And Incidentally . . .
In Which We Seek To Crush A Mendacious Meme
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | Foreign Affairs — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One does get more than a little tired of all of the "America created/supported/brought to power/Saddam Hussein!" cries that so predictably crowd and obscure the public discourse. Let us get something clear: The interests of nation-states change over time, making friends into enemies and vice versa. At one time, America was confronted with a choice between what it perceived as bad and what it perceived as worse, and chose the bad--Saddam--as its ally. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, when he proclaimed implacable enmity towards the United States and its interests and when his regime was clearly bound and determined to obtain weapons of mass destruction--and make no mistake, with the sanctions regime falling apart, he would have gotten them (a fact so many either like to forget or appear incapable of processing and understanding)--Saddam became an enemy of the United States.
I trust that is easy enough to understand. I trust as well that at least some people remember that during World War II, Stalin was our ally. Then things changed. And perhaps at least a few remember that at one time, Athens and Sparta united in an alliance to resist the invasion of the Persian Empire, then allowed that alliance to disintegrate as they turned on one another in warfare. Remember that? But of course you must; a fellow named Thucydides wrote a book about the little falling out between Athens and Sparta. History is full of such examples and those who either don't know enough history or don't care enough to tell the truth about it should stop pretending that there is anything strange, bizarre or hypocritical about American actions towards Saddam Hussein changing throughout the years as the nature of nation-state interests changed as well.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | So Long, Farewell . . . — Comments (2) »
And Incidentally . . . 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I meant to say that "Saddam may be our former ally."
Finally, why is my original comment's format set to center? It looks funny to me...
Dan
------------
Colossians 1:16, KJV For by him [Jesus Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were crea
At one time, America was confronted with a choice between what it perceived as bad and what it perceived as worse, and chose the bad--Saddam--as its ally.
Iraq was never our ally, not even in the sense that the Soviet Union was during WWII.
If you use "ally" to describe our relationship with Iraq in the 1980's, what words describe our relations with the UK or Australia or Canada, or even France or Germany. We were never "allied" with Saddams Iraq in any sense of the word.
We met with the Soviet leaders during the Cold War, and we supplied their country with food and other vital goods. But I don't suppose that anyone would claim that we were allied with the USSR.
I don't think he conceded too much, Saddam was our former "ally" in that we had some mutual interests in preventing Iran from gaining a bigger foothold in the rest of Middle East? It may be true the word, "ally" is perhaps a bit too strong to describe the relationship we had with Saddam, nonetheless, isn't it worth examining in how it is used in the context?
Dan
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
is that being "allies" or having "mutual" interests doesn't mean we were automatically interfering with the other party's internal affairs or had such influence to the point that they became subordinate to our position and interests.
Dan
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
And I'm saying its wrong. Having "mutual interests" is not the same as being "allies". Ideally for two countries to be allies they need to have signed some sort of treaty of alliance. Failing that they at least need to be working together to some significant extent.
We have a "common interest" with Iran that Russia not take over that country in order to get a warm water port on the Indian Ocean. Does that make us allies of Iran?
aren't "common" and "mutual" two different words with different meanings? Of course, it may be just semantics. But I believe that "mutual" means something must be beneficial to two or more parties based upon some "common" ground. Is Iran and America's "common" interest in preventing Russia from obtaining a warm water port mutually beneficial? I don't think so.
You may be right that Iraq didn't sign some kind of defense treaty with America, therefore shouldn't be considered an ally. Honestly, it doesn't make any difference to me, Saddam is dead and no longer relevant in current Iraqi politics.
Like I said, you made some good points.
Dan
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
to be our ally?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Is France our ally? Okay, do France and America have a mutual relationship on combating terrorism? Please note that I didn't say on Iraq issue. Let me ask you a question, please be totally honest with me, does France exchange the information on terrorist organizations and key players with America? I believe so, though I'd be more than happy to be stand corrected if you can point out that it's not true at all.
But for Iraq issue, no, you're right, France is not our ally. I think the only realistic thing we can expect from France is some sort of co-operation in war on terrorism only.
Dan
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
we get from France. Or if it's reliable. For my 2cents, we have one ally in "old Europe", Britian. Outside of "old Europe", the former Eastern Bloc states would seem to be more reliable than France, Germany or any of the SillyStates™. Off the continent, our best ally is Australia.
And BTW, just because we get some intel from France I would not call them an ally. Every time we get allied with them we have to go over there and throw the Germans out of Paris. Although next time it will be the Muslims and for my nickle the can take care of the problem themselves.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Isn't nickle a French word? ;)
Britain and Australia are our friends, because of Tony Blair and John Howard respectively. I'm pretty sure if it were somebody else in their positions, they wouldn't be much of real allies, now would they? The last time I checked, the majority of Australians and English opposed the war.
Besides, if you want to know who is the real ally, it's God, if America forsake God and the Bible's teachings, then we don't really have any good, reliable allies left in the world. Of course, that's just my view. Allies come and go, they always change with seasons and times, the only reliable source of protection and guidance can be found in depending upon God. Look at my signature, it says all. If God is able to give wisdom and knowledge to any nation, then it's without question He can take them away.
Dan
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
I enjoy the political debates and all as a philosophical excercise. But I don't really think that there is a political solution (not even a theocratic one) that mankind can institute that will cure our ills. This is not a condemnation, or negativity about America or our society - these are simply the times we happen to live in - it is just one more direction of the unfolding of God's plan to create for Himself a people with His laws etched into the fleshly tables of their hearts. No amount of outward laws or structure is going to change the heart of man. The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life. Laws seem to make sinful man even more rebellious.
I'm sure that is what Washington meant he said our style of governemnt can only work with a religious people (paraphrasing).
Please do not think that this means that I am advocating we should all just sit back and do nothing to govern. We all have a role to play, and what one's particular role (and its effect)is up to God.
President Bush seems to think France is our ally. Perhaps you should notify the president that they are no longer our ally so he can adjust US foreign policy accordingly.
"We're working with France. France is a friend. France is an ally." G. Bush
They still have troops in Afghanistan and cooperate with us on the War on Terror. They are definitely not an ally in the war in Iraq, but neither is Germany, Spain and other "allies".
"France got the bomb, but don't you grieve / Cause they're on our side-- I believe"
Tom Lehrer, Who's Next?, from the 1965 album That Was The Year That Was
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
The PBS video "The Long Road to War" (which came out just before the 2003 invasion) said it best....
"Saddaam was a murderer and a thug, but at least he was our murderer, and our thug"
A pragmatic foreign policy sometimes leaves our government with the choice of the lesser of two evils, and during the late 70's/early 80's, he was the lesser of evils.
So if Saddam had NOT invaded Kuwait, he would not have become our "implacable enemy" and he would still be alive, committing the same horrors for which he (supposedly) was executed, with U.S. knowledge and support, just as before.
But since he DID invade Kuwait, he became our enemy, was invaded, overthrown, and finally executed. And the reason he was executed, we say now, is because of all the atrocities he committed, which of course he could never have committed to the extent he did without U.S. knowledge and support. But yet, even though we knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds and so many others and gave him the practical help he needed to do it, we are not responsible for any of those murders. We can just go on to helping out the next genocidal pyschopath who is willing to do our bidding, and the evil that one does will not be on our tally sheet, either.
It's a funny kind of morality you reds have. I thank God every day that I'm blue.
And by the way, no, I highly suspect you're the amoral, socialist, dictator-appeasing red around here.
--
Run like Reagan!
he was convicted of crimes against humanity by a legitimately constituted court of the Iraqi people, that had legal standing to try, convict and sentence him.
What does that have to do with us and our morality here in the US?
I thank God that you are blue also because with that line of reasoning you have used to blame America for the actions of a brutal regime you would never make it in the redstate. I suppose the thinking is that nothing goes on in this world without the express knowledge and acceptance of the US? I suspect that you are of the 9-11 conspiracy group? The morality issue is an easy one, if America must work with unsavory people to protect itself and it's friends then that is what we will always do, because to stand as a beacon of light in a dark world sometimes one must deal with the dark.
Peace through superior fire power:)
Does the 1950 refer to the number of visits to the psychiatrist ?
But I'll give you credit, invading a country and poising yourself on the border of Saudi Arabia thereby positioning yourself to control a large portion of the worlds oil supply can change your status, as well as the perspective of others. You are a geopolitical genius !
I did miss the occasions when Saddam did our bidding,certainly not the war with Iran where he needed no bidding. As for dangerous psychopath, for a moment I thought you were talking about Bill Clinton.
Speaking of whom; insofar as Bill was elected in 1992 and the mass murders, tortures and atrocities continued for those full eight years he served { and got served in the WH], both he and presumably you as a supportive Democrat share in a "funny kind of morality".
Find something else to thank God for, and get help !
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
...but the "Kathy" reference must have put an unintended visual in your head. I just like alliteration, and it was aimed at the poor foundation of her argument. It had nothing to do with spandex. Stop snickering, mbecker.
So I presume you supported regime change for humanitarian purposes, right? Or are you just a garden variety hypocrite seeking to make a weak rhetorical point?
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Here is a good link that shows what the US did and did not do to support Iraq in the 80s. He certainly wasn't a true ally but we did help Iraq and Saddam with some intelligence and Reagan and Bush did choose to ignore Saddam's atrocities against the Kurds and Sunnis. The Cold War unfortunately required us to be friends with some unsavory and even evil people. The alternative, however, would have been Soviet domination.
that Bush not only ignored the slaughter of the Kurds and Sunnis, he - with the help of Baker - instigated it. His Administration was making very loud noises after Desert Storm about Iraqis overthrowing Saddam. Some Iraqis were listening and when they made an overture at overthrow Bush and Baker looked the other way.
Just another reason why the Iraqis don't pay much attention to us today. They're just waiting for us to cut and run AGAIN. US foreign policy is rife with stories of us encouraging people to press for freedom and then yanking the proverbial rug out from under them when they take us at our word.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Steyn's column from November.
Excerpt:
Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can't win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win? That's how China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela and a whole lot of others look at it. "These Colors Don't Run" is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. ... To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
I've been reading Thucydides lately, just as I've read Donald Kagan's book on the Pelopponesian War and some passages of Xenophon's personal history before it. I'm more a believer in the classical author's observations on human nature and the cyclical nature of history than ever now. Could it be that these KosKids expressing the "We created Saddam" line and somesuch are like the modern-day versions of Alcibiades, using such rhetoric to smear their political enemies and quite possibly harboring a secret admiration for the enemies of their country? The more I see statements like that, the more I can't help but suspect it is true.
--
"Straight Talk Express"? My bum feet! -- Me, on Senator McCain and other "moderates"
I think there is an unlimited desire by the Kos Koolaid Kids to trash this country and to use any means required to turn us against our leaderhsip. And that desire is fueled in no small part by an admiration of tyrants and dictators. Look at the way the Kos Koolaid types rationalize chavez, castro or even mugabe.
These were the same people carrying the water of the phony claim that the UN sanctions and America were responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children starving and dying pre-war. These are the same poeple who praise the vile Palestinian leadership, even as they raised generation after generation of children to hate with genocidal fury Jews. People on that side even praised North Korea for developing the bomb, since it gave the NK's mroe leverage against the US. I think it is very reasonable to suspect their motives.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
but he made a conscious choice in ordering tens or hundreds of thousands of people to be tortured and murdered. America didn't force Saddam to kill his own citizens. This also must be understood as well. There were no American officials sitting down with Saddam going through the list of Iraqi citizens suspected of opposing him politically to be imprisoned and murdered.
Saddam made his own bed, he is already tormented right now in Hell, paying for all sins he committed during his lifetime.
America changed her stance on Saddam, which is more than I can say about the other countries such as France, Russia, China, and more, of whom would prefer to have Saddam kept alive and in power. Indeed, I am satisfied that America and Iraq alike have taken the correct course in deposing of Saddam, now Iraq can start again anew, this time without the presence of Saddam and his cronies.
Dan