Should the US have kept Saddam as an ally?
Ok, heres something that i've been thinking about. Now strictly from a US stand point was having Saddam in charge worse than this war we're involved in now? Think about Saddam for a minute... He was about as western or American as a dictator can get. He bought his shoes from the same italian shoe shop that george bush buys his, remember back when he ordered 700 PS2s for his family and friends?
If we would have never turned our back on him during the first gulf war how might things be different now?
well, im not a big fan of discussing politics or u.s. policies online, but ill go ahead and add my 2 cents just for discussion purposes...
Originally Posted by Amanda
Saddam was a u.s. ally before.. we supplied him and trained his army to help us battle Iran. although on a side note.. we were also supplying arms to Iran at the same time. AnYway, i also heard that Saddam asked our permission to invade Kuwate (excuse my spelling if its wrong) but it turned out the British were on their side and made us make a choice, so of course we picked britain. then "oops" , looks like our once ally saddam is now on the "axis of evil". its no different than what happens in a lot of countries around the world. when Ho chi minh (excuse spelling again) declared vietnam indepent from the french, he modeled his constitution after ours - despite it being a communist country - and he sent numerous letters to us trying to get the U.S. on his side.
I dont know, i guess the point im trying to make is that U.S. foreign policy is strictly business. And its pretty retarded to attempt to take an ideological stance in today's world. People keep saying "yea but its better that evil dictator is not in power now.. and the iraqi people are free" and i agree wit that . but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. cant simply go around the world toppling every single "bad" dictator it wants for any reason it chooses. we're not the moral guardians of the world. and furthermore, WE were the ones that put half of those dictators into power.. just look at Central and South America.
Anway, sorry for the rant guys, i just get irritated sometimes by the amount of bs. that gets traveled around as our government tells us what our 'moral' obligations are. its just all so ... hypocritical.
The end is important in all things.
hahaha so i just reread ur initial post and i realized i didn't answer your question at all, i went off on a whole tangent about something else, my bad
how would things be different? 200,000 + troops still at home, 1000+ soldiers still alive, America still liked at the U.N., allies still willing to help us out in war, but iraqi people still living under crazy killer. pros and cons i guess.
The end is important in all things.
fallenone you're absoluutly right about that...
all those suicide attacks are bad, and all those rebells too... but look it on the other side.
the daily routine of saddam was more killing in one day than all the soldiers and suvilians that are killed in this war now. the only channel on the tv was saddam's speeches, you couldn't go out on the street without his premission, if you do something even a bit different than he says... you'll be shot.
think about it... it's a small sacrafice now compared to the kills of saddam.
ow i allmost forgot... those mustardgas rockets he sended to those villages with another religion than the others. alot of people died whitin a second, more than those people in the wtc, irak and afganistan together in this war.
the people are free and happy, but not free enough to show it yet.
they will have voting right and the country will be richer under the people than ever before.
What it really comes back to is that the US shouldnt have assisted saddam into power in the first place. Saying that removing him makes it all good is like saying its ok for a doctor to shoot someone, just as long as they patch him up ok...ish
also, i kind of have my doubts about how much freedom the iraqi people will really have. look at vietnam - they were supposed to have a nationwide vote on their future before the US-Vietnam war kicked in, but the US intervened and prevented the democratic process, because they knew that communism would have gotten more votes. Ensuring your puppet is in power isn't freedom.
it's sad really, for the US to claim moral superiority in granting Iraq freedom, when it had the biggest hand in taking it away.
::EDIT - summary: the US shouldnt have had him as an ally in the first place::
NB: first off, i'm a kiwi, and i just want to make sure that you guys know i have nothing against americans (one of my best friends is american), i just feel that your governments have made some horrible decisions in modern times
ah yes, well im not Amercian
but one thing.
The U.S send troops to iraq for um oil?
thats kinda stubid, and i shouldnt say the U.S i should
of said the BUSH, no offence but his kinda dull headed.
i wouldnt say bush is stupid, he did become president - you cant just waltz in there.
bush became president because of his smooth speeches, about prommessing things... but he had never done those things