Originally posted by sidcrowe
A private citizen on official business.
How many people from the USA get to shake hands with Saddam?
A private citizen on official company business, not government business - the government had nothing to do with it at all and cannot officially stop a private company dealing with another country unless it sanctions against them. He had a job, sometimes in jobs you have to do things you might not like, or at the time the political picture was probably less clear. I'd imagine that at the time any person from the USA who could give Iraq a good deal on weapons could probably shake Saddams hand as he's the leader of the military.
I would also debate that Iraq is not being occupied by the Iraqi regime. Yes, it was elected in the late 70's but it's never had a bona fide election since. You know that in Iraq the frequency of elections are decided by Saddam, there are rarely any other candidates (the last one there was was murdered) and people have to vote by giving their thumbprint and photo. Unsuprisingly Hussein gets a 100% victory every time - anybody who didn't vote for him would be hung out the back of the voting station so other people could see what happens.
As for Jim Henson, he has absolutely no place in this. He is dead so i don't really think it's entirely possible to get his opinion on this and it's not fair or appropriate to use him (or his image) in any way because you don't know 100% for sure what he would have thought and whether his family would want him connected with this. He may have been an American but actually The Muppets were turned down in America and made in Britain so it's probably more a result of the thriving British TV business at the time than any kind of freedom ...... i have a feeling they have puppets on Iraqi kids TV shows too without the freedom.
I realize that there are some things that might seem unjust about this war, and yes not everything the allies have done has been perfect and without error (It is war after all) but compared to the past and present actions of Iraq there is really no moral case for us not trying to change the regime there. The allied leaders may well have picked a time of their choosing to do this and they may well end up getting a slightly good deal on re-building Iraq after the war, maybe even a few dollars cheaper oil but compared to what they're paying out they'll be unlikely to make it back anytime soon and countries like France and Germany are not going to sanction them holding any power in Iraq much longer than the war lasts so they'll be getting a single vote like everyone else. What they are trying to do is change the regime (maybe slightly for their own political benefit of gaining some kind of longterm peace in the region, and not having to deal with any future terrorism that arises but also for the Iraqi people and those in the countries surrounding that are in great danger and have been for a long time. Our troops are out there risking their lives from suicide terrorists and summary executions to rid the country of barbaric soldiers and feed/care for the people they encounter - i think they deserve a bit more support.
You asked someone to put themselves in the position of the Iraqi's with the USA coming after you, well i'd ask you to put yourself in the position of an Iraqi civilian who can't leave their city to flee because the Iraqi soldiers shoot anyone who tries to exit, an Iraqi civilian who had relatives who died in the chemical attacks Saddam unleashed on his own people and if they didn't die outright they are now walking around with mass cancers on their body looking like they are freaks of nature, or political opponents of Saddam or even those that just threw a stone at his picture that end up in Iraqi torture chambers, prisons and rape rooms without much hope of actually living any longer. It's all been independantly verified by various humanitarian agencies, their own people are scared so cannot uprise against this and the countries surrounding (Syria, Iran etc) aren't exactly the type to fight for humanitarian travestys like this either, thankfully in the west we are the kind of people to do this. Bottom line, something has to be done to stop Saddam Hussein having any future, even if other countries did benefit slightly it would still be well worth it to end the suffering of the people. War is not the ideal option but it is the ONLY option, sanctions and inspections were not working - they depended on other greedy countries not trying to make a sneaky buck by smuggling weapons in and a dictator like Saddam being honest about the weapons he had, which it has been proven independantly he was not. Once they are freed the Iraqi people will thank us and you will see this war was right, right now they are unsure of what will happen and still rant and rave for Saddam when they see a camera - because 9 times out of 10 they know there are Baath officials mingled in with them who will hang them by the nearest lamp-post once the U.S convoy has moved on. Once the cameras are off and they know these people have been captured they tell a different story - i really wouldn't like to be in that kinda situation and i'm pretty sure you wouldn't either so i think we are right to be helping them out of it no matter what politics are involved, who started it, sold them it or said what 20 years ago ..... it doesn't matter to me.
That said, i'm out of this more or less now - yes Sid i think you are being slightly over the top with all the anti-Bush stuff but you are entitled to your opinions on the war itself. It's not just about Bush, you just had to see how long the whole process of the UN took and how held back the USA was to know that Blair had a lot of influence in it all too and once it's back at the U.N and all the other countries have their say i would hope the real winners will be the iraqi people. Sorry this is long everybody - insults, opinions and rebuttals quite frankly i couldn't give a sh*t !
Luke
*Wishes He Had NEVER Started This Thread*