Full Version: State of Iraq
Its becoming apparent that removing Saddam was like removing the thumb from the hole in the dam.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11491483/from/RS.2/
The violence and potential sectarian civil war loom darker and darker while democracy and a US-friendly state look less and less likely.
My questions:
Was Iraq and the US worse off with Saddam in power?
Would it have been better and easier to have just worked through Saddam to improve Iraq rather than the current resolution to recreate Iraq?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11491483/from/RS.2/
The violence and potential sectarian civil war loom darker and darker while democracy and a US-friendly state look less and less likely.
My questions:
Was Iraq and the US worse off with Saddam in power?
Would it have been better and easier to have just worked through Saddam to improve Iraq rather than the current resolution to recreate Iraq?
Iraq was much worse off under Saddam and posed a WMD threat to the US and the region.
How could we have “worked with Saddam”? He invaded his neighbor and was defeated. He proceeded to ignore and obstruct every UN Resolution that followed. How does one “work with” a regime that refuses to comply with agreement it has made? The idea that there was any other resolution in Iraq is IMO ludicrous. But what angers me is that it was the job of the UN to get Saddam to comply and they were corrupted by his payoffs and failed miserably.
How could we have “worked with Saddam”? He invaded his neighbor and was defeated. He proceeded to ignore and obstruct every UN Resolution that followed. How does one “work with” a regime that refuses to comply with agreement it has made? The idea that there was any other resolution in Iraq is IMO ludicrous. But what angers me is that it was the job of the UN to get Saddam to comply and they were corrupted by his payoffs and failed miserably.
QUOTE
Iraq was much worse off under Saddam and posed a WMD threat to the US and the region.
How could we have “worked with Saddam”? He invaded his neighbor and was defeated. He proceeded to ignore and obstruct every UN Resolution that followed. How does one “work with” a regime that refuses to comply with agreement it has made? The idea that there was any other resolution in Iraq is IMO ludicrous. But what angers me is that it was the job of the UN to get Saddam to comply and they were corrupted by his payoffs and failed miserably.
How could we have “worked with Saddam”? He invaded his neighbor and was defeated. He proceeded to ignore and obstruct every UN Resolution that followed. How does one “work with” a regime that refuses to comply with agreement it has made? The idea that there was any other resolution in Iraq is IMO ludicrous. But what angers me is that it was the job of the UN to get Saddam to comply and they were corrupted by his payoffs and failed miserably.
Are you still claiming that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the US? Maybe it's just me, but if I'm ever scared of somebody because they have something, and then I realize they don't actually have the something that scared me, I stop being scared.
How could the US have "worked with Sadaam"? The history of the US supporting Hussein is amply documented and it's a fact the US continued to support him even after he supposedly used illegal WMD against anyone, so the true facts of history contradict your own question.
Making indignant comments about Iraq "ignoring" (10,000 page report is hardly ignoring) any UN resolutions isn't valid when their own country ignores the very same UN and other resolutions, resolutions made in the same room as the Iraq resolutions.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 1 2006, 08:10 PM)
Iraq was much worse off under Saddam and posed a WMD threat to the US and the region.
Iraq today in on the edge of a civil war. People are dying every day. How is that for "better"?
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 1 2006, 08:10 PM)
How could we have “worked with Saddam”? He invaded his neighbor and was defeated. He proceeded to ignore and obstruct every UN Resolution that followed. How does one “work with” a regime that refuses to comply with agreement it has made?
Except that you did.
US did in the 80s embrace Iraq and supported Saddam. Here is a link:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
QUOTE
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
Isn't is very hypocritical for you to say that you think Saddam was a threat yet it was your government that helped him become what he was?
Until 1971, Iraq's oil profits, $2.97 per each $3 barrel of oil taken, went to the West, meaning the US and Britain. Come 1972, and Sadaam Hussein peaceably nationalized his country's Iraqi Oil Company, reversing things so Iraq would keep $2.97 rather than give it to the Western oil companies dirt cheap. Sadaam Hussein made it so that all of Iraq’s (recovered) oil wealth be invested in irrigation, infrastructure, education, medicine, defense etc.... Within the decade Iraq became possibly the most advanced Muslim country in the world, with large numbers of women in the professions, and a free health service that could only be marveled at by the 'have not' nations. Think about it folks. Sadaam Hussein was so secure and certain in his power (iin the 70's anyways) he could and often did, do his stroll through the streets of Baghdad. And consider this: Iraqi society is not like ours. We know about Iraqi wedding parties being blown to heck by US forces because of the Iraqi tradition in the form of shooting rigles into the air. There is footage of Hussein in the streets of Baghdad and an old woman shoots her AK into the air as he passed. Hussein did not duck or jump or hide or have a corps of bodyguards to shelter him and kill his 'attacker'. No. Hussein just turned his head to smile and wave to the woman. What would Bush's procedure be if someone shot a gun in the air in celebration of his joy in seeing Bush in person? The guy would be in Gitmo before he hit the ground.
Hussein was and is a national hero to his people. He's the one who enriched their lives with solid infrastructure with money which would have been destined for Western bank accounts.
An interesting footnote in the Hussein gassing the Kurds story is not well known to us in the West, although it ought to be. The US Army War College used dead Halabjan photographs to prove that the gassing of the Jurds was in fact an Iranian attack, not Iraq. The rules here regarding photos prevent me from posting them, but taken at face value, why would the US Army War College teach people something like that? Americans all say Hussein gassed the Kurds at Halabja. The US army college says Iran did it. Who's correct?
Hussein was and is a national hero to his people. He's the one who enriched their lives with solid infrastructure with money which would have been destined for Western bank accounts.
An interesting footnote in the Hussein gassing the Kurds story is not well known to us in the West, although it ought to be. The US Army War College used dead Halabjan photographs to prove that the gassing of the Jurds was in fact an Iranian attack, not Iraq. The rules here regarding photos prevent me from posting them, but taken at face value, why would the US Army War College teach people something like that? Americans all say Hussein gassed the Kurds at Halabja. The US army college says Iran did it. Who's correct?
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 1 2006, 06:10 PM)
But what angers me is that it was the job of the UN to get Saddam to comply and they were corrupted by his payoffs and failed miserably.
You keep claiming this, you have claimed it in other threads, yet when asked repeatedly to provide any actual proof of this governmental 'corruption' you are consistently unable to do so.
You also tend to easily assuse OTHER nations of corruption with no evidence, yet refuse to accept the slightest possiblility of any US corruption, despite the fact that US companies profited more from the corruption than the companies of every other involved nation put together. US Companies that subsequently made massive contributions to Bush Jr and the Republican Party, including funding the construction of his presidential library.
I find that massive a double standard to be... odd, to say the least...
QUOTE(RedCedar @ Feb 28 2006, 09:34 AM)
Was Iraq and the US worse off with Saddam in power?
That's easy, just ask the Iraqis:
snip-
QUOTE
seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead
snip-strikingly, 54 percent say security where they live is better now than it was before the war.
snip-strikingly, 54 percent say security where they live is better now than it was before the war.
2005 Poll
snip-
QUOTE
In Iraq, 65% believe their personal life is getting better, and 56% are upbeat about the country's economy.
2006 Pollsnip-
QUOTE
Overall, 64% of Iraqis say that Iraq is heading in the right direction
Dec 2005 PollHow dare we explain to them how they ought to feel. I guess they need more liberals in Iraq to demonstrate how to properly be miserable in the face of things like a a growing economy
Was Iraq and the US worse off with Saddam in power?
Well there can't be any doubt as to the fact that Iraq was worse off. Having a dictator in power is always bad for your health!
As for the USA, I honestly don't know. I don't believe that mainland America was ever in much threat from Iraq, but I have a hard time accepting any notion that the USA, or any one else in the world, was better served by leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
A lot of people have thrown flak towards the US government (including myself) for having supported various tyrants and dictators the world over. Many of these same people no cry foul against a war to remove such a person. In my mind, you can't just sit on a moral fence and say not in my name when it comes to this sort of issue.
We can deal with tyrants or we can get rid of them. We can't just ignore them. Given the alternative, I really can't see the big deal about removing Saddam Hussein from power. Good riddance.
I would love to hear those who oppose the war propose a viable alternative to the war in Iraq, but until I do, I'm afriad that I can't lament the passing of such an evil individual. My only regret is he wasn't killed by one of the many missiles that were thrown at him. It would have saved us the tedium of waiting for his conviction and perhaps fewer innocents would have died.
Would it have been better and easier to have just worked through Saddam to improve Iraq rather than the current resolution to recreate Iraq?
Like, 'Peace in our time'?
No.
Well there can't be any doubt as to the fact that Iraq was worse off. Having a dictator in power is always bad for your health!
As for the USA, I honestly don't know. I don't believe that mainland America was ever in much threat from Iraq, but I have a hard time accepting any notion that the USA, or any one else in the world, was better served by leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
A lot of people have thrown flak towards the US government (including myself) for having supported various tyrants and dictators the world over. Many of these same people no cry foul against a war to remove such a person. In my mind, you can't just sit on a moral fence and say not in my name when it comes to this sort of issue.
We can deal with tyrants or we can get rid of them. We can't just ignore them. Given the alternative, I really can't see the big deal about removing Saddam Hussein from power. Good riddance.
I would love to hear those who oppose the war propose a viable alternative to the war in Iraq, but until I do, I'm afriad that I can't lament the passing of such an evil individual. My only regret is he wasn't killed by one of the many missiles that were thrown at him. It would have saved us the tedium of waiting for his conviction and perhaps fewer innocents would have died.
Would it have been better and easier to have just worked through Saddam to improve Iraq rather than the current resolution to recreate Iraq?
Like, 'Peace in our time'?
No.
Was Iraq and the US worse off with Saddam in power?
Well, Saddam certainly held a falsely created country and tribes together without civil war for decades, if by iron handed rule. Contrary to what many americans think, girls and women were educated, women were not separated nor veiled by law, people came from all over the Middle east for education under Saddam in the early years, it was a thriving, well educated, wealthy, well run, cultured country before the Iranian war.
We were supporting and arming Saddam in that 7 year war, he was not our enemy until the invasion of Kuwaiit, which we won and he was vanquished, sanctions initiated.
Since we had good relations with Hussein previous to Kuwaiit, the idea that he concurrently 'hated us' and desired to see our total demise by nuclear or other means is a supposition, much believed in the US public with little evidence, a slight stretch of the imagination. While he might have been brutal, he was not stupid- and even if he may have desired it, it was not and would never be a possibility. The country was in ruin.
Certainly the Iraqi people had no such fantasies, nor was there adequate propaganda in that direction (as we see in Iran.) No flag burnings and death to america chants (that I ever saw).
What did happen was that americans were educated and repeatedly fed propaganda to hate Saddam and believe that because we defeated him he now wished our demise, and we as a public definately wished his. Although our government had been busy 'making him what he was' , 'he' was seen as the bad guy and there was little critical thinking on our parts about events leading up to the Kuwaiit invasion and our governments complicity with Saddam which we are more aware of now.
Reagan and Rumsfeld turned a blind eye to the gassing of Kurds in the 80's and to any use of chemical weapons used on Iranians, mostly because Saddam was useful then, these events only to be ressurected for much wash-rinse repeat for the current invasion of Iraq, hypocritical and too late to be a point worth contention with any honesty.
Given Iraqs history, it was almost a certainty that the country would explode into civil war upon an invasion. It was touted early on as a concern, but the Administration proclaimed a more hearts and flowers ideal.
I dont believe, and never did, that Iraqis are as gullible as US citizens when it comes to buying propaganda in the conquest, control and requisition of their very important resources and their country. They have been through it before and have won through long term rebellion.
So, to sumarise and answer the first AND second question, I think there were many other possibilities for both the US , Saddam and Iraq, other than full scale invasion.
After Kuwaiit, we could easily have worked with Saddam, we had for the last three decades and never cared about his 'evil'. We did it in Germany and Japan, we are doing it with Saudi Arabia who is as bad if not worse. Covert ops were also possible. But our government and oil companies are greedy and had a strong military at their disposal and Iraq had no great allies, money or military. Great time for an invasion, or so it was thought. Except the US never cared about Iraqis in the last 3 decades. They certainely didnt care when Iraqis were suffering under Saddam and we supported him. Why would they trust us now? Why not see this as an oil grab. Then of course we have the infamous, 'fight them there not to fight them here' and we got what we asked for.
The Admin. has shown itself way too idealist, something the world was very concerned about the entire time and most did not believe in a threat worth a fullscale war. Most predictions about the negative consequences of invasion have come true, and almost none of the predictions that were made by the Admin. have.
Before anyone talks of democracy and voting, yes the Iraqis vote now, big whoop. They live in a constant war zone.
It was basically an irresponsible, knee jerk, "have to do it now to take advantage of 911', badly researched, badly planned, badly equipped operation.
So, Yes, we could have done better with a few more years of Saddam and some thought and planning.
Well, Saddam certainly held a falsely created country and tribes together without civil war for decades, if by iron handed rule. Contrary to what many americans think, girls and women were educated, women were not separated nor veiled by law, people came from all over the Middle east for education under Saddam in the early years, it was a thriving, well educated, wealthy, well run, cultured country before the Iranian war.
We were supporting and arming Saddam in that 7 year war, he was not our enemy until the invasion of Kuwaiit, which we won and he was vanquished, sanctions initiated.
Since we had good relations with Hussein previous to Kuwaiit, the idea that he concurrently 'hated us' and desired to see our total demise by nuclear or other means is a supposition, much believed in the US public with little evidence, a slight stretch of the imagination. While he might have been brutal, he was not stupid- and even if he may have desired it, it was not and would never be a possibility. The country was in ruin.
Certainly the Iraqi people had no such fantasies, nor was there adequate propaganda in that direction (as we see in Iran.) No flag burnings and death to america chants (that I ever saw).
What did happen was that americans were educated and repeatedly fed propaganda to hate Saddam and believe that because we defeated him he now wished our demise, and we as a public definately wished his. Although our government had been busy 'making him what he was' , 'he' was seen as the bad guy and there was little critical thinking on our parts about events leading up to the Kuwaiit invasion and our governments complicity with Saddam which we are more aware of now.
Reagan and Rumsfeld turned a blind eye to the gassing of Kurds in the 80's and to any use of chemical weapons used on Iranians, mostly because Saddam was useful then, these events only to be ressurected for much wash-rinse repeat for the current invasion of Iraq, hypocritical and too late to be a point worth contention with any honesty.
Given Iraqs history, it was almost a certainty that the country would explode into civil war upon an invasion. It was touted early on as a concern, but the Administration proclaimed a more hearts and flowers ideal.
I dont believe, and never did, that Iraqis are as gullible as US citizens when it comes to buying propaganda in the conquest, control and requisition of their very important resources and their country. They have been through it before and have won through long term rebellion.
So, to sumarise and answer the first AND second question, I think there were many other possibilities for both the US , Saddam and Iraq, other than full scale invasion.
After Kuwaiit, we could easily have worked with Saddam, we had for the last three decades and never cared about his 'evil'. We did it in Germany and Japan, we are doing it with Saudi Arabia who is as bad if not worse. Covert ops were also possible. But our government and oil companies are greedy and had a strong military at their disposal and Iraq had no great allies, money or military. Great time for an invasion, or so it was thought. Except the US never cared about Iraqis in the last 3 decades. They certainely didnt care when Iraqis were suffering under Saddam and we supported him. Why would they trust us now? Why not see this as an oil grab. Then of course we have the infamous, 'fight them there not to fight them here' and we got what we asked for.
The Admin. has shown itself way too idealist, something the world was very concerned about the entire time and most did not believe in a threat worth a fullscale war. Most predictions about the negative consequences of invasion have come true, and almost none of the predictions that were made by the Admin. have.
Before anyone talks of democracy and voting, yes the Iraqis vote now, big whoop. They live in a constant war zone.
It was basically an irresponsible, knee jerk, "have to do it now to take advantage of 911', badly researched, badly planned, badly equipped operation.
So, Yes, we could have done better with a few more years of Saddam and some thought and planning.
QUOTE(Yogurt @ Mar 4 2006, 12:59 AM)
How dare we explain to them how they ought to feel. I guess they need more liberals in Iraq to demonstrate how to properly be miserable in the face of things like a a growing economy
I see, so these polls are the absolute reality and only a fool would argue them?
Out of curiosity Yogurt, why the double standard? I can show you a dozen polls all saying the exact same thing, that thanks to Bush Jr. the US economy is doing badly, that the majority of people think Bush's handling of the economy is poor, that his leadership is terrible...
Polls of the people of Iraq on the future of Iraq are solid gold and indesputible, but Polls of the people of the US on the future of the US are false and foolish?
Or is it just, polls that reflect your opinion are alwayr right while polls that oppose it are always wrong?
The reality is of course, that polls in Iraq, while a good sampling of the temperature on the ground, are not any good at predicting anything except the exact questions asked. Yes, the people are optimistic about the future, and for that I applaud them. Now if we can get the government of Iraq to actually govern and keep the peace (which they are incapable of doing so far) then maybe we might have something...
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 4 2006, 07:24 AM)
I see, so these polls are the absolute reality and only a fool would argue them?
No, I just think it's indicative of why we are viewed as arrogant by so many outside the US, that we would presume to know better than the Iraqis how they should feel.
QUOTE
Out of curiosity Yogurt, why the double standard? I can show you a dozen polls all saying the exact same thing, that thanks to Bush Jr. the US economy is doing badly, that the majority of people think Bush's handling of the economy is poor, that his leadership is terrible...
Due to my disagreement with him of several issues, if I were polled I would give him an unfavorable myself, but it's sure beats the alternative.
The present economy is a losing argument though. Have you seen the unemployment numbers or the markets lately? To belive the current economy is bad is either:
1) Sticking your head in the sand, or,
2) A reflection on the tone (spin) put on the good economic news that pours out by the mainstream media and the liberal talking heads.
QUOTE
Or is it just, polls that reflect your opinion are alwayr right while polls that oppose it are always wrong?
I'm guilty, I look for data that supports my argument while engaged in debate. No one else does?
QUOTE(Yogurt @ Mar 4 2006, 12:54 PM)
No, I just think it's indicative of why we are viewed as arrogant by so many outside the US, that we would presume to know better than the Iraqis how they should feel.
Possibly, though I think the invasion itself and the subsequent botched occupation might have more to do with that. Still, you make a fair point, but only if you can take these polls about how 'optimistic' Iraqis feel and apply that somehow to the reality of the situation. I'm sure a vast majority of Americans were 'optimistic' about the future in mid October 1929, that does not in any way reflect reality.
Now on the other hand, as you say we cnnot ignore it either, and it does give us a taste of the temperature on the ground. But it is not unreasonable to assume that a good part of this optimism has to do with the removal of Hussein, who was unquestionably a very bad man, rather than a frank appraisal of exactly what lies ahead.
I cannot speak with any expertise on what these polls mean, and I recognise their significance, but the reality remains that Iraq is essentially ungoverned, and if this state remains (and there is no obvious sign that it will not) then the country is destined for civil war.
QUOTE
The present economy is a losing argument though. Have you seen the unemployment numbers or the markets lately? To belive the current economy is bad is either:
1) Sticking your head in the sand, or,
2) A reflection on the tone (spin) put on the good economic news that pours out by the mainstream media and the liberal talking heads.
1) Sticking your head in the sand, or,
2) A reflection on the tone (spin) put on the good economic news that pours out by the mainstream media and the liberal talking heads.
Which good economic news exactly? The Economist, a tradiutionally centrist or right of centre publication, has written in detail about the disasterous effects the Bush presidency has had on the economy, as shown by the steady devaluing of the Dollar as an international currency, the enormous increase in foreign debt, and so on. Unemployment is down at the moment, but let us be clear, it is down from the incredibly high numbers it was at earlier in Bush Jr's presidency. Even now it is still higher than the average during the previous presidency. Furthermore, read departing comments by people like greenspan, much of the current 'strength' (such as it is) of the economy is based on the housing bubble which is due to burst.
This is getting quite off topic, but I say to you quite the opposite. Anyone who looks at the relative instability and weakness of the current US economy and says everything is fine is either:
1) Sticking your head in the sand, or,
2) A reflection on the tone (spin) put on economic news that pours out by the right-wing media talking heads and FOX news.
QUOTE
I'm guilty, I look for data that supports my argument while engaged in debate. No one else does?
No, indeed you are correct, everyone does that, but I would hope for a bit more internal consistency...
QUOTE(RedCedar @ Feb 28 2006, 09:34 AM)
Was Iraq and the US worse off with Saddam in power?
Would it have been better and easier to have just worked through Saddam to improve Iraq rather than the current resolution to recreate Iraq?
Would it have been better and easier to have just worked through Saddam to improve Iraq rather than the current resolution to recreate Iraq?
1.) This is a question of personal opinion and that is all I can really offer. I happen to feel that while it was not our duty or our "mission" to remove Hussein from power: what's done is done and to play on a Chinese proverb, to wish different of the past is to fail in the present. We can no longer guess at what might have been because we now have to start focusing on making sure that Iraq and the United States is better off now. Now that I have successfully skirted the issue: yes, I think we were far more worse off with than without him in power of Iraq.
2.) I think if he was given proper incentive and necessary materials and a rather straight-forward mandate with that power and material, he would have surprised the world with his leadership. I may have too much faith in people but I think that he actually cared about Iraq. Recreating Iraq is defiantly more of a pain in the neck than it would have been to have used Hussein for the right reasons.
QUOTE
Fma
Except that you did.
US did in the 80s embrace Iraq and supported Saddam. Here is a link:
Except that you did.
US did in the 80s embrace Iraq and supported Saddam. Here is a link:
Ya and your point is? Charles Manson may have been a nice little boy but when he started killing people we needed to deal with it.
To say that because we once “worked with" Saddam at some level prohibits us from changing that position based on his actions is ludicrous.
What we are talking about here (I believe) is dealing with Saddam in control of a country under 12 years of numerous unfulfilled UN Resolutions. A Saddam who we believed had WMD, used them to kill 5,000 men, women and children in Iraq and had invaded a neighbor.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 31 2006, 06:07 PM)
Ya and your point is? Charles Manson may have been a nice little boy but when he started killing people we needed to deal with it.
To say that because we once “worked with" Saddam at some level prohibits us from changing that position based on his actions is ludicrous.
What we are talking about here (I believe) is dealing with Saddam in control of a country under 12 years of numerous unfulfilled UN Resolutions. A Saddam who we believed had WMD, used them to kill 5,000 men, women and children in Iraq and had invaded a neighbor.
To say that because we once “worked with" Saddam at some level prohibits us from changing that position based on his actions is ludicrous.
What we are talking about here (I believe) is dealing with Saddam in control of a country under 12 years of numerous unfulfilled UN Resolutions. A Saddam who we believed had WMD, used them to kill 5,000 men, women and children in Iraq and had invaded a neighbor.
Charles Manson did not receive arms including WMDs from the United States Government for his brutal actions.
My point is that, US has been supporting dictators in the past and still continue to do so. It is very hypocritical and simply wrong for the US to try to pretend that they are fighting for democracy. It is simply ridiculous to claim that. The long list of people like Pinochet, Ngo Dinh Diem, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam clearly deny such a position.
The world has suffered a lot because of US support of shady people, organisations and governments.
It seems very intresting that the same United States, who knew very well who these people were, to make a 180 degrees turn and make them the "enemy".
QUOTE
A Saddam who we believed had WMD
WMDs you gave him to him. You knew he had them because you had the receipts.
QUOTE(Ted)
What we are talking about here (I believe) is dealing with Saddam in control of a country under 12 years of numerous unfulfilled UN Resolutions. A Saddam who we believed had WMD, used them to kill 5,000 men, women and children in Iraq and had invaded a neighbor.
Hmmm, your description reminds me of another country, as well. Let's see, 30 odd years of unfulfilled UN resolutions, check. Confirmed WMD, check. Has warred with neighbors numerous times, check. Has had a leader suspected of war crimes, check. Has killed more than 5,000 people living inside its dubious borders, check. Are you saying, Ted, that Israel would be better off if we were to invade?
Look, I don't think anyone is going to argue that Hussein was anything other than a thug. Most leaders are, including our own. But anyone who thinks we invaded and conquered Iraq in order to either "liberate" the Iraqi people, or to get rid of a "horrible despot" is living in a fantasy land where stated and surface proclamations about foreign policy are taken as absolute.
Our history of foreign entanglements has us sometimes removing leaders, and sometimes installing them. Our specific policy goals in the Middle East dictated that this time around, it was removal.
Would Iraq be better off under Hussein? It's a misleading question. Life for the many Iraqis was certainly better before being 'shocked and awed' into little chunks of flesh and blood smeared across the roads. I think the answer depends on who you ask. Ask someone whose family has been 'mistakenly' shot full of lead at a checkpoint. As someone who's husband was taken to Abu Grahib and tortured by Americans. Ask an Iraqi living in exile, who's family was persecuted by Hussein back in the day, a different answer.
It's not that life would be better under Hussein, it's that life would be better without war. Iraq under Hussein was safer for the average Iraqi than it is now. But that doesn't mean that Hussein wasn't a horrible leader - he was.
We have a horrible leader here, but life would be much worse if the CHinese army were here liberating us from him.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Mar 31 2006, 11:44 AM)
Hmmm, your description reminds me of another country, as well. Let's see, 30 odd years of unfulfilled UN resolutions, check. Confirmed WMD, check. Has warred with neighbors numerous times, check. Has had a leader suspected of war crimes, check. Has killed more than 5,000 people living inside its dubious borders, check. Are you saying, Ted, that Israel would be better off if we were to invade?
Except for one minor issue the UN resolutions against Israel were either from the General Assembly which is equal to a city council resolution declaring 'have a nice day' or under Chapter VI which has no provision for punitive actions, whereas all of the resolutions against Iraq were under Chapter VII which does have punitive actions.
Confirmed WMD, check - Not so check, if fact no proof has ever been provided.
Has warred with neighbors numerous times, check. - You mean attacked numerous times. There is a slight difference. But by all means lets hold that against them.
Has had a leader suspected of war crimes, check. PM Olmert is not suspected of any war crimes. But then again former PM Sharon's supposed war crimes were committed by Lebanese, not Israelis. Again such a minor issue.
Has killed more than 5,000 people living inside its dubious borders, check. - Borders declared by the UN Charter. And how many of it's citizens where murdered by those people? Again a small point.
Seems that your point is nonsense, nor it the UK capable of invading anybody. Again just a minor matter.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Mar 31 2006, 09:41 AM)
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Mar 31 2006, 11:44 AM)
Hmmm, your description reminds me of another country, as well. Let's see, 30 odd years of unfulfilled UN resolutions, check. Confirmed WMD, check. Has warred with neighbors numerous times, check. Has had a leader suspected of war crimes, check. Has killed more than 5,000 people living inside its dubious borders, check. Are you saying, Ted, that Israel would be better off if we were to invade?
Except for one minor issue the UN resolutions against Israel were either from the General Assembly which is equal to a city council resolution declaring 'have a nice day' or under Chapter VI which has no provision for punitive actions, whereas all of the resolutions against Iraq were under Chapter VII which does have punitive actions.
Well, it's not my intent to sidetrack this debate into arguing about Israel. I was merely making a point. We have a history of sleeping with nasty characters when it comes to foreign policy. Ted's list of criteria, given our foreign policy historically, is no reason at all for invasion and deposing Hussein.
QUOTE
Confirmed WMD, check - Not so check, if fact no proof has ever been provided.
Yes, well, Israel's nuclear weapons are the world's worst kept secret. They have never admitted they have them, but it's fairly common knowledge. Here is a brief history of their program.
QUOTE
Has warred with neighbors numerous times, check. - You mean attacked numerous times. There is a slight difference. But by all means lets hold that against them.
You'll notice I said 'warred.' I never said Israel started anything. And I don't hold it against them. I was making a point to Ted, because his list about Iraq is as flimsy as toilet paper, and I could construct similar lists about any number of nations we deem to be 'friendly.'
QUOTE
Has had a leader suspected of war crimes, check. PM Olmert is not suspected of any war crimes. But then again former PM Sharon's supposed war crimes were committed by Lebanese, not Israelis. Again such a minor issue.
Yes, I was referring to Sharon. And here you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of. There is as much proof that the Lebanese commited those crimes, as there is that the Iranians commited the war crimes Huseein is accused of. Hussein is suspected of war crimes. So is Sharon. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.
QUOTE
Has killed more than 5,000 people living inside its dubious borders, check. - Borders declared by the UN Charter. And how many of it's citizens where murdered by those people? Again a small point.
Look a little closer at two maps. One, of the Israeli border chartered by the UN. One, of Israel today. You see, they are not the same. But I can pick others if you don't like my example. Turkey is a 'friend,' they have killed (by some estimates) 40,000 Kurds inside their borders. Under Suharto, Indonesia killed over 100,000 of its own citizens in East Timor - again, a friend. The point I was making was that the criteria Ted brings here are not, even taken in totality, alone a case for war - given our history.
QUOTE
Seems that your point is nonsense, nor it the UK capable of invading anybody. Again just a minor matter.
Speaking of nonsense, I have no idea what you are saying here. Whether you meant to say the UK or the UN, I don't see how it has anything to do with my post...
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Mar 31 2006, 07:41 PM)
Confirmed WMD, check - Not so check, if fact no proof has ever been provided.
You seem to be ignorant of Mordechai Vanunu and the information he gave to the British press in the 80s.
QUOTE
Mordechai Vanunu, also known by his baptismal name John Crossman, is an Israeli former nuclear technician who revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986. He was subsequently lured to Rome by an Israeli Mossad agent, abducted and smuggled to Israel, where he was tried behind closed doors and convicted of treason.
After 18 years in prison, more than 11 years of which were served in solitary confinement, Vanunu was released from prison in 2004, subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement. Since then he has been briefly arrested several times for multiple violations of those restrictions, including giving various interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel.
After 18 years in prison, more than 11 years of which were served in solitary confinement, Vanunu was released from prison in 2004, subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement. Since then he has been briefly arrested several times for multiple violations of those restrictions, including giving various interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel.
( Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu )
Israel has nukes, period.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Mar 31 2006, 07:41 PM)
Has warred with neighbors numerous times, check. - You mean attacked numerous times.
Israel has been founded on land that formerly belonged to someone else. It has violated the borders agreed by the UN and has become larger through the use of arms.
This debate is not about Israel or whether or not it has a nuclear program. If you wish to discuss that subject, please start a separate debate.
The questions in this debate are:
Was Iraq and the US worse off with Saddam in power?
Would it have been better and easier to have just worked through Saddam to improve Iraq rather than the current resolution to recreate Iraq?
The questions in this debate are:
Was Iraq and the US worse off with Saddam in power?
Would it have been better and easier to have just worked through Saddam to improve Iraq rather than the current resolution to recreate Iraq?
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 31 2006, 11:07 AM)
Charles Manson may have been a nice little boy but when he started killing people we needed to deal with it.
This is a very poor analogy. Although Charles Manson was convicted for murders others under his spell committed, he never murdered anyone.
We USED Saddam Hussein until his actions no longer pleased us.
QUOTE
Bof
This is a very poor analogy. Although Charles Manson was convicted for murders others under his spell committed, he never murdered anyone.
We USED Saddam Hussein until his actions no longer pleased us.
This is a very poor analogy. Although Charles Manson was convicted for murders others under his spell committed, he never murdered anyone.
We USED Saddam Hussein until his actions no longer pleased us.
And he used us as well. It is a 2 way street. Pick another person like Manson the analogy stands. He was an “ally” at some level at some point but that does not mean we can never condemn or deal with his future action especially if they are a C&PD to our economic or strategic interests. The idea that because we worked with him at one time means we can never change that stance based on current actions (like invading Kuwait) is ludicrous.
He was bad for the US the region and his people. All were worse off with him in power.
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Mar 3 2006, 05:15 PM)
Until 1971, Iraq's oil profits, $2.97 per each $3 barrel of oil taken, went to the West, meaning the US and Britain. Come 1972, and Sadaam Hussein peaceably nationalized his country's Iraqi Oil Company, reversing things so Iraq would keep $2.97 rather than give it to the Western oil companies dirt cheap. Sadaam Hussein made it so that all of Iraq’s (recovered) oil wealth be invested in irrigation, infrastructure, education, medicine, defense etc.... Within the decade Iraq became possibly the most advanced Muslim country in the world, with large numbers of women in the professions, and a free health service that could only be marveled at by the 'have not' nations. Think about it folks. Sadaam Hussein was so secure and certain in his power (iin the 70's anyways) he could and often did, do his stroll through the streets of Baghdad. And consider this: Iraqi society is not like ours. We know about Iraqi wedding parties being blown to heck by US forces because of the Iraqi tradition in the form of shooting rigles into the air. There is footage of Hussein in the streets of Baghdad and an old woman shoots her AK into the air as he passed. Hussein did not duck or jump or hide or have a corps of bodyguards to shelter him and kill his 'attacker'. No. Hussein just turned his head to smile and wave to the woman. What would Bush's procedure be if someone shot a gun in the air in celebration of his joy in seeing Bush in person? The guy would be in Gitmo before he hit the ground.
Hussein was and is a national hero to his people. He's the one who enriched their lives with solid infrastructure with money which would have been destined for Western bank accounts.
An interesting footnote in the Hussein gassing the Kurds story is not well known to us in the West, although it ought to be. The US Army War College used dead Halabjan photographs to prove that the gassing of the Jurds was in fact an Iranian attack, not Iraq. The rules here regarding photos prevent me from posting them, but taken at face value, why would the US Army War College teach people something like that? Americans all say Hussein gassed the Kurds at Halabja. The US army college says Iran did it. Who's correct?
Hussein was and is a national hero to his people. He's the one who enriched their lives with solid infrastructure with money which would have been destined for Western bank accounts.
An interesting footnote in the Hussein gassing the Kurds story is not well known to us in the West, although it ought to be. The US Army War College used dead Halabjan photographs to prove that the gassing of the Jurds was in fact an Iranian attack, not Iraq. The rules here regarding photos prevent me from posting them, but taken at face value, why would the US Army War College teach people something like that? Americans all say Hussein gassed the Kurds at Halabja. The US army college says Iran did it. Who's correct?
In response to the writer who called Sadam Hussein a "hero to his people". Perhaps to the Sunni people, he may have been, or more specifically to his family and Baathist buddies, otherwise he was a despised and corrupt and incompetent leader. He built a few schools and roads and hospitals, true, to keep some favor among his groupies. The southern portion of Iraq, Basra and its adjacent regions, were like Third World countries. Now, since America has popped the pimple that was Hussein, these SHIITE areas are getting some of the largesse that was denied to them under the tyrant Sadam. No longer do Shiites have to fear secret police and torture chambers, they have utilities and schools and other basic needs that Sadam denied them. Why do you think this emnity exists between Sunni and Shiite? Sadam exploited the SHiites in the worst way. Sadam got what was coming to him. His supporters are fighting a last ditch effort to maintain their faltering power, but their days of oppression and evil are short lived thanks to our President and his decisions.
QUOTE(JeepMan @ Apr 16 2006, 01:54 PM)
In response to the writer who called Sadam Hussein a "hero to his people". Perhaps to the Sunni people, he may have been, or more specifically to his family and Baathist buddies, otherwise he was a despised and corrupt and incompetent leader. He built a few schools and roads and hospitals, true, to keep some favor among his groupies. The southern portion of Iraq, Basra and its adjacent regions, were like Third World countries. Now, since America has popped the pimple that was Hussein, these SHIITE areas are getting some of the largesse that was denied to them under the tyrant Sadam. No longer do Shiites have to fear secret police and torture chambers, they have utilities and schools and other basic needs that Sadam denied them. Why do you think this emnity exists between Sunni and Shiite? Sadam exploited the SHiites in the worst way. Sadam got what was coming to him. His supporters are fighting a last ditch effort to maintain their faltering power, but their days of oppression and evil are short lived thanks to our President and his decisions.
From the Washington Post:
QUOTE
Assassinations carried out by Shiite gunmen against Sunnis accounted for about four times as many deaths in Iraq last month as did bombings and other attacks by Sunni militias, Pentagon figures show.
So let's check the facts before feeling sorry for those poor Shiites, opressed by Sunnis.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Apr 16 2006, 04:37 PM)
QUOTE(JeepMan @ Apr 16 2006, 01:54 PM)
In response to the writer who called Sadam Hussein a "hero to his people". Perhaps to the Sunni people, he may have been, or more specifically to his family and Baathist buddies, otherwise he was a despised and corrupt and incompetent leader. He built a few schools and roads and hospitals, true, to keep some favor among his groupies. The southern portion of Iraq, Basra and its adjacent regions, were like Third World countries. Now, since America has popped the pimple that was Hussein, these SHIITE areas are getting some of the largesse that was denied to them under the tyrant Sadam. No longer do Shiites have to fear secret police and torture chambers, they have utilities and schools and other basic needs that Sadam denied them. Why do you think this emnity exists between Sunni and Shiite? Sadam exploited the SHiites in the worst way. Sadam got what was coming to him. His supporters are fighting a last ditch effort to maintain their faltering power, but their days of oppression and evil are short lived thanks to our President and his decisions.
From the Washington Post:
QUOTE
Assassinations carried out by Shiite gunmen against Sunnis accounted for about four times as many deaths in Iraq last month as did bombings and other attacks by Sunni militias, Pentagon figures show.
So let's check the facts before feeling sorry for those poor Shiites, opressed by Sunnis.
Um - where do his facts contradict what you posted?
He is correct - the Shia under Saddam were treated as little more then roaches. If you weren't Sunni you were no better then dirt.
It's been extensively documented that Saddam treated the non-Sunni groups of Iraq with an iron fist. From mass disappearances (aka executions), to rape rooms, to destroying the habitat of a certain group (such as what happened to the Marsh Arabs), etc.
To paint the Sunnis as if they've no hand in the violence there (when the vast majority of the violence within the country is instigated by the Sunnis) is plain wrong. Whether justified or not - the Sunnis are feeling abit of the oppression they gladly heaped upon the Shia for the last three decades.
As Moif pointed out - the attempt to paint Saddam as some sort of benevolent dictator who wasn't as bad as people make him out to be by you, Truthmarch, FMA, DR, and others is fallacious at best.
Hopefully they televise Saddam's execution over here in the states - hell, I'll even pay for PPV to see it.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.