Dean says presence of brutal dictator does not justify force

[pruner]

KATE McCANN, Associated Press Writer
Friday, November 7, 2003

(11-07) 13:26 PST MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) --

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Friday that the use of U.S. military force is not warranted simply because a nation is ruled by a despot.

The front-runner said he supported the war to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan, and backed President Clinton's decision to send troops to Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s because force is sometimes necessary to stop genocide.

That was not the case in Iraq, said Dean, a staunch opponent of the war.

"I do not believe force is justified simply because we think someone is a brutal dictator," he told about 1,000 high school students, a reference to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

"All I ask from the president of the United States is they think carefully before sending young people and putting them in harm's way around the world," Dean said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/07/national1626EST0682.DTL

[Scott Lee]

1. And he's right

The presence of a dictator, in and of itself, does NOT justify an aggressive invasion. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. Number one, what is the threat to the US?

[Eloriel]

2. Hah! Esp. when we put them there in the first place

Before the war, there came a point as I was reading up on the politics and factions of Iraq and came to understand that it would be very difficult to impose "democracy" there without it devolving into a fundamentalist Muslim regime, that I realized that it might be true that there are times and places where a dictator is preferrable to something else. Or at least the most practical solution.

Hate to say it, but Saddam kept Iraq secular, and in one piece. Could he have done it less brutally? Probably, but I don't know. Do I approve of brutality? Hell no. Nor do I philosophically approve of dictatorships. But I also don't approve of repressive, totalitarian, religious fundamentalist states. Pick your poison.

Eloriel

[Scott Lee]

3. Well said...and here's another example of the lesser of evils

How about Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia?

Brutal communist dictator. Nonaligned with Moscow. But, he squelched nationalism, regionalism and religious hatreds. When he died and Yugoslavia was not communist anymore, well, the rest is history!