Vermillion
Dec 23 2003, 08:38 PM
The most recent reason for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power by armed intervention was that he was a tyrannical dictator who opressed his own people. Now I dont think anyone would argue that tyrannical dictators are bad, but the whole isue raises some interesting moral issues about the US's involvement with other 'tyrannical dictators'.
Point: How can the US morally take a stand of freeing Iraq from a tyrant and an opressive regime by unilateral force of arms, while defending and allying with such nations as Saudi Arabia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and in the past, Zaire, Chile and so on. The catalogue of crimes and human rights violations against these and other US 'Allies' forms a shopping list. How can the US take a moral stance on an issue while allying themselves with such regimes?
Counterpoint: It is a sad, unpleasant world, and though everyone would love to see all Dictators isolated and overthrown, the nature of the world demands a practical view. The US needs allies in the Middle East, and in the former soviet republics. If thi means turning a blind eye to some actions by these states, that is regrettable, but a political necessity.
What do you think?
Jaime
Dec 23 2003, 08:39 PM
<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'>

Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Reason: Question to debate too vague or missing.<br /><br />
Recommended action: If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.<br /><br />
Helpful links:<br />
- Starting New Topics<br />
- Survival Guide<br />
- The Rules<br />
- Staff Directory</td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>
Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>