Um, Russia, France, and Germany sold him the weapons, but didn't we give him tons of loan guarentees to buy them with? CIA assistance with gassing Iranian troops? Blocking a UN condemnation of his use of chemical weapons for a few years?

Ah, here we go:

http://www.belleville.com/mld/newsdemocrat/5674107.htm

Wow, loan guarantees (which are not the same as loans) for food imports to alleviate food shortages. Damn, Americans ARE bastards!

Only the childishly immature fail to comprehend that just nations often have to form viable relationships with scum bags. The Roosevelt administration, for instance, had to cooperate with Joseph Stalin to defeat Hitler. The only legitimate question is whether our political leaders were friendlier with Saddam Hussein than minimally required. Did they stop merely shaking hands with the devil--and begin a warm relationship? I don’t think the available evidence suggest that the Reagan administration ever crossed the line.

For David and Dan and others who've forgotten the recent past, here's a nice summary in the noted leftist rag, the Washington Post.

You see the use of chemical weapons, which Iraq was permitted--even encouraged--to develop by the U.S. was mildly irksome but nothing that was going to "impact our long-term political and economic objectives."

The argument that Hussein is more of Franco-Russian creation than that of the United States is risible. The U.S. permitted and encouraged these arm sales because it suited its interests, just the recent invasion has suited its interests now.

“The U.S. permitted and encouraged these arm sales because it suited its interests, just the recent invasion has suited its interests now. “

And what is your point? The United States had to develop an awkward and uneasy relationship with Iraq during that time period. This is merely the norm for nations forced to politically maneuver between the Devil and deep blue sea. Allow me to slightly rephrase the above quote:

“The U.S. permitted and encouraged these arm sales with Joseph Stalin because it suited its interest, just as it combatted Russian Communism a few years later.”

Sigh, nothing new under the sun!

David, I'm glad you've admitted that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the citizenry of the country, whom the U.S. plainly doesn't care about (and in fact actually encouraged Hussein to kill, wantonly) and everything to do with the U.S. national interest. I rarely find the pro-war position stated with such admirable candor.

“David, I'm glad you've admitted that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the citizenry of the country...”

The invasion of Iraq was in our national interest and unashamedly I candidly admit that the liberation of its citizens was of secondary importance. Heck, who ever denied this harsh fact of life?

“... whom the U.S. plainly doesn't care about (and in fact actually encouraged Hussein to kill, wantonly)...”

There are no facts to back up this ludicrous charge. I am compelled to point out that Stalin wasn’t exactly a loving leader of his own people.

“...and everything to do with the U.S. national interest. “

Thank you for the compliment. I firmly contend that our nation’s leaders are obligated to primarily worry about our national interests. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

Folks like chun the unavoidable are too grossly immature to hold power. The American people, unless Joseph Lieberman miraculously wins the Democrat nomination, will not have any realistic option but to vote for President Bush.

When Bush the Greater encouraged Iraqis to revolt and then allowed them to be slaughtered, in 1991, were you not paying attention? Or is it ludicrous to blame a president of the U.S. for the predictable consequences of his actions?

I have no problem with your candor, as those who shamefully pretend that this invasion was about "democracy" or "freedom" are the dangerous and powerful ones. Had your (truthful) argument been made, it would have been acknowledged for moral void it is.

“When Bush the Greater encouraged Iraqis to revolt and then allowed them to be slaughtered, in 1991, were you not paying attention? Or is it ludicrous to blame a president of the U.S. for the predictable consequences of his actions?”

President Bush 41 is responsible for stupidly getting people killed. This will forevermore remain a black mark on his presidency. But don’t forget that the Old Europeans made sure that we would not enter Baghdad.

“I have no problem with your candor, as those who shamefully pretend that this invasion was about "democracy" or "freedom" are the dangerous and powerful ones. Had your (truthful) argument been made, it would have been acknowledged for moral void it is.”

Moral void? Where in heaven’s name do you get such a weird notion? There is nothing immoral in prioritizing your nation’s interests ahed of the citizens of another country. Democracy and freedom were the secondary reasons for our invasion. First, last, and foremost, we feared the possible future overt and discrete actions of Saddam Hussein against the United States.

Only the childishly immature fail to comprehend that just nations often have to form viable relationships with scum bags.

How this claim differs in moral quality from any defense Saddam Hussein might care to offer on the grounds of necessity -- e.g, "Ruling an ethnically-divided Middle Eastern country is not a dinner party, some eggs had to be broken" -- is not evident to me.

"First, last, and foremost, we feared the possible future overt and discrete actions of Saddam Hussein against the United States. "

Is fear an adequate reason to establish a policy of preemption? What evidence had we that Saddam Hussein had any intention of attacking the United States? In fact, when has Saddam Hussein ever attacked the United States outside of Iraq's borders? Can a nation seriously legitimize a preemption policy contrary to the interest of other nations or its citizens?

The doctrine of preemption is self destructive and promotes a vigilantism which can directly controvert stability and lead to wider conflicts. The conflict bewteen India and Pakistan is an execellent example of what can happen under such doctine whose consequence, possible nuclear fallout, will affect many other nations.

“How this claim differs in moral quality from any defense Saddam Hussein might care to offer on the grounds of necessity. “

Wow, you are really into moral equivalency. You seemingly are incapable of making proper distinctions and following a logical argument. Allow me to make it easy for you: We are the good guys and Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. The United States is a moral but imperfect nation---and the Iraqi Baath Party was a collection of scoundrels, rapists, and torturers. If you fail to comprehend this distinction---then you should not hold political power.

“Is fear an adequate reason to establish a policy of preemption? What evidence had we that Saddam Hussein had any intention of attacking the United States?”

Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate former President Bush 41 outside of Iraq. He had a well deserved reputation for retaliation. Furthermore, Saddam violated his agreement with the Union Nations. That’s enough for me.

“Can a nation seriously legitimize a preemption policy contrary to the interest of other nations or its citizens?”

Indeed it can, if the “other nations or its citizens” are a genuine threat.

“The doctrine of preemption is self destructive and promotes a vigilantism which can directly controvert stability and lead to wider conflicts...”

Baloney! We can only regret that we did not preemptively strike out against Adolph Hitler in the last 1930s. That would have saved countless lives.

"Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate former President Bush 41 outside of Iraq."

Is that really worth the lives of so many people?

An alleged threat to one civilian, who wasn't harmed, is worth the deaths of hundreds of others?

What kind of messed up moral compass do you have?

“An alleged threat to one civilian, who wasn't harmed, is worth the deaths of hundreds of others?”

What planet do you live on? The exact opposite happened. Saddam Hussein is responsible for an unbelievable number of deaths . The invasion of Iraq has saved thousands, if not even millions of lives. My moral compass is working just fine, thank you.

Mr Thomson,

You are truly indefatigable in your rebuttal of every single comment up there. Evidently, those who hold contrary views can say nothing right or do nothing right. They simply must be rid of their childishness, immaturity, etc etc.

I agree that US national interests should be the main concern of the US govt. But I would also suggest that in a world that is more tightly bound together than ever in all sorts of ways, defining "national interest" too narrowly can be counter-productive.

Especially if this definition happens to encompass the intemperate trampling of the legitimate interests of other peoples. It is one world, and others' aspirations are no less valid than Americans'. If Might is Right is the correct mantra, America will never be able to rest at peace. The US cannot get away all the time with messing with other people's countries.

By the way,

For an interesting analysis of the press coverage of "the great diplomatic victory" of the Bush administration on debt relief for Iraq, go there: http://billmon.org/archives/000937.html

“Evidently, those who hold contrary views can say nothing right or do nothing right. They simply must be rid of their childishness, immaturity, etc etc.’

I have substantiated my charges regarding their intellectual childishness and immaturity. If you disagree, please point out specifically why I’m wrong.

“It is one world, and others' aspirations are no less valid than Americans'. “

Who are these “others” that you are referring to? The aspirations of Osama bin Ladin, Yasser Arafat, or Saddam Hussein are less valid than those of the majority of Americans. Also, are you perhaps inadvertently defending the Islamic world’s treatment of women as second class citizens. I’m sorry but I categorically reject your apparent multiculturalist premise. Some cultures are indeed inferior to others. They are not all equal.

“If Might is Right is the correct mantra, America will never be able to rest at peace. The US cannot get away all the time with messing with other people's countries. “

Since when has the United States in recent years embraced the doctrine that Might is Right? Please provide us with some evidence for your position? The same also holds true concerning your allegations that America is “messing with other people’s countries.”

“The U.S. permitted and encouraged these arm sales because it suited its interests, just the recent invasion has suited its interests now."

Actually, communist states (and France) supplied most of Saddam's arsenal. Check out this link (Where Iraq purchased weapons.) that gives a breakdown of which countries and how much.

Nice to know that maybe Jose Padilla will get his trial.

Another Wa Po story on the White House's (via Rumsfeld, natch) encouragement of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran.

In order to be have claims such as "liberating the people of Iraq" taken seriously, you have to demonstrate some elementary moral seriousness. When a mere decade earlier, you nuzzled, fed, and loved this butcher--only to swat his nose when he got out of line and then stand idly by why his armies murdered tens of thousands you encouraged to rise up against him--you must not act surprised when you're not taken seriously.

Now, if like Thomson here, you acknowledge things for what they are, you can at least be respected for honesty. Were it not for the mighty propaganda machine and its narrative of "liberation," there would have been no invasion of Iraq at this time by this government.

Hmmm yeh, but it was the USA that sold him anthrax cultures, and I have a suspicion it might be this which hogged the headlines.

I've interpreted the curiosity about Saddam trial-related problems for the administration more along the lines of "how it will look to a relatively uneducated public" rather than as regards any accurate reading of history.

One could point out that on that list of "contributors" to Saddam in the 80's, the top three (France, China, Russia) also declined to invade. I know that the "proper" argument is that they failed to deal with the threat, enforce the UN resolution, support us...whatever. Still, there's some consistency in their nefariousness, isn't there?

From my perspective, this whole thing is coming down to one question: does an administration have the right/privilege/obligation to obfuscate, deceive, or mislead the general public in order to achieve an important military and strategic end? Is it okay if Bush et al. made the WMD/potential threat case because they knew that it was critical that we establish a democracy in that area, knew that Iraq was the best target for it -- but also knew that they wouldn't be able to "sell" the war that way?

Nothing, apparently, is forbidden as long as one can provide a tenuous connection to one's national interest.

My father was in the Iranian army in 1978. Thankfully he didn't stick around for long after the revolution. He might have become just another name on the long list of individuals killed and maimed by moral idiots like David.

Thomson,

You are doing remarkably well 'all by your lonesome' on this thread.

As should seem ironically evident to you, the 'new' poster's (along with the bulk of the regular's) response's to your position smack eerily of Dan's posted responses to his Slate article. Which you also, rightly, admonished.

Welcome to the great game, kids. Sorry that you've been busy with your 'dot-coms'for the last decade.

Tell 'em about their lovely parting gifts, Dave...

Mr T,

Problem is, even if YOU believe that American aspirations are more valid than others', the poor silly OTHERS are unlikely to see things in the same light. Naturally, no one feels that they are any less human than you, or their hopes and ideals are any less valuable to THEM than yours are to you. All they can see is that one hyperpower riding roughshod over everyone else.

Osama Bin Laden, for all his homicidal tendencies, has one particular agenda that finds great resonance with Muslims. That is, the expulsion of US troops from Saudi Arabia, which all Muslims have considered to be holy land since the beginning of their religion. If you have difficulty understanding that view, then one cannot help you. But clinging to naivete is unlikely to help in the long run.

The same with Yasser Arafat's aspirations. Even Ariel Sharon is about to agree that Israel is screwing over the Palestinians over and over again, and please do NOT wheel out the tired old "suicide bombers killing women and children" argument again. And also don't bring out the 1947 agreement, the 1967 war which Israel won, the peace accords that Arafat spurned.

Instead, try, if your limited worldview will permit you, to understand this from the point of view of a young Palestinian, an 18-year old youth say, who was born in a refugee camp, whose PARENTS too were born in a refugee camp, who has known for every day of his life nothing but squalor and degradation and humiliation, imposed, yes imposed upon him in no small measure by the Israelis. If his grandmother is still alive, perhaps he has also heard stories of the evictions of 1948 from her.

Finally, consider the future for him. The future to him is one of equal degradation and lack of opportunity. All around him, he sees how cheaply his life and his family's life and his neighbour's life is valued by the world in general, and Israel and America in particular. Do NOT be surprised if he feels lost, that there is no future for him, no hope for him. Finally, do not be surprised if Israeli lives therefore are equally cheap to him. If his own sister is going hungry or is sick from lack of medical attention, if his own father is daily humiliated and abused at the checkpoint, realize that other peoples' sisters and fathers are likely to matter to him that much less.

I have heard it over and over again that you cannot justify any of this. True, but you can try to understand it, even as the Israelis are trying to understand it this very moment. Oppression is never a long-term solution, even if they are in your view (but not in theirs) lower-level humans. The British tried to import civilization in their time to all corners of the globe, the Americans are trying to (selective) democracy now. The British have already left behind their mess, and it appears the Americans are following in their footsteps. What was naive about the Brits and also about the US is in their assumption that one can accelerate the process of Western civilization and democratization in these parts at will. You cannot impose it, it has to come from within. The only countries that have managed this to some degree has been those which have been blessed with strong, even visionary internal leadership. I am thinking in particular of the South East Asian countries. And even they have their problems (Malaysia, Singapore). Just imagine, the Eastern European countries have had few problems in adjusting to capitalism-democracy in just a decade after the Berlin Wall. Yet countries elsewhere continue to have difficulties. This is IN PART but not wholly linked to the fact that there is corrupt leadership, and also due to the fact that the alien element of these ideals makes them harder to assimilate in the body politic proper. Finally, in a poor country where few people are even properly educated, the whole political and voting process is TOO easy to subvert and manipulate by dishonest, educated people at the top. If you have EVER stepped outside America and seen a little of the 3rd world, you'll get a better sense of what I'm trying to communicate. But I suspect you may not have.

But I digress. My point was that in theory, importing Western ideals is easy, in practice it is devilishly hard and more often than not leaves in place regimes that are no better than the earlier ones. For Americans to actively interfere in exporting democracy is a foolish game. Just as America and the West EVOLVED towards its present state over centuries, the same degree of patience and process of self-discovery and evolution is required in Africa and in Asia and in China. It is presumption to think that you can teach them. You don't have to teach them, the world is a small place, and the example of the West is there for all to see. What you do have to do is allow them to learn.

In the meantime, America persists with certain policies that create resentment. I am not saying that everything that America does is bad. That is not my point. But there are certain critical things that America does that banishes goodwill and those few acts NEGATE everything else that America does. It is in understanding this tha you have failed.

To finish, I will allude to the Muslim treatment of women, etc. I don't know how many Muslim countries you have visited. I have been to a few. In vast tracts of the non-Arab Muslim world, women have the same political rights, and they are learning to assert these rights pretty vocally. It is wrong to assume that 1.5 billion Muslims form a monolithic block and that their attitudes to women are the same everywhere. Far from it. Two Muslim countries in South Asia have had Muslim prime ministers. One of them, Bangladesh, the 3rd most populous Muslim country in the world, has been ruled ONLY by women since 1991. The state of women's education and participation in the workforce is similarly progressing, against the resistance of traditional elements, in places like Indonesia and Malaysia. And it will continue to progress.

The only place where these rights continue to be suppressed happens to be the Middle East. That is partly due to the cultural status quo. And also due to lack of democratic self-expression. If the non-Arab world can treat its women better, are they becoming BAD Muslims? Hardly. They consider themselves to be Muslims and they consider it perfectly compatible with their faith to educate their daughters and send them to work. And because the Arab world treats women like shyt, does that mean that they are doing the true Islamic thing? Once again, no. As I have said, it is wrong to ascribe monolithic tendencies to 1.5 billion people. Some people are progressing at a faster rate, some people are not progressing at all. Tom Friedman said it right, it is fundamentally a struggle within Islam to keep its center while embracing Modernity at the same time. Basically, Islam's hour for a Lutheran reformation is finally here.

Which brings me finally to the American "messing up". We could mention all the lives lost in South America in the 60s, 70s, 80s due to your intervention in endorsing tyrant regimes. We could mention the fact that the CIA directly caused the overthrow of a democratic regime in Iran in the 50s, bringing in its own puppet, a monster called the Shah, and that it was directly as a REACTION to the Shah and his totalitarian state that Khomeini came to power in what was truly a peoples' revolution. Speaking of which, we can also speak of Ferdinand Marcos and Suharto, both of whom rode the American horse into power and caused no end of butchery and bloodshed in their time. One understands that the need was to fight Communism etc, and American policymakers like Kissinger prioritized this over all else. But you have to realize that communal memory in these countries dies very hard. They remember, their fathers remember America for what they did, a sponsor of beasts, and you cannot make them forget these things by easy declarations of freedom and democracy today. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Two of the most tyrannical regimes today in the Arab world are the Sauds and Mubarak in Egypt. America is steadfast in its support for these regimes which have done nothing for their people in 20, 30 or 50 yrs. Without the vast injections of cash that America sends to Mubarak and to the Sauds which directly funds their activities, it would have been easier to bring about change to these regimes. But that is impossible as long as the boot of terror (or at least the shoelaces) are bought at the American store. The reason for propping up the Sauds who are no more than one tribe among several in Arabia is merely access to cheap oil. Please let me know if you disagree. Similarly, Mubarak provides "stability". However Saddam needs to be removed by force. Only the rest of the world, and Arabs in particular, understand this hypocrisy. Americans don't. I am sure you don't either. In the Arab perception, they understand that they are their own worst enemy. The Arab Dev Reports indicate their capacity for self-criticism. But that status quo is being upheld and financed by America. My suggestion? Get out, leave them to their own devices. But that's not done, right? Ask yourself why not.

Everywhere else in the world, Muslim women can drive cars. Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, even Iraq. Don't you find it even the least bit ironic that you who shout so loud about Freedom and Democracy have no problems financing, arming and propping up a regime that is the ONLY one in the world to deny women the right to drive - Saudi Arabia???

Z,

You are so "September the 10th Leftist" it hurts.

Take you leftist guilt-cant somewhere else and tell it to someone who cares.

what does September 11 have to do with it? you think 9-11 automatically eliminated all American guilt in one big fireball at Ground Zero? think again. it wasn't some instant purgatorio for your mistakes. some mystical notion that in one magical stroke, it put Americans on the high moral platform.

no, sir. only Americans think like that, the rest of the world doesn't much care either way. They've lost 3,000 people many many times over to believe that your loss is oh-so-much more significant than ours. to us, you are still the imperialist power.

and is that really all the response you can manage? where's the point-by-point rebuttal? at least please condescend to justify the Shah and the Sauds? or is that too hard?

I am not even American, nor do I live there, so I don't much care what happens to you guys. but I understand full well why people everywhere are so thrilled to see you get a comeuppance every time. what can i say? good luck looking over your shoulders for the rest of the century :-)

p.s. my original long post was addressed to Mr Thomson. perhaps he will come out of his intellectual shroud to explain some of these questions now.

as for you, Telenko, as i said, good luck. you guys have so much more to lose than us, no wonder you are all grim-jawed and tensed up. we, who don't have much to lose, don't feel half as tense about the outcome. isn't it so much fun trying to live in a black-and-white world? it's going to be a long century for you guys. :-)

“Osama Bin Laden, for all his homicidal tendencies, has one particular agenda that finds great resonance with Muslims. That is, the expulsion of US troops from Saudi Arabia, which all Muslims have considered to be holy land since the beginning of their religion. If you have difficulty understanding that view, then one cannot help you. But clinging to naivete is unlikely to help in the long run. “

You seem proud that many Muslims of Saudi Arabia are religious bigots. I can readily imagine the outrage if a major Western religion acted in such a manner. Please note that you are not arguing that the so-called infidels remain out of a particular religious shrine---but the whole country! Lastly, you ignore the fact that American forces protected the Saudis. Gee whiz, isn’t this a lousy way of thanking us?

“The same with Yasser Arafat's aspirations. Even Ariel Sharon is about to agree that Israel is screwing over the Palestinians over and over again, and please do NOT wheel out the tired old "suicide bombers killing women and children" argument again. And also don't bring out the 1947 agreement, the 1967 war which Israel won, the peace accords that Arafat spurned. “

Yasser Arafat is a moral monster who should have been killed long ago. The Israelis have been mostly more than fair with the Palestinians. The latter are racial and ethnic bigots and mired in self pity and victimization. Regrettably, extremist Western liberals such as the late Edward Said has encouraged their immature behavior. And what is so tiring about being outraged by the suicide bombers?

“Instead, try, if your limited worldview will permit you, to understand this from the point of view of a young Palestinian, an 18-year old youth say, who was born in a refugee camp, whose PARENTS too were born in a refugee camp, who has known for every day of his life nothing but squalor and degradation and humiliation, imposed, yes imposed upon him in no small measure by the Israelis. If his grandmother is still alive, perhaps he has also heard stories of the evictions of 1948 from her. “

This 18 year old Palestinian would be deceived by the fantasies of his immediate social group. There is only one reason why many Palestinian remain in the camps: they persist in being a threat to the Jews.

“Finally, consider the future for him. The future to him is one of equal degradation and lack of opportunity. All around him, he sees how cheaply his life and his family's life and his neighbour's life is valued by the world in general, and Israel and America in particular. Do NOT be surprised if he feels lost, that there is no future for him, no hope for him. Finally, do not be surprised if Israeli lives therefore are equally cheap to him. If his own sister is going hungry or is sick from lack of medical attention, if his own father is daily humiliated and abused at the checkpoint, realize that other peoples' sisters and fathers are likely to matter to him that much less. “

The Israelis are not deliberately humiliating the Palestinians by requiring them to be checked at the border crossings. This is only done out of the need for self defense. Your post highlights the childish attitudes of these people and their increased and bizarre feelings of victimhood. But they are not victims. The more radical Palestinians are nothing more than scum bags that must be either killed or jailed. It is foolish to pretend that one can negotiate with people who have absolutely no interest in seeking a legitimate compromise. The Palestinian moderates must be encouraged to wrest control from the nutballs.

“For Americans to actively interfere in exporting democracy is a foolish game. Just as America and the West EVOLVED towards its present state over centuries, the same degree of patience and process of self-discovery and evolution is required in Africa and in Asia and in China. It is presumption to think that you can teach them. You don't have to teach them, the world is a small place, and the example of the West is there for all to see. What you do have to do is allow them to learn. “

Nonsense. First of all, you have no right to speak for all of the Third World. Many of these folks eagerly desire to be westernized and their wishes should not be ignored. You are inadvertently reminding me why I so strongly disagree with Benjamin Barber’s pathetically awful thesis in "Jihad versus MacWorld" which basically argues that only the crazies should be listened to.

“The only place where these rights (of women) continue to be suppressed happens to be the Middle East. That is partly due to the cultural status quo. And also due to lack of democratic self-expression. “

You are not being entirely accurate. Women are second rate citizens in even the best of situations. Islam is presently anti-women. A religious reformation is mandatory.

The United States and the other countries of the Western World have done more good than harm in the Middle East. Unfortunately, you prefer to focus on the bad. No, the real problem is that the Muslim world has been mired in ludditism and anti-modern sentiments. This has resulted in the Muslims falling behind the curve in just about every category. There is only one real answer to this dilemma: Muslims must cease scapegoating the West and candidly admit that their own ancestors are responsible for the mess they are in. To be blunt: many Muslims must stop acting like children and start to accept the demands of adulthood.

Z--

From your e-mail address,I guess you are somewhere in Europe. Is your nation without sin? Maybe you are from Norway,or Austria, or Belgium someplace outside of the main track of the cold war. But you benifited from the cold war realpolitik, because US policy was devoted to keeping the USSR out of your country. So those folks with the long memory don't just hate me -- they hate you and hold you responsible too. And by living off the benefits of the US cold war policy (because the end of the USSR has been good for Europe), you are implicated in the various sins that contributed to it. The folly of European opinion seems to be that you guys are exempt from global disdain, because you like the UN. It's western culture that is the villain -- and Europe is the birthplace of that culture. I think you need to be looking over your shoulder too, bub. You are not Osama's friend.

I think the righties who post here would agree with you that the US needs to stop supporting the Egypts and Saudi Arabias of the world. If Bush meant the words he spoke in his big Democracy speech, there will probably be some changes in that policy. If there aren't, he might pay a price for it.

Quite oddly, it seems that the right -- both the neos and the evangelicals -- have done a better job of internalizing the human rights worldview of Jimmy Carter, than the left (or the current version of Jimmy Carter), who seemed quite content to leave Saddam to torture his people in peace. We can get into a debate whether the Iraq intervention furthered American interests, and whether there was a sufficient threat to American interests to justify an invasion. But there is no question that America can and should act in its national interest,and should not be restrained by handwring about its past sins in doing so.

Sharon should have been killed long ago too. Two words. Shabra. Shatila.

“....to us, you are still the imperialist power. “

Finally, you are seemingly unable to bring forth indigenous arguments to support your position. Your whole tirade against the Western world is based almost entirely on the Marxist rants of those born and raised in the West! In case you didn’t know---Karl Marx did not come from an Islamic background.

That's it, Z - keep looking for that mote in the other guy's eye.

CLARIFICATION.

I am neither American nor European. I come from Asia, from a country whose own legitimate independence war was vehemently opposed by the Nixon Administration many years ago.

Independence war? Sounds like East Timor, or maybe Cambodia or Laos. (or heck, maybe Burma or some independence movement in Malasia or Indonesia that escapes my memory.)

Sounds like you may be one of the folks with the long memory.

One thing to remember,if it were not for the US military, we would not be having this interesting debate on the world wide web. The other thing to remember -- the military developed this device in its own self-interest. More good things come out of people actinfg in their self-interest then have ever come from well-intentioned international organizations whose only goal is to "make things better".

Wow this is a tiresome debate.

I have yet to figure out how President Bush mislead America into this war. I think he was quite clear, Iraq was a sponsor of terror (Cash Payments to PLO), Iraq was in violation of countless UN resolutions and the cease fire that ended the gulf war round 1, he was a threat to his neigbors and eventually to us. The threat was not imminent (and Bush and gang never said it was) but could not be allowed to remain forever.

It was quite clear that this box that "box" we had mistakenly placed Saddam in 1992 was leaking, that our Allies, in thier own self interest, decided it was more profitable for them to deal with Saddam and break the sanctions down then continue to enforce. The constant wailing about the children if Iraq that America was starving and consigning to death by the embargo was designed to break down the will to shoulder on with the embargo.

So here were are now - leftist like Chun the Unavoidable and Z somehow think that America is the villain here, that we somehow made Saddam and therefore we have no moral standing to even act and of course these islamic fascists have a point, we shouldn't be bothering them anyway. Becuase they are authentic in thier anger yada yada yada.

So I will go slow, what is at stake here in Iraq is Western Civilization as we know it. The give and take, the debates we are having now w/o fear of some toady taking us out and cutting out our tongue for Blaspheme against Allah. That Chun and Z seem to find the defense of western civ by the US distasteful, becuase what have we done (besides WW2, causing the collapse of Soviet Russia and freeing (and keeping free) millions of people in the process or France, Germany and Russia and thier nuanced versions of diplomacy.

I have started taking people at thier word, when islamic fanatics and Arabic pretenders start saying we need to kill all Americans ad Jews, I take them at thier word. And their actions over the past 20 odd years give credence to thier battle cry. They desire to cover the world in Sharia. I do not think that this such a good plan.

So Iraq is sitting there with numerous good reasons for deposing of Saddam, no good reasons for letting him stay, so boom we nail him and his sons and show Arabs what the US Can do when properly motivated. Was the liberty of Iraq and setting up a government for the people a primary goal, I would say yes because it sets up a nice example of what a poor Egyptian can aspire to, if he throws off the yoke of government. Bush 1 had no vision, he was a process guy, stability was a good thing. Clinton was an extension of that. Bush 2 took a look at the world after 9/11 and said hey this is not working so good, political and cultural oppression is turning middle class people into killers, turning whole societies into death cults, this needs to change and we are the people to do it.

Were we mislead, nope. Maybe you were becuase you believed the canard of selected, not elected, and he is to stupid for words. Most thinking people were not mislead.

appalled,

rightly or wrongly, the level of anti-Americanism in the Mideast is pretty high. any move towards democratic self-government will almost inevitably bring in regimes that do NOT feel beholden to the Americans. that will refuse to kowtow to the US. basically Iran a few times again.

given America's energy dependence on the Mideast, do you really believe Bush or any other president will dare to break the "stable" status quo? (I personally believe that speech was hot air.) so where will words like "democracy" and "freedom" go then? already we see a repetition of Mideast policy in the energy-rich countries of Central Asia - America being buddies with tyrants like Karimov, Nazarbayev, Aliev sr and jr. You see, same story, all over again.

do you really doubt that American attitudes to these regions is grounded massively in self-interest and access to oil and gas, and far less in platitudes like democracy etc etc?

it's the misfortune of Arabs to be living above so much oil and gas that everyone else covets. I can guarantee that if it was Hindus living in energy-rich countries and the West was manipulating their govts to access these riches, then the West would today have a billion Hindus resenting it.

stop the manipulation. or if not, please acknowledge it for what it is.

Z is from Bangladesh. My German ancestors long ago got their rear ends kicked by the Roman legions---or I might today be an illiterate savage. The same holds true for those living in Z’s country. He hesitates in admitting that the West almost certainly saved him from a life of horrible and hopeless destitution. It’s time for Z to grow up. He might also wish to read Dinesh D’Souza’s very balanced “That’s So Great About America.” D’Souza is now an American citizen who grew up in India.

Hahah thanks for bringing up Dinesh. Dinesh is from Goa in India, a place with strong Portuguese connections - see Dinesh's last name.

Just like the Maronites in Lebanon, who were Arabs but liked to think of themselves as French, there's some Goanese like Dinesh, who believe they are not Indian but somehow Portuguese or Western. you should see what Indians think of dear old Dinesh.

also DT, you omit to mention how the Roman Empire came to an end. those same Germanic tribes that got their butts kicked eventually swept down from the north and finally put an end to the Roman Empire.

unless you learn to leave other people alone, the same will eventually happen to you.

“...unless you learn to leave other people alone, the same will eventually happen to you. “

Leave other people alone? You are personally seeking investors from throughout the western world. Are you saying that you wish to find another line of work?

Z:

I dunno whether the speech was hot air or not. Since Bush actually tied US security (which is his hot button) to this, I think he believes what he said. Whether he'll walk the walk remains to be seen. And, I would not count on democracy being a total "negative" for the US. If Iran was truly democratic (as opposed to the odd system they have now), I think they would be pro-American...or at least less implacably opposed to us. Iraq? Well,hopefully we will see in the next few months.

What is the American attitude towards the mideast? Mostly that it's a far off place full of scary people who we wish would just leave us alone to prosper in peace. The average american gives no thought to the stuff he's putting into his SUV, unless the price just went up.

Not being a member of the American political elite, I will not speak for what they think. But,if Iraq was really "about the oil",then I got to say we really do have morons running our country,since we have spent far more in arms and reconstruction money than we ever will see in oil revenues coming out.

Good talking to you. Ignore the looneys who dislike having their worldview challenge,and post more often.

So what company will invest anywhere out of charity? Companies invest because they hope to make a profit. They don't promise things that they are not interested in.

That's the difference between economic investment and political investment. Your political investment is cloaked in words like "freedom" and "democracy", things which you may or may not care about. Your ACTIONS - where you interfere, where you send your troops, what govts you support - indicate that these words are merely facades for other motives.

Companies don't lie abt their motives. The American govt does. A little honesty can go a long way.

heheh thanks appalled for the show of support.
there's loonies everywhere. trust me, all that people want to do in the 3rd world is the same as people everywhere else - do a good day's work, feed and clothe one's family, help the children with homework and send them off to bed early without letting them stay up for TV.

the loonies are a fringe. a visible vocal fringe, but a fringe nonetheless.

Z:

The profit in Democracy would be this:

1. The countries would be more open, both economically and politically. I think you assume popular policy in the mid east would dictate oil embargos against the US. Actually, it would probably dictate seeling as musch oil as possible, so the nationalized industry can fund as many of the domestic things promised by the leaders as possible.

2. Even dictatorships need to give their people some kind of voice -- something to keep them busy, so that they won't complain how bad their life stinks. Israel and the US provide handy bogeymen. In a democracy,local politicians can take up some of the slack.

3. Promoting democracy is good for national Pr and domestic PR.

4. The oil companies cannot reelect Bush. The American People can. Bush's polices are going to be more about reelection and reelection issues (Security) than stuff that makes his oil buddies happy.

“...the loonies are a fringe. a visible vocal fringe, but a fringe nonetheless. “

You represent the fringe. Your views are unbalanced and lack nuance. You perceive the Western world in a somewhat Marxist manner. In short, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. You are presently intellectually incapable of transcending mere black and white categories.

You see, appalled, I totally agree with you about the effects of real democracy.

There is no reason to believe that anti-Americanism is a permanent state of mind in the Middle East. As I have said, ordinary people just want to live ordinary lives.

Only the fringe has a real problem with the West. The COMMON people, even if they are 'backward' and 'devil-worshipping' Muslims, have no major axe to grind with the US or the West. Somehow it's become a truism that "they hate us for our freedom". The absurdity of this phrase cannot be overstated! Who cares about your freedom??! We just care about ours!

But the practical problem is this. Having invested so much for so long in propping up these regimes, it is a natural consequence that anti-Americanism runs high. The Sauds are very commonly seen as puppets of America, and that view is not really too far from the truth. In the first stages at least, anti-US sentiment will have an effect at the voting booth.

But ideology does not put food on the table. Trade does. Any govt that comes to power will need to trade, if only for their own sake. There will always be a fringe in Arab states that want to go back to a puritanical form of heathen-hating.

This is not, it may come as a shock to a lot of Americans, the desire of the majority. In fact, according to the Arab Dev Report, more than half of Arab youths want to migrate to the West. Why? Because they too want economic opportunity and the freedom to breathe an unoppressive air.

Anyway, there really is an urgent need for massive risk-taking on the part of America in disowning tyrant states. Stability will, in the short run, be sacrificed. In the long run, it's the right choice.

But manipulation and duplicity in that region may prove hard habits to break. The other thing that no American govt can escape is responsibility for Israel. Fortunately, the Israelis themselves are beginning to figure out that time is running out. If ever there was a need to CONTINUE to ignore Hamas and the extremists, the Jewish settlers, the Bible-thumping evangelicals and the pro-Israeli lobbies in the US, if ever there was a need to forge ahead with a treaty REGARDLESS of casualties, this is the time. Take Geneva, why not?

I believe that there will continue to be casualties in the short run and even in the medium run. Hamas's aim is to push all Israel into the sea. A fair peace accord won't stop them immediately. Israel will probably always need to live in a state of higher security, even if most Arab countries follow Egypt and sign treaties with it. The fringe isn't about to stop hating Israel immediately.

But it is not the will of the people in the refugee camps to live like dogs all their lives. They would prefer to live like human beings for a change. If America finds it within itself to broker that kind of peace, the benefits will be immediate. I think there will also be the need for a form of mini-Marshall Plan - preferential trade treaties, etc - to help out an infant Palestinian state economically.

Oil will flow eventually. Peace will flow too. But these decisions re democratization and Palestine will not come easily, or without short run costs. But these are the decisions - the extreme fringe should not deter anyone, no matter how spectacular or adamant their war.

The other option is to slug it out perpetually in a Hobbesian world.

appalled moderate, David Thomson, Kevin, R C Dean

Please don't feed the anti-Semitic/anti-American energy creature.

Daniel Drezner's employers have to pay for the bandwidth you are helping it consume.

Actually, the only person who pays for this bandwitdth is me.

But, on the whole, arguments about whether anti-israel positions are anti-Semitism get tedious pretty quick.

Telenko, it would be lovely to have a debate with you once you can move past the facile labels and the petty name-calling.

Until then, I think it's pretty clear who's wasting bandwidth.