>Quoting Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu>:
>
>
>
>>But is dredmond likely to make an _honest_ comparison with
>>life under Saddam? I doubt it.)
>>
>>
>
>No, you're falling into the trap the neocons want you to fall into: by their
>logic, Saddam is Evil, therefore any crime committed to destroy his regime is
>objectively Good (and conversely, anyone who criticizes the Terror War is
>objectively in the terrorist camp).
>
>
Let me see if I follow your argument. I point out that the deposing and
capture of Saddam Hussein, one of the worst dictators of the modern era,
is a Good Thing. You translate this into some kind of blanket
endorsement of any and all actions taken to achieve this goal--
including an endorsement of the worst aspects of Ashcroft's rule.
You're using the precise reasoning of authoritarians and dictators everywhere. If I disagree wioth you-- or express an opinion you take issue with-- then you announce that I must be some kind "neocon" who would support evil for some imagined good. This isn't very different from the with-us-or-against-us rhetoric of the right-wingers, kid.
>I refuse to accept that logic. The means do *not* automatically justify the
>ends. The US invasion was built on lies and deceit. It killed thousands, while
>spawning street violence and chaos. It took only weeks for the Iraqi insurgents
>to be labeled "terrorists" by the US mass media. And the US occupation will, if
>it continues unchecked, create inconceivably more horror and suffering in the
>region than the sanctions ever did.
>
I find this kind of reasoning absolutely fascinating-- if only for the
fact that everyday life under Saddam Hussein is left unmentioned. Have
you ever bothered to read the accounts of his rule? It's truly amazing:
when the U.S.is supporting the guy, accounts by Human Rights Watch and
Amnesty International are cited as evidence of Saddam's evil... but as
soon as the U.S. deposes him, you're talking about the harm caused by
the sanctions and the U.S. invasion, and you don't bother to bring up
Saddam's own crimes.
Obviously, those things _have_ caused harm to Iraq, and I want to see them ended and Iraq restored to something like a civil society. But it's obvious that this restoration could _not_ happen when Saddam was in power.
(You say that the U.S. occupation _will_ cause "inconceivably more horror and suffering in the region than the sanctions ever did." Not that it's merely possible, but that it _will_ happen. I think it's possible, if the U.S. remains in Iraq for several years, and actively works to reduce Iraq to the status of, say, postwar Cambodia. Are you saying, then, that no degree of domestic opposition can stop this?)
It's certainly possible, especially if the U.S. remains there for several years. Does this mean, then, that you don't expect the U.S. to leave Iraq for at least another decade?