Why the world would be better off if Saddam were still in power (huh?)

The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 06/14/03 | Matthew Parris

[Dog]

fyi..

[kesg]

I came to a fight and a hockey game a bunch of nothing broke out.

[secretagent]

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Bush cites a massacre from the 80's, not a current massacre.

"Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape."

Ongoing torture, but of how many? Bush doesn't say. Many, many countries use torture, including our allies in the region, I'll bet. But Bush did not allege mass murder here.

As to preventing ongoing massacres, Bush would have a better case invading the Congo.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Agree, but greater evil operates in the Congo.

But for stopping an enemy with the proven will and ability to acquire WMD, hence threatening the US, invading Iraq seems reasonable to me.

[Dark Wing]

book mark

[pragmatic_asian]

"International law would not have been violated,"

And he expected Saddam to honor the Geneva convention in fighting for his life? </sarcasm>

" swollen-headed neocons would not have gained sway, the yee-hah tendency in US foreign policy would have been restrained,"

Ad hominem attack. This says nothing about the merits of the policy.

" precedents for future unilateral regime-changes would not have been set,"

This precedent argument is so silly and full of logical holes. Countries are not children. They don't do things just because their 'friends' did something.

" Nato would be intact,"

When did it disband?

" the UN Security Council would not have been damaged,"

It wasn't damaged enough.

" America’s relationship with Europe would have remained good, and Britain would still be on speaking terms with our EU partners. "

Who wants a good relationship with the likes of them? In this instance the ad hominem attack is warranted.

" The multitudes killed by Saddam would still be dead, but this war has not resurrected them."

I guess if he expected Saddam to follow international law, he would probably expect him to stop killing, torturing innocents. Saddam's sons probably would've been worse consider their 'training'.

"If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMDs."

The world would've kept on debating. They didn't care when Saddam was slaughtering those hundreds of thousands in the first place, why would've they cared the second time around?

[secretagent]

No one cares about the Congo. No one cared about Cambodia. No one cared about the Great Terror in Russia. What makes this writer think that people would care about Saddam enough to threaten force?

They wouldn't have. This writer knows that, but he is not intellectually honest enough to admit it. George Bush was, however. Saddam's contempt for the rights of his people was one of the stated reasons for going to war. Nobody was listening that part of the speech, I guess.

They did listen to that part, and contrasted Iraq with other countries' human rights records. On human rights abuse alone, Iraq didn't rate #1.

On WMD alone, Iraq didn't rate #1.

But as to doable, in America's security interest, and probably yielding an improvement in human rights for the Iraqis over the next 5 years, yes it made some sense.

[section9]

No, secretagent. They knew about Saddam and Saddam's murders and his weapons.

They didn't care. They didn't care in the Thirties and they don't care now. The left has neither morals nor principles.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Calvin Locke]

Matthew Parris is a political columnist of the Times.

Hah! Just like the NYTs. Giving lie to wannabe "paperboys".

M. Parris, failed expressor of readable ramblings.
M. Parris, failed moralist.
M. Parris, failed rational human being.

[secretagent]

I can't see in their hearts, but virtually all on the left say that Saddam committed many murders, and at least had WMD at one time.

It wouldn't have surprised me if, post 9/11/, a Democratic president would have felt the same urgency to finish up the sanctions and get boots on the ground in the MidEast, the better to make the next move.

But they didn't end up with the Presidency, and Bush seems fairly alive to security needs, and so carping seems harmless enough, even for those who should know better.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Agree, but greater evil operates in the Congo."

I would not characterize what is going on in the Congo as a greater evil than Iraq,just evil. There was a thread here about 2 weeks ago,that was just horrific in it's detail of children having their arms macheted off and then roasted and eaten,while their mothers were forced to watch.The other details of cannibalism were equally as gruesome. What I asked,was- where is the African American community on this ? Why isn't Jesse Jackson et al leading the world to intervene? The Congressional Black Caucus? Where's the UN ? Not a peep out of any of them.We've got our hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan,it's time for someone else to step in and deal with this humanitarian disaster.A few French peacekeepers is not going to cut it.

[secretagent]

Where's the UN ? Not a peep out of any of them.

I read at least one of Kofi Annan's peeps here on FR. He urged intervention. Don't know if he's mentioned it again.

I can't see beneficial intervention as plausibly as doable in the Congo, and they don't present a WMD threat like Iraq did, so it looks like the genocide will just continue.

What an awful thought, but we can't afford to to try to improve human rights everywhere.

[section9]

Oh, sure. They knew Saddam committed many murders and they knew he had WMD. I'm not saying they didn't. I'm saying that they don't care.

It's a Republican President. I believe that therein lies the rub.

Be Seeing You,

Chris