Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Depends which corner the phone is around 
The fact is, you've actually done something.
If you walk on by and then go about your business without making any effort to have the attack stopped, you're sending a message that the attack is acceptable.
Similarly, if the only way to oust Saddam was through war, and you won the protest against the war, you can't then say "oh but we didn't want to keep Saddam in power"
By stopping the war, you are accepting that Saddam remained in power.
People may not like to admit that, but its true.
If having Saddam in power was unacceptable, then the war would not have been protested.
It works like this, the anti-war people would have accepted Saddam remaining in power, as long as it meant we didn't go to war. There was no other way to remove Saddam, diplomacy wouldn't have worked, and interal revolt was a failure.
So for them to say that they want saddam out, but won't accept the only way to do it, means that they therefore accept that Saddam would have remained in power.
|
Only problem I have is that your viewpoint seems to be either/or (Saddam's in power, or, war to overthrow him).
OK, let's carry on with that logic - on this page in Wiki, there is a list of dictatorships, throughout history and in the current time. There are over 20 dictators in power at the moment - let's go get them, guys!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dictators
Omar Bongo, Gabon
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea
Jose Eduardo do Santos, Guinea-Bissau
Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt
Paul Biya, Cameroon
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia
Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir, Sudan
Francois Bozize, Central African Republic
Ely Ould Mohamed Vall, Mauritania
Fidel Castro, Cuba
Bashar al-Assad, Syria
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan
Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan
Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Maldives
.... bored now, but there's lots...