Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
Soooooo we can only overthrow governments where doing so brings no benefit? The end result is if your view was the way things worked, Saddam and he merry men would still be free to do all the wonderful things they did to said 25 million people.
I like my view better.
The US did a good thing by liberating Iraq. I'm sorry you didn't like it but it doesn't really concern you.
|
The end result would have been the US aiding the Iraqi's whom they told to rise up after the first Gulf War. This is the ONLY legitimate way the toppling of Saddam could have occured. It would have been done by the people, of their own free will, with ASSISTANCE from an outside force who was doing so in order to honestly help create a better state for the people. Hegemony isn't total. There's always been dissent and if it is the will of the people then they will act when the time is right. How else can we know the result is what the people wanted?
You keep inferring that the US was acting solely to liberate the people of Iraq. I disagree completely. How do you explain all of the other dictators the US helped install and support to this day? How do you explain Mugabe still in power? What about the era of Pinochet? Libya says it's going to dismantle its WMD so Qaddafi is suddenly a good guy worthy of US aid?? Shall I go on? Why is it so hard to believe that a "liberation" based solely on reasoning that has nothing to do with liberating carries a lot of resentment in the world?
SLM3