Look, there are people who think like you in this forum, so keep presenting your ideas. This is a debate, and just because kirupa disagrees, doesn’t mean that you have to stop.
However, personally, I wish you were more informed about this issue. Kirupa clearly knows more about this than you do, and he’s going to crush you in any argument.
You’re making comments about one particular side, and just because you read a book, you feel like you’re informed enough to have a stand about the war. Personally, I feel like Michael Moore is Pat Buchanan’s mirror image. They’re both extremists, and you know what, extremists are never completely right.
Why did we fund Saddam Hussein? Back then Hussein wasn’t a particularly evil man in the eyes of the world. He had managed to achieve a balance between religious groups, he had formed a secularized state - which is something unseen in the rest of the arab world, and he preached religious tolerance. He gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to christian churches, both in Iraq and in the US. He invaded Iran because Iran’s new government was composed by religious extremists, and he feared that the new government would pose a threat to the balance of his country. Extremists in power are never good, and that’s why the U.S. supported him.
As for supporting Osama, if you don’t know why already, you shouldn’t even be making the claim that the U.S. is hypocritical.
One of the things that people miss, is that the level of involvement the United States has in the world fluctuates with each administration. People keep saying “Oh, the US did this, and the US did that evil thing” but you have to remember that the US that was then is not the US that is now, or the US that will be in the future. Yes, the US killed Indians, but those in power were different back then. It’s not like it was Bush who went out and killed the Indians. More recently - Reagan did some seriously bad things, but it was because he was a cold war president - times were different. Next came Bush, he did some bad things, but not as much as Reagan. Then came Clinton, who at first wanted to decrease the level of involvement in the world, but at the end, he had to literaly throw himself into the world stage. Next comes Bush, who wanted to limit the role of the US in the world (partly because he didn’t know crap about foreign affairs), but Sept 11 hugely changed his role.
One of the things that you have to realize is that the United States doesn’t want the leadership role it has. Ever since the days of Monroe americans have pushed for an isolationist policy. The problems of the world aren’t american problems. However, globalization has changed this. During the first half of WW2, the US didn’t give a **** about the Nazis and the Japanese. Not their problem. That was England’s and China’s problem. But then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and suddenly it became America’s problem.
After WW2 came the cold war. It was the Russians’ expressed intention to have communism around the world. The Russians INVADED countries. They encouraged communism in China, they gave military aid to communists in North Korea and North Vietnam. They tried to invade afghanistan. They oppressed East Berliners. It was some scary sh*t. They were doing pretty bad stuff, and americans at the time had to do some pretty bad stuff of their own to counteract.
And now about this Iraq war. Are we the police of the world? Unfortunately, yes. Why? because we’re the the only ones with any kind of influence. Things that happen abroad directly affect what happens with the U.S., simple as that. The GNP of the US is greater than the next 11 countries combined. The US spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined, and we barely spend about 4% of the GNP on it. The US is the only country with enough influence to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the US is the only country with enough power to topple an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein.
But yes, most of the time we do things out of self interest. The first gulf war was ENTIRELY about oil. You think first Bush gave a crap about the kuwaitis? No. However, Saddam Hussein was conducting a war that was raising oil prices considerably, and that affected the US. The US was the only country powerful enough to solve that problem.
Now this gulf war. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Please, give me a break. I don’t feel threatened by Saddam. But hey, maybe the president knows more than I do. I know however, that every single piece of evidence shown to the UN to justify the war has been discredited. So maybe this war is about oil too. Maybe this war is about getting lucrative contracts, maybe it’s about exercising our military might, and maybe it’s a ploy to distract people from economic problems. Maybe it’s not about liberation, or about american safety. But you know what, SO WHAT? The value gained by the US in waging this war doesn’t begin to compare to the value gained by the Iraqi people without Saddam. We’re committing murder? Mass genocide by killing civilians? If I asked you how many people this war has killed, and how many people Saddam has killed, would you be able to answer that? I’ll answer it for you:
Civilians killed by the US: 2000
Civilians killed by Saddam: 100,000 to 200,000
Now, if you propose telling me that the people of Iraq are better off with Saddam in power, I can’t have any respect for you, and the best opinion that I can have about you is that you’re ignorant.
Now, how come we’re liberating the Iraqis, and not the North Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Ruwandans, etc? Because of our democracy. Half of the people in the US think we should police the world, and half of the people think we shouldn’t. And the leadership (not necessarily right now, but throughout the years) has been divided around this issue. We police the world in a half-assed way. And that’s why they hate us.
I think you’re right in hating Bush though, he’s an ignorant, ignorant man, he’s an idiot with the economy, he’s cut the education budget, and he has no diplomatic skills. And his election shows how ignorant Americans are about politics and foreign policy. He lied to the UN, made a mockery of it, and at the end, when no one wanted to play, he said: i’m going to do it anyway. Instead of saying: “ok, we’re going to get rid of a bad leader”, he said “we feel threatened, and he might have WMDs.” Diplomats around the world describe relations with the US as “humiliating.”
But I’m all for spreading democracy around the world. I’m all for killing bad leaders. Everyone in the world should have the right to an education and the right to elect their leader. And sanctions by themselves don’t work (ie. Cuba and North Korea), diplomacy by itself doesn’t work (ie. Israel and Palestine). But it’s only a combination of diplomacy and force that works. In this case, Bush forgot the diplomacy part.
See how I made my arguments? They’re not entirely rhetoric, and they’re supported by numbers and facts. Can you do that?