4 ms·

In that case at least Saddam really was a tyrant. Obviously pick your poison but you could make a case of intervention in Iraq - i.e. if it were led by Blair ra

by mhh__ 5y ago

In that case at least Saddam really was a tyrant. Obviously pick your poison but you could make a case of intervention in Iraq - i.e. if it were led by Blair rather than Bush I think we'd be reflecting differently, although probably still negatively

scaramanga 5y ago
Syngman Rhee really was a tyrant. Does it justify North Korean aggression?
- blunte 5y ago
  Hello, I'd like to buy an argument.
  - scaramanga 5y ago
    I'd just like to know how to apply the principles without needing a pre-filled lookup-table of goodies and baddies :)
toyg 5y ago
Doesn't matter who leads who, invading sovereign territory means invading sovereign territory. One of the massive mistakes in US foreign policy after September 2001 was to effectively re-legitimise old-school military power, occupating countries "just because we can", without even a shadow of UN mandate. It makes it very hard to rhetorically argue against others doing the same now.
- scaramanga 5y ago
  Right. If an argument can be made for the US overthrowing Saddam. Why can't an argument be made for Iran doing it? Iran was invaded by Saddam. Why didn't we support them if Saddam was so bad? That is a rhetorical question which really needs no response because the response is: the badness of Saddam has no bearing on the question. That is very obvious in this case, but not obvious when we are seeking self-serving justifications for our own wars.
Lascaille 5y ago
>In that case at least Saddam really was a tyrant. You should research a bit what life in Iraq was like prior to GW1 under Saddam's leadership. Most - in fact, nearly all - ME leaders are 'tyrants' according to Western standards but some are rewarded with arms and some are struck down.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Literally nobody seems to care about whatever Saudi Arabia gets up to in human rights violations, for example. People sometimes bring up its repression of women, and I think I've heard people bring that up more than Yemen, for example.

by mhh__ 5y ago

scaramanga 5y ago

Syngman Rhee really was a tyrant. Does it justify North Korean aggression?

blunte 5y ago
Hello, I'd like to buy an argument.
- scaramanga 5y ago
  I'd just like to know how to apply the principles without needing a pre-filled lookup-table of goodies and baddies :)

toyg 5y ago

Doesn't matter who leads who, invading sovereign territory means invading sovereign territory. One of the massive mistakes in US foreign policy after September 2001 was to effectively re-legitimise old-school military power, occupating countries "just because we can", without even a shadow of UN mandate. It makes it very hard to rhetorically argue against others doing the same now.

scaramanga 5y ago
Right. If an argument can be made for the US overthrowing Saddam. Why can't an argument be made for Iran doing it? Iran was invaded by Saddam. Why didn't we support them if Saddam was so bad? That is a rhetorical question which really needs no response because the response is: the badness of Saddam has no bearing on the question. That is very obvious in this case, but not obvious when we are seeking self-serving justifications for our own wars.

Lascaille 5y ago

>In that case at least Saddam really was a tyrant. You should research a bit what life in Iraq was like prior to GW1 under Saddam's leadership. Most - in fact, nearly all - ME leaders are 'tyrants' according to Western standards but some are rewarded with arms and some are struck down.

bigDinosaur 5y ago
Literally nobody seems to care about whatever Saudi Arabia gets up to in human rights violations, for example. People sometimes bring up its repression of women, and I think I've heard people bring that up more than Yemen, for example.