I think the world would have been a better place without the mass murderers. So there you go. But if you are going to advance the theory of one mass murderer being as bad as another, the statement becomes a little silly if the range is from your standard serial killer all the way up to Hitler and Stalin.

Yes Dorothy, there is a difference.

I think the world has been a better place with a few dominant superpowers. Look at 19th Century politics, it was a very delicate balancing act which ultimately led to World War One as one great power, Germany, became concerned that the other great powers were surrounding her. World War Two was a similar situation, one great power essentially challenging initially two, and by the end, four great powers.

With one or two superpowers, the risk of World War Three has dropped; there are fewer nations to placate and paranoia has been able to decrease as the situation remains nicely balanced.

Furthermore, there has been foreign economic influence for centuries - there was even before the rise of the superpower; I would even suggest that there has been foreign economic influence since ancient times.

I think the world would have been a better place with no global imperialism at all. Really don’t think the outcome, whether it were US or Soviet, would make much difference for most people around the world consigned to low wages or unemployment due to foreign economic influence.

It’s healthy to criticise America, but only to a point. We see examples of this imbalance when Amnesty spend more time, effort and resource condemning America for Gitmo than condemning North Korea for, well, North Korea.

More correctly if the U.S. had not have initiated a coup alongside the British, against the democratic government of Iran in 1953 in order to reprivatise the formerly BP owned oil fields, the chain of events probably wouldn’t have happened. ”

Sleepy, what would have happened had the 1953 coup not occurred in Iran would have been very simple

World War III

Sleepy, you fail to recognise that Iran was going down the gurglar at that point; Mossadeq was making it clear to the world that he was a Communist who was willing to do anything to retain power - he had rigged a poll to the point that he got 98% support (that takes away the “democratic support” idea, he had rigged the election); his nationalisation of Iranian farms (he wasn’t just nationalising oil by the way) had resulted in yields decreasing and inflation was starting to increase; and Mossadeq was starting to show more favour to the Soviet Union with oil transactions than the United States/Great Britain. Had he continued in power, Iran would have almost certainly melted down with one effect -

The Soviet Union would have climbed in and taken over Iran. They would get their warm water ports and their navy would finally no longer be bound by Winter Ice in the Baltic Sea, Vladivostok, and Turkey on the Black Sea. Considering that the ghost of Stalin was still haunting the West at this stage, considering what the Soviet Union had done in Berlin that year, and considering that the Korean War was barely at an end. With a warm water port, the situation would have become frightening, especially with Communists at the fore in French Indo-China as well.

“Not like George W Bush, eh, who just instructs his UN ambassador to veto any UN Security Council resolutions that might threaten US global imperialism!”

I would much rather have US global imperialism than Soviet global imperialism. That would have been the situation had the United States not interfered throughout the Cold War.

Oh right. Easy mistake.

“This had nothing to do with the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people - it was simply that Iraq had now become the greater threat to US interests as defined by George Bush Snr.”

Actually the interests were earlier defined by Jimmy Carter, the “peacemaker” during the Oil Crisis and the Sovit Union’s invasion of Afghanistan.

“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

Iraq also has a majority Shi’ite population, but substantial Kurdish and Sunni minorities, and Saddam’s Ba’ath Party that held power was largely minority Sunni, although it did include some other minorities, including even Christians.

But the overall scenario you have depicted is correct, Sleepy. The US propped up Saddam’s regime and sponsored his war with Iran, even when Iraqi forces used chemical weapons (as they also did internally against the Kurdish minority), because they perceived Iran to be the greater political threat to their interests of global domination and control of Middle-Eastern oil.

The tables turned when Saddam invaded Kuwait - suddenly he was not the US’s friend, but their enemy. This had nothing to do with the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people - it was simply that Iraq had now become the greater threat to US interests as defined by George Bush Snr.

Not like George W Bush, eh, who just instructs his UN ambassador to veto any UN Security Council resolutions that might threaten US global imperialism!

So the resolutions that might make the US accountable don’t happen.

And in any case, there were no weapons of mass destruction, as it turned out, to inspect, and the CIA knew this. But Cheney still lied to Congress to start the war.

Saddam was a tyrant who killed lots of people, and although I don’t support the death penalty, especially when it is meted out by a “show trial”, deserved to be deposed and spend the rest of his life in prison. But has Bush’s and Cheney’s conduct actually been any better than Saddam’s?

More correctly if the U.S. had not have initiated a coup alongside the British, against the democratic government of Iran in 1953 in order to reprivatise the formerly BP owned oil fields, the chain of events probably wouldn’t have happened.

Don’t forget that in the 1980s Saddam was one of the good guys.

According to a report by the US Army War College’s own Strategic Studies, written shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait, their conclusion was that Saddam’s invasion wasn’t because he thought that the Bush Administration.

would turn a blind eye, nor was it because by nature the Baathists were expansionist, but because they were actually desperate.

“Taking all this into account, it seems obvious that Iraq invaded its neighbors because it was desperate. (Emphasis added.)”
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/epilogue.pdf