After it was established that WMDs could not be found in Iraq, many people here justified the invasion of Iraq for one of the following reasons:
1- The country is/was a stronghold for terrorists.
2- The country presented a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.
3- Saadam Hussein was a brutal dictator who should have been removed anyway.
Unquestionably, Sadaam's removal was a good thing in the end; the question, of course, is "Was it worth the expenditure in American lives and money?" and "Should the role of the United States in global affairs be that of 'Policemen of the World'?"
Just for the record, BTW, my prsonal POV is that only #2 is a legitimate justification for a complete invasion of a country and the removal of a government.
As far as #1 goes, I would advocate limited military action, designed only to kill the terrorists themselves and eliminate their strongholds, training camps, etc. (admittedly can be very difficult without taking out the entire government as well).
In cases of #3, while I am quite sympathetic to the plights of people in many other countries, I am totally against the U.S. assuming the role of "World Policeman". Although I imagine that I or someone else could come up with a hypothetical situation which might alter or temper my view on that, basically that is how I feel.
Since there are members here who
have indicated that they agree with the invasion of Iraq on the basis of Reason #3 alone, and since there is at least one who I can think of who is a strong proponent of the scenario in which we do something to help the citizens of one other brutally oppresssed country, here's the question:
Which country, if any, and for which reason(s), should we invade next?
To help, here's a list, published in today's
Parade Magazine, of who they consider to be "The World's Worst Dictators" (If your personal favorite is not on the list, feel free to...)
The comments are those of the magazine. Any comments of my own are in
italics. You can read the entire article (including comments by some readers who suggest, and apparently not facetiously, that George W. Bush belongs on the list as well) here:
WORLD\'S WORST DICTATOR LIST 1.
Omar al-Bashir, Sudan: Since February, 2003, his campaign of ethnic and religious persecution has killed at least 180,000 civilians and made 2 million homeless.
2.
Kim Jong-il, North Korea:
Claims to have nuclear weapons, and has threatened to use them. An estimated 250,000 people are confined in "re-education camps", and the U.N. World Food Program reports that the average 7 year-old boy in North Korea is almost 8 inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter than a South Korean boy of the same age.
3.
Than Shwe, Burma4.
Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe5.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan6.
Hu Jinato, China: Between 250,000 and 300,000 dissidents are held in "re-eduction through labor" camps, less than 5% of criminal trials include witnesses, and the conviction rate is 99.7%. China has no privately owned TV or radio stations, the government opens and censors mail and monitors phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and text messages.
7.
King Abdullah, Saudia Arabia: In Saudi Arabia, phone calls are recorded and mobile phones with cameras are banned. It is illegal for public employees “to engage in dialogue with local and foreign media.” By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims. According to Amnesty International, police in Saudi Arabia routinely use torture to extract “confessions.” Saudi women may not appear in public with a man who isn’t a relative, must cover their bodies and faces in public and may not drive. The strict suppression of women is not voluntary, and Saudi women who would like to live a freer life are not allowed to do so.
8.
Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan 9.
Seyed Ali Khamene'i, Iran:
Hasn't Iran clsimed to have nuclear capabilities as well and expressed a willingness to use them? And, as been discussed here several times, their government certainly seems to hate the United States. 10.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea
