Skip to comments.
Sometimes no good guy exists
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-11-13-oped-dsouza_x.htm ^
| 11/13/2002
| Dinesh D'Souza
Posted on 11/16/2002 1:42:59 PM PST by John Lenin
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Critics of President Bush's policy toward Iraq often raise the same questions: Isn't it ironic that we're trying to get rid of Saddam Hussein when we once supported him? Doesn't history show that you cannot impose democracy at the point of a bayonet? Isn't it hypocritical for the USA to condemn Saddam as a dictator when it supports many unelected regimes?
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
TOPICS: Free Republic; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
Excellent.
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: John Lenin
3
posted on
11/16/2002 1:50:56 PM PST
by
MWS
To: John Lenin
Isn't it ironic that we're trying to get rid of Saddam Hussein when we once supported him? If the Crips and the Bloods are doing you the favor of killing each other in the middle of nowhere, you should air drop ammunition to which ever side is running low.
That is what the U.S. did in the Iran-Iraq War. Half a million dead Iranian and Iraqi fanatics later, Iran was no longer a major threat in the Gulf and Iraq was much weaker when Gulf War One was fought.
That might not be pretty but that's Realpolitik.
4
posted on
11/16/2002 2:00:01 PM PST
by
Polybius
To: Polybius
Ouch. Nice.
To: John Lenin
While I agree totally with the principle of the lesser evil outlined in the article, who's to say a greater evil than Saddam won't eventually arise in Iraq? A case can be made that his secular regime has kept militant Islam confined in a similar fashion (albeit far more brutal) as Musharaf's has in Pakistan. An Iraq free of Saddam and eventually governed by militant Islamists could be a far greater risk in the long run. Of course this is why it may require decades of U.S. military presence after Saddam falls.
To: John Lenin
D'Souza brings up, but doesn't address, the argument that it's hypocritical of the US government to condemn Saddam for being a dictator while it supports many other dictatorship around the world. The principle of the "lesser evil" tells us that we are justified in temporarily supporting dictatorships if they act as a check against something worse. Fine. But that doesn't answer the argument. There is no moral distinction between Saddam and, say, Musharraf, so there is no point in morally condemning Saddam for being a brutal dictator. The only issue is the very pragmatic one of whether Saddam is a threat.
7
posted on
11/16/2002 3:21:28 PM PST
by
billybudd
To: Burdened White Man
I think life comes down to the lesser of the two evils. Think about it.
To: John Lenin
good article though I found his book "Whats so great about America" poorly written and scatter brained.
To: All
10
posted on
11/17/2002 11:25:31 AM PST
by
Sparta
To: billybudd
There is no moral distinction between Sadamm & Musharref?
Really?
Strange moral code you have.
To: BillSharp
No, there isn't. They are both unelected dictators who maintain their power through force, suppressing dissent, monitoring the population through a secret police, etc. The only thing that is different about them is their particular geopolitical situation: Saddam is sitting on top of the world's 2nd largest oil reserves, but unwilling to give up control to American oil companies, hence he is vilified and threatened with death. Musharraf controls strategic territory in Central Asia but is willing to play along with the US, hence he is praised, given billions in aid, and called an "ally". This is the nature of the "moral distinction" between Saddam and Musharraf.
Don't get me wrong here. They are both filthy scumbags who deserve to die, in my opinion. But let's not pretend that one is morally better than the other just because the US government finds him more useful.
To: billybudd
>>In the real world, as opposed to the philosophy seminar, the choice is often not between the good guy and the bad guy, but between the bad guy and the really bad guy.
Bears repeating.
And I don't think it's "unwillingness to give up control to American oil companies" that has gotten Saddam on the DoD's air-mailing list, but rather "willingness to act megalomaniacally and attempt to absorb his neighbors into the fold, and support terrorist attacks on the West".
But you go right on thinking it's all about "unwillingness to give up control to American oil companies."
To: billybudd
Careful now. Independent thinking is double plus ungood. So is admitting the truth openly and honestly.
I shall be reporting you to John Ashcroft immediately for
un-American activities. :)
14
posted on
11/20/2002 1:28:50 PM PST
by
altayann
To: altayann
"You can't impose democracy at the point of a bayonet" is another shibboleth. At the end of World War II, America imposed democracy in just that manner on Japan and Germany, and the result has proved resoundingly successful in both countries.Yes, but in both cases, Japan and Germany feared being occupied by a neighbouring country in which they'd committed terrible atrocities. China and Russia, for example.
That tended to give them a much more favorable view of their current occupiers, seeing as they were far less likely to set up concentration camps then the alternatives.
There is no such analogy with Iraq. If there's one thing the Iran-Iraq war taught the Iraqis, is that the one thing they never have to fear is being occupied by Iran. ;>
15
posted on
11/20/2002 1:35:09 PM PST
by
altayann
To: FreedomPoster
Yes, duh, I agree with
In the real world, as opposed to the philosophy seminar, the choice is often not between the good guy and the bad guy, but between the bad guy and the really bad guy.
Obviously we make foreign policy decisions based on pragmatic concerns. But to delude ourselves into thinking that one bloody dictator is more "moral" than another bloody dictator is foolishness. That's the stupidity of Bush calling Saddam an "evil" man and Musharraf "progressive". Barbara Streisand. Let's shed sham and pretense and be clear why we do what we do: because of national security interests, not because we wish to liberate the people of Iraq from dictatorship or to rid the world of an "evil" man.
To: billybudd
Sometimes, diplomacy consists of saying "nice doggie" to a snarling mongrel, whilst looking for a rock.
One at a time.
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson