[]How would you deal with Saddam Hussein[/]
Seriously? If I were someone who was high enough in politics, such as the president, someone high-enough up in the CIA, whatever, I'd have just had him killed.
I'm not joking - if we
know he's as horrible as the government wants to shove down our throats, why not just send in some type of special op assassins, or hire them from another country, and have him killed? I despise the double-talk I hear from our government. I listen to and watch press conferences where one day Rumsfeld says our sole objective is to remove Saddam from power - remove his regime. Then the next day, when asked the day to day question as to whether or not Saddam is still alive, he answers, "It doesn't matter. If we had proof that Saddam was dead, it wouldn't change our military action whatsoever." (That's not a direct quote, that's paraphrased from memory.) If our military plan of action is NOT dependant upon whether or not Saddam is alive or dead, how could the entire mission be summed up as removing Saddam from power?
I'm against our government saying that if Saddam or any of his high-ranking political officials wanted to surrender, we would refuse to give them safe passage out of the country. We asked for Saddam to exile himself, but he refused, so now we'll accept nothing short of capturing him and bringing him to the US, or killing him. I think that's an incredibly stupid decision if we are truly concerned for the people of Iraq and our soldiers. I'm sorry, but if you back someone into a corner and give them NO acceptable way out, they will retaliate as viciously as possible. If we back him into a corner, with no way out except being dragged back to the US or being killed, why the heck wouldn't he use every weapon available?
If our concern was truly protecting the people of Iraq, I think there are other ways we could have 'rescued' the people without a war. I believe if we'd proposed a plan to the UN for rescuing the people, it would have been met with much more acceptance. We could have gone in with trucks and offered to relocate to another country any family who wanted to leave Iraq. There may have been bloodshed over it, but certainly not as much as we've had to this point. It would have been expensive, but certainly not as expensive as this war is. Maybe the people wouldn't have wanted to leave their country? If they were truly suffering or as terrorized as we're led to believe, they'd have been happy to leave. Sure, it's their home, their country, but we're destroying lots of those homes and country now anyway. If we removed everyone from Iraq who didn't want to live under Saddam, who'd be left? The ones who really want to live under Saddam!
But, to answer your questions:
- Would you continue to allow him to murder, maim, and mutilate his own people... letting thousands die of starvation and disease while he adds yet another palace to the 8 he already has? Nope, I'd take them all out and move them someplace else.
- Would you continue to allow the rape of women in front of their husbands in order to extract information? Nope, I'd take them all out and move them someplace else.
- Would you continue to allow the gouging of eyes of prisoners? ?? I guess that depends. Not until after we've removed everyone who doesn't want to stay. That includes the prisoners. There are prisons in most (every??) country - we can move prisoners just as easily as wives and children. As for the prisoners who are imprisoned after our removal of everyone - I guess I'm not as concerned with them. I mean, if I move to (or willingly stay in) a country where I know that is a punishment I could be subjected to, why should another country come in and say otherwise? Plenty of countries don't believe in capital punishment, but that doesn't stop Texas from executing prisoners one after another, does it?
Make sure you understand that I'm not saying anyone who lives in Iraq knows what they are up against, and if they live there that's there fault. I know for most of them they don't have the funds, connections, ability, etc., to relocate to another country. I'm saying after we relocated everyone who wanted to leave the country, anyone who chose to stay would have to understand that this is their one chance - take it or leave it.
- Would you continue to allow him to build the very same weapons he had agreed to destroy as terms of his 1992 surrender? totally different topic (not one I don't have an answer for
, but it really is separate from the humanitarian aspects most of this post has dealt with)
- Would you continue to allow this 21st century Hitler the freedom to murder the Kurds simply because they aren't Arab? Nope, I'd relocate them.
And you can't say 'relocating them is way too simplistic a plan', because personally, I think picking up a gun and shooting your way through the country is even more simplistic. Even
I have, and can fire, a gun.
Side note: If anyone here doesn't think they can separate a debate of these issues without ending up with hard feelings, please let me know! I have no problem with not answering in this thread if what I say will bother someone.
I enjoy this board and the help I get here. I'd have no problem zipping my mouth to avoid offending anyone here.
