Is state sovereignty a valid excuse for not removing Saddam?

Question

Why do people decree "State Sovereignty" a reason for not deposing Saddam ??
The most ridiculous argument an activist or diplomat can make in defense of a dictator like Saddam Hussein is that the tyrant cannot be deposed because of his nation Sovereignty. The notion that America did not have the authority to overthrow one of the worst dictators (over 1,000,000 civilians killed during his reign ) that ever walked the face of the earth because of state sovereignty is absurd.

Based on that logic : Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan are unable to be touched because they too are sovereign nations.
The genocide in Rwanda, for example, has been mourned theatrically in retrospect – Europeans especially will weep over corpses, but will do nothing to protect those still alive. In America we call this cowardice!

The sole purpose for any government is to protect its citizens. A state that kills its own people has no legitimacy! NO MATTER WHAT THE TYRANNT RIDDEN UNITED NATIONS SAYS. Knowing what we all no now about the mass graves and torture chambers, WMD attacks, and countless other severe infractions of” international law”, how can any moral person state that Saddam should have been left alone?
Sovereignty cannot be an excuse for uninhibited savagery. Saddam was a HITLER to his people. People who objected to the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime on grounds of state sovereignty are the moral descendents of those who looked away from Hitler’s crimes. The difference today is that those who condone mass murder pose as moral arbiters and demand to know what right America has to decide which governments are tolerable and which are not. The answer is simple. “When the forces for good fail to act, the forces of evil triumph.” And America is the worlds essential force for good. No amount of fashionable anti-Americanism will change that. And though we may not always have the blessing from the rest of the world to depose dictators, tyrants, murderers and terrorists we will surge forward and do what we know is right. The world will be better for it.

We must not fear to act when action is necessary, moral and possible. Whenever the situation allows we should act in concert with our natural allies and those apprentice states moving toward mature freedom. But when we are forced to stand alone in a just cause, we must not hesitate…Let history judge us.

Answer 1

I did not read your entire question because I saw the flaw in it within a few sentences.

You stated Saddam was a dictator. That is actually a inaccuracy. The reason ppl argue state sovereignty is because Saddam, while yes an evil tyrant, was not a dictator. He was an elected president... elected meaning the majority voted him into office = state sovereignty.

Answer 2

First of all the right to decide about the fate of the country rests with its people alone. In Iraq, Saddam took over the country by violent means. The Iraqis had seen many invaders in the past centuries and it's history that no invader could rule it peacefully. The Iraqis had decided to undergo the pains and machinations of Saddam. The greatest mistake he did was to invade Kuwait and after the war, the US should have left it there and could have ensured prevention of the same.

The US is largely responsible and Russia to a major extent for the state of affairs in Middle East, Afganisthan, Pakistan and elsewhere in the world. A Super Power has a greater responsibility to the world. It should not interfere in every country's affairs. Every one of us are paying the price what US did when it supported Osama in Afghanisthan, Saddam during Iran-Iraq war.

The basic mistake USA did was when it decided to promote capitalism across the world by any means. It could have restricted itself to opposing erstwhile Soviet Union but allowed itself to open new fronts over the time.

There were many instances of civil uprising against a dictator or an oppressive regime. It has to come from within but not be encouraged from outside. Countries can be supportive to the population and help them in the event of uprising but not create civil war or invade any other country.

Answer 3

Our sickness then is that we are much like the good German was in Nazi Germany. We are the good "American". Almost half the U.S. population believes Our Leader is solving the terrorism problem. The good German also believed that their leader was solving a problem. What does one make of the half of the US population that refuses to see that Our Leader is fueling and creating more terrorism? Using terrorism to stop terrorism is insanity, ab initio absurdis. Perhaps, perpetual war for perpetual profit is the goal. If that be the case, is the sickness not obvious? It should be.

Iraq is redux Vietnam. The major players in the Bush regime are many of the same people who were around during the Nixon administration. Donald Rumsfeld and **** Cheney, for example were aides to Gerald Ford who followed and pardoned Nixon. They tried to persuade president Ford to veto the enhanced Freedom of Information Act. Back then they seem to have recognized that the truth would haunt them. It still does. They preferred to operate with impunity then as they do now. What can one expect from the same cast of characters? They were sick then, when Nixon was in office, and, they are sick now.

History has a way of repeating itself as the observation goes. Sooner, or, later, as the tide continues to turn, the people will respond to the pervasive sickness that permeates this regime and the land, and do something about it. The populace will once again become sick and tired of the sickness. When that happens, and I do believe that day is coming, a second president in my lifetime will be leaving the White House in disgrace. The people will line the streets and salute farewell to the commander-in-thief in similar fashion to how they "welcomed" him on "inauguration" day, June 20, 2001. The difference this time will be, however, that George W. Bush will be leaving the White without legitimately having been elected in the first place. Perhaps then, we can begin to recover from this sickness of which you speak.

Answer 4

State Sovereignty is the governmental version of " A man's home is his castle". Say you and your partner happen to like to run naked through your house and fornicate on every horizontal,vertical or diagonal surface in the house. I may think that an objectional practice. Does that give me the right to come in and take you out of your house for being a freak? A person who values their liberty would say no. A person who feels the State has a right to regulate your every moment on this planet may think differently. I don't like being told what to do and as long as I don't bother you why the hell should you care? As objectionable as he was a sizeable amount of people who had no experience of living in a Republic like ours liked Saddam. If they had had the will they could eventually have overthrown him but enough people were satisfied to keep the lid on Iraq.
It is not a question of cowardice not to fight Iraq. Are you saying we have the right to smack around whoever we want? Say Europe, China and Latin America formed a Grand Coalition to rid the world of that overbearing tinpot president Bush because they didn't like how he bothers other countries or how he only brings substandard jobs to replace good industrial jobs that are going overseas. So when both our seacoasts and our border through Mexico are invaded are you going to be there saying they have a right to do this or are you going to be holding a rifle to keep the bums back? An extreme example but do you start to get my point? Interesting question by the way.

Answer 5

It's interesting that the number of people Saddam killed increases with each idiotic post on YA.

Your question can be answered very simply: How would you feel if a foreign govt took out Bush?

Don't waste time saying their's no comparison. A lot of people overseas feel Bush is the worst, most dangerous person on earth.

Answer 6

We didn't depose him, we attacked him with no provocation which is against International Law!

How can a country breaking the law be a valid excuse under any circumstance! You are arguing that we have the right to break international law, but what happens in the internal borders of a country is for us to judge!

I suspect many, and quite a few in the US, believe Bush is no better than Hussein and he should be deposed!

And your diatribe sounds good, but it doesn't change the laws.

Saddam wasn't Hitler! DUH!!!! We killed most of his people!

Answer 7

We must not fear to act when action is necessary, moral and possible? War is never moral, because war involves killing people, and on average, for every one enemy that is killed, 8 civiliains are killed.
Saddam was an evil bastard. But he was not worth one american life....not one.
By the way...the purpose of the military is to DEFEND our country.....not to invade another country.

Answer 8

Hitler, Tojo & Mouselini had sovereignty. So did Mullah Omar. We are also a sovereign state with the right to protect ourselves from those who want to kill us.

Answer 9

Let me play devil's advocate here. What if we remove Saddam and things don't wind up any better for the Iraqi people?

You know. Hypothetically.

Answer 10

Based on your model, we should be looking forward to removing Bush and his gang of thieves.