mdnky said:
I disagree...those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe Saddam had WMDs, maybe not. That doesn't detract from the atrocities he committed during his reign. We drug our feet during the start of WWII, and paid dearly for it (all the allies did, US included) in terms of lives and time.
I am not sure if the Iraqis should judge Saddam, apart from anything else he cannot get a fair trial there, not that I think you would care. However my point about practising what we preach and the negative effect perceived hypocrisy would have on your (our) reputation the muslim countries still stands.
I don't agree about Japan, however I do see your point, though I agree with Arden. I am not a historian, and though I would willingly engage in a debate on that subject I shalln't because: a) I do not have the time to do the research, nor do I have my history texts with me at Univeristy b) I think the debate is probably futile anyway, as we put different values on human life (objectively at least I try to see each life as being of the same value, though I still would say that Saddam derserves to die. You on the other hand seem either to not view human life objectively, or to believe that the lives of people like you are worth more than others. I can genuinely see that is a valid position, it is just not one I would ever hold, objectively or morally, myself) (I would see the decision to save myself or family over others as a selfish decision, one that is morally dubious, but the decision I would make if in such a situation).
(incidentally one of the major causes of the political instability that triggered WWII was countries not going to the League of Nations for support for their actions)
I do not like this get them before they get you approach, which is the logical conclusion of what we would learn from the appeasement at the start of WWII. Apart from anything else the main reason for appeasement was that we were not ready to go to war. Chamberlain's little piece of paper bought time, not much, but even so the option of attacking Germany was not there, Britain could not afford an army at the time, and the US army was not so great that you guys wanted to fight on your own. Unfortunately it took us a long time to get armies to battle strength, and by that time it was two late. Appeasement wasn't just lilly livered liberals, it was more complex than that.
Attacking someone because you think they might attack you taken to its logical conclusion means attacking everyone, because they
might attack you. So there has to be a cut off point, they must be an actual threat (as you cannot know whether they want to attack you... so you must just go by
if they did, whether it would matter). I am afraid Iraq was not crossing that line, they were not a threat to the US, and would not have been this decade. And if you are telling me that American intelligence was really so bad that they did not how weak Iraq was then...
). But I wanted to get emotional as well. There was no personal offense in here, just my words shouting for a weider point of view. Cause this is what I believe the main difference between us (not just US) and ppl like Saddam Hussein. Everyone has a cruel part. Suppressing it by seeing all details is the solution and the main difference to those who commit terror and crime.
