never have been in power, but spare me the moralism. American foreign policy isn't about morality. It's about who can be played off against whom in the service of the empire.

It amazes me that some on this board actually buy the propaganda so willingly.

We had to slaughter thousands of innocent Iraqis because our government created a monster?

Morality had nothing to do w/the invasion of Iraq.

How'd you get so smart, so young, Uly?

Not so young any more - I have sixth graders whose parents are younger than I am. (!)

:hi:, Pastiche!

Of course American foreign policy isn't about morality, and it never has been. Perhaps it should be, but I don't see that happening.

"He was deposed because he no longer suited the interests that kept him propped up for so long."

Exactly, interests like French oil companies, and US multinational corporations.

Would you have rather continued to allow US based companies to profit from the misery of Iraqis? Everyone knew that Iraqi oil was still flowing to us.

Would you have rather continued to allow US based companies to profit from the misery of Iraqis? Everyone knew that Iraqi oil was still flowing to us.

My point, again, is that he wasn't deposed because he was a monster. He was deposed because he was no longer useful. To pretend otherwise - to talk about the "moral responsibility" we had to depose him - gives an undeserved righteous gloss to what was, simply, an imperial act. Seeing some kind of moral silver lining to this is, to my mind, foolishness. We should've never supported him in the first place.

That said, and as much as I so desperately wish we'd never invaded, I still don't think we can just pull up and leave without a full UN takeover of the "rebuilding" - as if that'll happen under Bush.

The USA has a long history of collaborating with dictators, and Saddam Hussein is a particularly evil example. I think we DID have a moral responsibility to do something about it.

The UN inspectors did NOTHING to help the Iraqi people, nor were they intended to. They were intended to protect everyone else from Hussein.

The only undeserved righteous gloss on Bush's illegal invasion is the propaganda he put out about it. It doesn't change the fact that the USA collaborated with Hussein, helped him into power, and in my opinion, has the responsibility to do something about it.

The legal and ethical way to have done this was through the UN. Bush, because he was never interested in helping Iraqis, obviously didn not pursue this option, although he pretended to.

throw them into the trunk, then crash headlong into an ambulance, you haven't exactly fulfilled your moral obligation to deliver your victim to expert medical care, have you?

I think we DID have a moral responsibility to do something about it.

Fair enough. Are you saying that we've fulfilled that responsibility now that Saddam is gone?

We took the law into our own hands, and became international criminals in the process.

Vigilante justice cannot be allowed on the international level.

Absolutely, 100%, Bush is a war criminal, he should be impeached and tried with war crimes.

Bush is definately a war criminal, because he didn't go in with the UN, he should definately be tried!

I hate it when people then try to compare Clinton to Bush when Clinton attacked Yugoslavia and Kosovo without the UN...Clinton isn't a criminal, Bush is!

Yes, he was. But if it was not appropriate to take him out in 91, nothing since has been as pressing or outrageous as our letting him massacre all the opposition to whom we pledged support.

However, though Saddam was brutal and evil, was he more brutal than Kim Jong Il? Was he more brutal than Pol Pot? Was he more brutal than any of a dozen dictators we have tolerated, or even sponsored?

Our policy, as exists on the ground in Iraq, does not point either to disarming WMD, or Liberating Iraqis. It points to the seizure of oil from a client state.

I do not believe we will suceed at this, and the consequences of our failure will be a cross we bear for years.

That's the key difference. Not indirectly, not as an unintended consequence, the Bush administration directly helped Hussein into power in Iraq. The Bush administration covered for his crimes, gave him access to weapons, and provided him with diplomatic cover.

The WMD scare was a lie, obviously, and anyone who read the newspapers before the war knew it was a lie. Bush should be impeached and removed from office for his brazen lies about Iraq.

I think the best thing we can do it allow the UN to take over in Iraq immediately, and remove all US troops (except for the ones that are part of the UN mission). The US has no right nor reason to be in Iraq at this point. Bush's war was illegal, unjust, and a crime.

But pretending that the US doesn't have some responsiblity for the monster we created is wrong, in my opinion.

You forgot half of it: IF (Im not convinced) the US had a responsibility to REMOVE Saddam because they had helped him ascend to power, armed him to the teeth with nasty bioweapons and then tuned away while he slaughtered and tortured his own people, THEN WE HAVE A RESPONSIBLITY TO THE DEAD TO DO IT WHILE CONSCIOUSLY MINIMIZING CIVILIAN DEATHS IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.

Our total failure to do so -- indeed our eagerness to kill as many Iraqis as possible in order to inflict "shock and awe" -- is just another betrayal on a long, long list.

and then tell me all about our virtuous war again:

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm

Be forewarned, lots of facts here Faux News may not have told you about! :hi:

Julie

The way Democrats try to ignore how bad Hussein was, ignore Bush Sr. complicity in Hussein's regime, and allowing Rove to paint Democrats as Saddam-loving excusers of torture sounds like a Rovian disinformation campaign to me.

The ONLY reasons Bush and the GOP won the 2002 elections is because SOME Democrats got suckered into looking like apologists for dictators. I suggest we don't make the same mistake again - unless you WANT Bush to get elected (for the first time).

Senator Byrd was no apologist!

but many certainly were, now weren't they? Otherwise, explain to me WHY Americans say that the Republicans are better on national defense when they so CLEARLY are not. 911 alone should have kept the GOP out of power for a generation.

Why didn't it?

Because some Democrats let Rove paint us as weak on defense and supportive of dictators - shocking that Democrats were too stupid to let him do it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If we invaded all the countries we have imposed monsters on we would have invaded half the planet. Come to think of it, we have, haven't we? Who appointed us Iraq's keeper? Did the Iraqis invite us to "rescue" them? By the end of the year we will be calling the Iraqis "terrorists".

Since we collaborated with Hussein and help him stay in power, bought oil (indirectly) from him, while we were supporting sanctions against his people, I think we had a responsibility to do something about it.

An illegal, unilateral invasion based on lies is OBVIOUSLY not what we should have done, and Bush should be impeached and tried for it.

The UN sending inspectors into Iraq at the the threat of military force is an invasion but this was the terms of the resolution that ended the Gulf War. We had no right to UNILATERALLY use military force against Iraq.

The Saddam regime was already being weakened by the presence of 17,000 US troops in Kuwait and the presence of UN inspectors throughout the country. We could've easily brought human rights groups and democracy advocates into Iraq and had constant monitoring of human rights in Iraq. Is there any doubt this would've weakened Saddam's grip on Iraq? Bush simply rushed to war without even really considering the alternatives.

We could have done something to weaken Saddam - who was a threat to Iraqis, and neighbor, but *never* the US.

"We could've easily brought human rights groups and democracy advocates into Iraq and had constant monitoring of human rights in Iraq. Is there any doubt this would've weakened Saddam's grip on Iraq?"

Excellent point, Clark obviously knows what he's talking about here. That would have been a good solution.

"Bush simply rushed to war without even really considering the alternatives."

I don't believe that for a second. Bush and his administration knew exactly what the alternatives were, but chose the illegal invasion because he wanted no interference taking over Iraqi oil.

You say you oppose the war, but want Saddam gone.

When,where,under what circumstances do you want this accomplished.

Also wasn't this the Clinton strategy as well, we can't really debate the effects of something that never happened.

The Republicans at the time said there was no reason to invade (Republicans love dictators) and said the most important issue was impeaching Clinton for a bj, not terrorism, not Iraq - Republicans are also weak on defence.

Clinton's refusal to ask the UN to lift the sanctions killed more Iraqis than this invasion did (I think - no one really knows how many Iraqis were killed yet).


"When,where,under what circumstances do you want this accomplished."

Obviously, that's not something I can answer, but Clark has made good suggestions.

Wow, you've got this all screwy. Clinton did not want to invade because he knew there was no international support for an invasion. That's why he opted for the bombing instead. The Republicans supported total invasion in 1998, but still said that the bombing was a diversion from the impeachment. Sure, a 3 day diversion. By 2000 there was talk in much of the world, including Britain, for lifting the sanctions. Bush and the Cabal, which is what they call themselves by the way, had been pushing for a war with Iraq and found the excuse with 9/11.

Yes, the sanctions hurt the Iraqi people, but this is the method currently used for dealing with despotic nations. The time to deal with Iraq was back in the 80's and unfortunately we're still paying the price for Reagan's stupid Evil Empire policy. We're going to be suffering from that for a while and Bush is only adding to it by implementing the same warmongering policies instead of working to unite and lift up the people of the world. As long as we put Republicans in office who want to beat people into submission, people are going to suffer.

He couldn't get the support to do so, from the UN or Congress, so he didn't. Clinton was also asked to try to remove the sanctions, but he didn't.

"As long as we put Republicans in office who want to beat people into submission, people are going to suffer."

No disagreement on that.

My understanding is that regime change was the policy, meaning Clinton supported getting Saddam out. Doing that by military force is a whole other thing and I can't recall seeing anything from Clinton that said he wanted to do that. Primarily because he didn't have world support and knew he wasn't going to get it. He could have easily gotten support from Congress, unless they're even more weasily than their own words. Trent Lott wrote a letter supporting military action if Clinton chose to use it.

I would really like to see a statement or be referred to it if you just remember seeing it. I'm not challenging you, I'd just really like to clarify it in my own mind.

And while the sanctions were painful, I was never in support of just lifting them. We've got to have a better foreign policy though and a better way to deal with countries that are terrorizing their citizens. And a stop to nuclear proliferation, our own particularly. And a host of things we're not going to get with Bush for 4 more years.

No.

You can have your own opinions about why an invasion of Iraq was justified, but George W. Bush said it was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S. That's what he said. Either it was true and the reason he invaded, or it was a lie.

Any other rationalization is irrelevant. Especially considering Congress authorized military action to enforce UN resolutions OR to protect U.S. security. For Bush to do or say anything else is unconstitutional and treason.

As I've posted here numerous times, Bush never had any intention of cooperating with the UN, lied about the reasons for war, and committed an international crime by unilaterally invading Iraq.

sandnsea, this is not at all directed at you, but I'm shocked at the knee-jerk reaction of some Democrats about Iraq - unless you are chanting "no blood for oil" they accuse you of being a Rovian plant - and we already had a vote on that, and 70% of people think I'm just an ass, vs. only 15% that think I'm a Rovian plant.

Besides, I chanted "no blood for oil" when Bush I invaded Iraq, again when Clinton started his bombing, and again when Bush started his illegal invasion. Doesn't do a damn bit of good now does it?

If Democrats continue to allow Republicans to win the rhetorical fight on national security and foreign affairs, Bush might actually WIN next time.

We are where we are? I agree. We need to understand our view is a minority view? I agree. We have to get behind our party in a way that tries to move forward while holding Bush accountable? I agree. I sound like Donald Rumsfeld? lol, yeah I guess so.

Al Gore's speech moved us closer to the goal of admitting that the oil in the middle east is significant. He also attacked Bush's policies and credibility without making it sound like we're supporting Saddam. And I do think we have to accept that Democrats might say things we don't totally agree with simply because that's the political climate we're in. I'd like to see us recognize it since it appears most of our candidates are also presenting the kinds of alternatives many have been wanting for years.

And my personal pet peeve is where were all the protests when Clinton bombed. As you just said, they were there, you were there. Protests was how we ended up with oil for food in the first place. One more example of them winning the rhetorical debate when the truth is the exact opposite.

Regarding the wider justification for what turned out to be a 12 year war killing a gazillion iraqi people... it was all wrong, based on hubris of meddling with the democratically elected Iran government before they threw out the US puppet (the shah) and held american embassy personnelle at the behest of the republican party so that the american people would vote for reagan.

I agree that iraq was done wrong. Firstly, an incompetent embassy official in kuwait endorsed saddam's invasion of that place, so we started the whole thing... and we put him in power... geez, no matter how far back you go, we're there meddling... and before america, britain doing its own version of empire meddling.. telling the people of bagdhad they were liberated not conquored... geez, decades before america did it again.

If we confess to ALL the american war crimes in that region, it is the american government and its officials who would face the tough questions regarding crimes against humanity... saudi arabia... the israeli ethnic cleansing... iran... pakistan... afganistan... iran.... we've been the criminal nation in it all, supporting dictators and nasty governments that turn their military weapons on their own people... and for a latest round of that, imagine a US helicopter using a targeted missile to take down the guy next to you at a traffic light in Chicago... and your daughter is an unfortunate collateral damage of such an attack... it sounds orwellian, and that is what we support israel to be.

I love tracking crimes in the past, but nothing is worse than preventable crimes in progress... imprison bush and his felons before they kill more people.

for the war.

if it's current then I would say since the bloody alternative was pooh-poohed by ghwb when it was the most feasible, then the contain and control policy while drawn out, was far more desirable then the current mess, regardless of the "successful" outcome.

If you bomb and devastate an already embattled country to rid it of a ruthless dictator(even if this was an ex post facto reason), and you don't ACTUALLY capture/kill/find/confirm his whereabouts, do the dead and dying still make a sound?

bush* are a national disgrace (plural verb to refer to entire bush* klan)

The contain and control and sanctions model did nothing but force Iraqis to rely on Hussein for their daily food and water - why on earth would a Democrat support weakening the population against a dictator?

We should have been HELPING the Iraqis to overthrow Hussein, not preventing them from doing so.

Never mind, let's just let Bush and Rove paint the Democratic party as weak on defence and soft on tyrants. That way Bush can win next time.

Evidentally that's what a lot of people here want.

COLONEL HUGO BANZER, President of Bolivia
FULGENCIO BATISTA, President of Cuba
SIR HASSANAL BOLKIAH, the Sultan of Brunei
P. W. BOTHA, President of South Africa
GENERAL HUMBERTO BRANCO, President of Brazil
VINICIO CEREZO, President of Guatemala
CHIANG KAI-SHEK, President of Taiwan
ROBERTO SUAZO CORDOVA, President of Honduras
ALFREDO CRISTIANI, President of El Salvador
NGO DINH DIEM, President of South Viet Nam
GENERAL SAMUEL DOE, President of Liberia
FRANÇOIS & JEAN CLAUDE DUVALIER, Presidents-for-Life of Haiti
GENERAL FRANCISCO FRANCO, President of Spain
ADOLF HITLER, Chancellor of Germany
HUSSAN II, King of Morocco
FERDINAND MARCOS, President of the Philippines
MAXIMILIANO HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, General of El Salvador
MOBUTU SESE SEKO, President of Zaire
GENERAL MANUEL NORIEGA, Chief of Defense forces, Panama
TURGUT OZAL, Prime Minister of Turkey
MOHAMMAD REZA PAHLEVI, Shah of Iran, King of Kings
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, Prime Minister of Greece
PARK CHUNG HEE, President of South Korea
GENERAL AUGUSTO PINOCHET, President of Chile
GENERAL SITIVENI RABUKA, Commander, Armed Forces of Fiji
GENERAL EFRAIN RIOS MONT, President of Guatemala
ANTONIO DE OLIVEIRA SALAZAR, Prime Minister of Portugal
HALIE SELASSIE, Emperor of Ethiopia
IAN SMITH, Prime Minister of Rhodesia
ANASTASIO SOMOZA, SR. AND JR., Presidents of Nicaragua
ALFREDO STROESSNER, President-for-Life of Paraguay
GENERAL SUHARTO, President of Indonesia
RAFAEL LEONIDAS TRUJILLO, President of the Dominican Republic
GENERAL JORGE RAFAEL VIDELA, President of Argentina
MOHAMMED ZIA UL-HAQ, President of Pakistan
GENERAL MUSHARRAF, current dictator of Pakistan

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/AlphaD.html

Friendly dictators playing cards:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html#Index

This argument is wrong on so many levels.

I'll start with the most obvious. There are many repressive regimes around the world, many of which the U.S. supports or has supported in the past. We can't be responsible for overthrowing the government of all of them. Why Iraq and not Colombia or Saudi Arabia? By choosing Iraq to "liberate", isn't the U.S. government implicitly saying that the suffering of the people of Colombia, Saudi Arabia, etc. is less worthy of attention than that of the Iraqis?

To underscore the absurdity of this argument, let's imagine some other country acting in a similar manner. Iraq invaded Kuwait, inflicting great misery on the Kuwaitis in so doing. Should we conclude that Iraq (under Hussein) should have invaded Kuwait again to replace the corrupt Kuwaiti monarchy, to make up for his past misdeeds? Of course not.

The United States' past support of Saddam Hussein and countless other tyrants is a reason to oppose U.S. intervention, not support it. One can infer from the past actions of the United States government that it is very little interest in democracy and and human rights. The war should have and should still be opposed on the grounds that it's not unlikely that the U.S. will install someone just as bad as Hussein.

Consider this analogy: you hire someone to trim your lawn. But instead of trimming your lawn, s/he destroys your yard, uprooting the flowers and such. Would you be disposed to hire that person again? Of course not. And if you heard from neighbors and friends that other people from the same company did the same thing numerous times to other gardens, would you hire people from that company again? No.

It is the right and responsibility of the peoples of sovereign nations -- and no one else -- to overthrow those nations' governments. This has happened in numerous other countries. It happened in Poland in the 1980s, completely nonviolently. It happened to Duvalier in Haiti. And it probably would have happened in Iraq, had it not been for the sanctions that made Iraqis reliant on the regime for survival. Through invasion and occupation, we violate a nation's right to sovereignty, and the right of a people to self-determination.

If Iraq is to be held accountable for past crimes, then the U.S. -- which aided and abetted those crimes -- must also be held accountable. Therefore, U.S. policy should have focused not on punishing past crimes, but on preventing future crimes.

The question is, did invasion and occupation subject the Iraqi population to less misery than would Hussein's continued rule? We'll never know for sure. But at the time of the invasion, the UN estimated that the war could've killed half a million children. It didn't (thank God), but those opposed to the war were perfectly justified in opposing it on humanitarian grounds, since it could've potentially hurt the Iraqis more than it benefited them.

Another crucial point is that U.S. control of Iraqi oil will do incredible harm to the Third World. It will undoubtedly use its control to push the financial and monetary policies that have already killed 15-20 million people worldwide. This war will kill more people in Africa than it does to Iraq. Therefore, it may well kill more people than it saved.

Furthermore, there were other options for improving the human rights situation in Iraq that would not have violated the country's sovereignty. For one, we could've arranged airlifts to help Iraqi refugees. We could've supported a strong UN human rights monitoring mission. And (perhaps most importantly), we could've indicted Hussein through the International Criminal Court.

Also, by allowing for any but the most thoroughly-jusified U.S. interventions, we weaken the taboo against intervention generally and pave the way for yet more outright imperialism.

And about those countries that supposedly didn't want to intervene in Iraq because of their economic ties to the country: while these countries did have economic links to Iraq, they were minor in terms of profitable contributions to those nations' economies. They could have lost those investments without getting hurt that much economically.

If those countries had reason to believe (as they did) that the U.S. would act unilaterally anyway, then why wouldn't they have supported the U.S.? After all, the U.S. was obviously going to win the war, and their support would've guaranteed them a cut of Iraq's resources.

Part of the reason that the Iraqi people weren't throwing flowers at the feet of our soldiers is because they haven't forgotten how Bush Sr. royally screwed them over last time around.

If that was the case those rat bastards should have had a plan to HELP THE FUCKING IRAQIS. I totally disagree with you. lol

Sorry but regardless of how assbackward our Foreign Policy has been, in regard to Tyrants, nations simply shouldn't behave the way we have recently in Iraq.

It was based on Lies,"Imminant Threat" etc, notice how our Administration didn't use your rationalisation?

I wonder why? Hmm?