The US invaded Iraq, diposed Saddam and procured his execution -but what about these countries & their leaders

Question

1. Than Shwe - Burma

2. Kim Jong Il - North Korea

3. Omer Hassan Ahmed al Bashir - Sudan

4. Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe

One of Bush's main justifications for invading Iraq was Saddam's horrendous human rights record. The US is involved in talks with North Korea, but only in relation to nuclear weapons, and only because these pose a potentially major threat to US security -so why does he turn a blind eye to these above countries and their rogue leaders?

Answer 1

First, the U.S. IS doing something. This explains part of what is going on in Burma:

China is the most important ally of Burma’s ruling junta, providing vital economic, military and other assistance, while western nations shun the military-ruled country because of its poor human rights record and failure to restore democracy. According to China’s official Xinhua news agency, Than Shwe said that China is a friendly nation that deserves trust. “For the past many years whenever Myanmar [Burma] met with difficulties, the Chinese friend had always shared true and sincere understanding and offered assistance,” the report said.
From: http://www.irrawaddy.org/special-thanshwe.asp

Then there's Kim Jong Il. This man is mentally unbalanced and as great a threat as Ahmedinejad in Iran.
Aside from Osama bin Laden, there's probably no one George W. Bush would rather be rid of than Kim Jong Il, North Korea's dictator. "I loathe Kim Jong Il," Bush said in 2002, and his reasons were clear enough. Kim runs a Stalinist police state, with political prisons housing tens of thousands, many of whom, survivors have testified, are either beaten or starved to death. North Korea is also a serial proliferator, selling ballistic missiles and, U.S. intelligence believes, peddling critical ingredients for making nuclear weapons.
This from: http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/2005/time100/leaders/100il.html
Read more about this vile man there.

al Bashir of the Sudan is another loose cannon in an area of the world that has had peace elude it because of its leaders:
THE United Nations should consider sending troops to prevent genocide in Darfur even if the Sudanese government objects, US President George W Bush has urged. He suggested a UN resolution telling Sudan: "We're coming in with force in order to save lives." This from:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20430743-2703,00.html

And Robert Mugabe is slightly different as he started his career with the democratic idea of one man, one vote, but because his power is being questioned this is happening:
He now insists that potential voters prove their residence with utility bills, which the young, unemployed opposition core is unlikely to have. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that Mr Mugabe is becoming a cartoon figure of the archetypal African dictator.
During the 2002 presidential campaign, he started wearing brightly-coloured shirts, emblazoned with his face - a style copied from many of Africa's notorious rulers. For the preceding 20 years, this conservative man was only seen in public with either a stiff suit and tie or safari suit. One of Mr Mugabe's closest associates, Didymus Mutasa, told BBC News that in Zimbabwean culture, kings are only replaced when they die "and Mugabe is our king".
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3017678.stm

I do believe human rights is important to both the American people as well as the President. Unfortunately, the rest of the civilized world doesn't seem to be interested in dealing with despots and dictators. The U.N. should be the driving force behind demands of humane treatment for the peoples of these countries, but that institution has shown itself to be a safe haven of the very despots and dictators they should be reviling. I believe the President is doing the only thing he CAN do at this time and this is diplomacy, but following Roosevelts statement to "walk softly and carry a big stick." Of course all of this is meaningless since people whine and cry now over our decision to go into Iraq. So since you're asking...what would YOU do?

Answer 2

The main reason for Bush invading Iraq was that Saddam was going to trade the oil in euros as against American dollars, this would have turned the American economy into chaos.
None of the country's you mention has oil.

You can watch with interest if he invades Iran as they are changing from American dollars to euros.

Answer 3

as others have pointed out- its oil. and sadly unless those countries have oil, or gold, then the US will not invade and get rid of kim jong ll, robert mugabe and the rest. bush and blair don't give a monkeys whatsoever and wouldn't act, unless there is oil involved. goes to show how two-faced bush and blair are and of whom are a pair of hypocrites they are becoming to be to the rest of the world. likewise, getting rid of saddam was good, and still despite the atrocities commited in those countries, these so called 'leaders' if that's what you call them, choose to ignore those atrocities and carnage for their own sake. disgraceful really. if they are truly world leaders, then they wouldn't act in a hypocritical way that they are literatelly doing by sentencing one of the most brutal dictators the world has seen, whilst allowing mugabe etc to do what the hell they like and hence, allowing the innocents to suffer in silence. if saddam can be tried for committing atrocities against his own people, then why not kim jong ll, mugabe, shwe and al bashir as well?

Answer 4

The US ans UK could give a damn about Africa - I could include Northern Uganda, Congo and Burundi to that list. As for north Korea.. there is no way that the USA will be able to bully a country with nuclear capabilites...

They could give a damn about Africa and only intervene in countries which are either weak or have sufficient oil to satisy their greed.

Answer 5

The real justification for war in Iraq was control of the oil. And Saddam was an easy target, because he had (and they knew this for a fact) no weapons of mass destruction

Answer 6

wHat about Saudi Arabia? Bush's cromies there who have horrendious human rights policies, and still behead people for breaking Islamic law or dessent? If we have the right, as might seems to make right, to invade other countries and impose our will upon them isn't the revese true? Then dont they have the right to invade us and impose their will upon us?

One must also consider that the CIA assisted Saddem's rise to power to counteract Iran. So when the puppet cuts his strings I guess that makes them liable to invasion and replacement?

Answer 7

It mystifies me as to why people automatically pigeon-hole certain leaders as rogues. What doesn't surprise me though is the fact that these labelled rogue leaders make great propoganda tools for other leaders that are as equally manipulative.

So the reason why the other 'baddies' are not on the radar screen is simply because there's not enough public (or business) interest - and therefore not enough brownie points to be gained.

Answer 8

For you simpletons who allege the Iraq war was started for oil: has the US taken control of oil production in Iraq, and are we commandeering the oil for free now? Iraqi oil was available before the war, and it is available now, on the market.

You might consider that your baseless and obviously prejudiced allegations are reason for those who read your responses to dismiss them out of hand. They are boring and pointless.

Answer 9

Bush wanted Saddam for revenge, nothing more, nothing less. I say the USA should stay out of other country's affairs. Or hopefully, a country will reciprocate to the USA what they've been doing for years. Oh, and you forgot Australia and Howard the Coward!

Answer 10

Iraq has oil...and the Bushes had unfinished business. And a good cover story.