Iraq After Saddam?

Suff

Whats your view on Iraq After Saddam's Death?

oscarBravo

What's yours?

RedPlanet

Split the nay sayers by offering 2 choices: "Civil War" and "Another Vietnam" huh?

Suff

I would say a nother bloody Vietnam mixed with a civil war

sovtek

Honestly it's both a civil war and another Vietnam well before Saddams execution. Saddam influence the past 3+ years has been next to nil.

redspider

I was away for a few weeks and so didnt have a chance to express any views on Saddam Hussein's execution. I'm surprised that there is no thread in this forum on the topic - was it deleted or was there a lack of interest?

Anyway, in brief, my thoughts on his trial and execution match those of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, more or less. The trial was not due process and his execution will more than likely inflame the current sectarian killing situation. Sunni's who followed him will see him as a martyr and even those Sunni's that despised him will also see it as an unfair execution of a sunni carroed out by Shia.

Also, executing him after investigating just one atrocity, and relatively much older and less than others, has sent much information to the grave and has not afforded the people's of Iraq any opportunity of recognition of their problems and reconciliation, ala South Africa.

Iraq has been a mess for a long-time now and which many of us saw coming alas, and there is no end is currently in sight. Sectarianism is rife and increasing and it can be classified as a civil war. The trial was a kangaroo court and should not have taken place in Iraq under its current chaotic state. It is not a fully working state, that is clear. The trial should have taken place in the International Court.

The US invaded Iraq to bring so-called democracy. That was an ill-concieved objective in the first place and has clearly failed, and even the US see that now.

Interesting to see that Blair is very very quiet on the topic, considering that other senior UK Government ministers have clearly laid out their abhorrence on Saddam's hanging. Blair's conscience must be playing havok with him now, although no doubt he is getting by by reading the bible and by being as jolly as only he can be in such diversity.

Of course it raises the question - if Saddam was hanged for being responsible for the deaths of 180 people in 1982 as a retribution for an assassination attempt on him (which by any other definition could be classified as terrorism) what should the punishment be for Bush and Blair, as even conservative estimates of the numbers dead in the Iraq conflict that they (and their regimes) have caused are 100's of thousands. Morally, it would seem that one is as bad as the other.

Redspider

sovtek

redspider wrote:

The US invaded Iraq to bring so-called democracy. That was an ill-concieved objective in the first place and has clearly failed, and even the US see that now.

No the US invaded because Saddam had WMD's that threatened the US.

Suff

sovtek wrote:

No the US invaded because Saddam had WMD's that threatened the US.

Apologies but the sarcasm isn't that clear for me,..... this is a joke,..Right!???

Suff

redspider wrote:

even those Sunni's that despised him will also see it as an unfair execution of a sunni carroed out by Shia.

Yes, me being one!

redspider wrote:

The trial should have taken place in the International Court.

No Chance! Some Western Goverments (USA, UK, France) would have not allow this to happen at the time, it would expose their deals with Saddam which resulted in the atrocities we all know now!

redspider wrote:

if Saddam was hanged for being responsible for the deaths of 180 people in 1982 as a retribution for an assassination attempt on him (which by any other definition could be classified as terrorism)

You know your details

redspider wrote:

what should the punishment be for Bush and Blair, as even conservative estimates of the numbers dead in the Iraq conflict that they (and their regimes) have caused are 100's of thousands. Morally, it would seem that one is as bad as the other.

I agree 100%

gandalf

Was this thread moved from another forum?

gandalf

Saddams Death is not going to change Iraq, what it may do is act as a catalyst for a Civil War, although imho opinion Civil War has already broken out.

Until the US and UK pull out this proxy Civil War will continue, when they eventually pull out a full scale Civil War will break out and I would expect Iraq or a large part of it to become a Shia theocracy backed by Iran. George W's worst nightmare.

Suff

gandalf wrote:

Until the US and UK pull out this proxy Civil War will continue, when they eventually pull out a full scale Civil War will break out and I would expect Iraq or a large part of it to become a Shia theocracy backed by Iran. George W's worst nightmare.

But do you think for them to pull out is the right thing to do? if they do the civil war will engulf the entire country and if they stay they increase the insurgents. yes I agree Iraq now is becoming more and more a Shia dominated state, hold on!?? isnt that what the West and the Arabian Gulf States fought aginst in the 70's, 80's ????
Iran is getting more powerful for America?

Jimoslimos

The whole thing seems a bit of a sham. IMO one of the biggest problems in Iraq today is that the people there have had no influence in happenings in their country for the last few years. When any country looks back on their history they tend to remember military victories and revolutions rather than the "first democratically elected government", the French revolution, independance day in US, easter rising, D-day for allied forces. What does Iraq have - dictator overthrown by foreign army, hastily arranged election with inept candidates cherry-picked by foreign governments and a dubious execution carried out more for revenge than justice (again with hints at more foreign influence. Hardly a recipe to make a future generation of Iraqis proud about this period in their countrys history.

Suff

Jimoslimos wrote:

The whole thing seems a bit of a sham. IMO one of the biggest problems in Iraq today is that the people there have had no influence in happenings in their country for the last few years. When any country looks back on their history they tend to remember military victories and revolutions rather than the "first democratically elected government", the French revolution, independance day in US, easter rising, D-day for allied forces. What does Iraq have - dictator overthrown by foreign army, hastily arranged election with inept candidates cherry-picked by foreign governments and a dubious execution carried out more for revenge than justice (again with hints at more foreign influence. Hardly a recipe to make a future generation of Iraqis proud about this period in their countrys history.

That can easily apply for the entire MiddleEast

gandalf

Suff wrote:

But do you think for them to pull out is the right thing to do?

Well invading in the first place was the wrong thing to do. I believe personally that if they withdraw tomorrow or in ten years the outcome is going to be the same, civil war.

if they do the civil war will engulf the entire country and if they stay they increase the insurgents.

Yep totally agree with this. As long as the Americans are there they will attract the foreign fighters who want to take a pop at them.

yes I agree Iraq now is becoming more and more a Shia dominated state, hold on!?? isnt that what the West and the Arabian Gulf States fought aginst in the 70's, 80's ????
Iran is getting more powerful for America?

Well so far the Americans have played into the Iranians hands. Even if they wanted to do anything militarily against them they are bogged down in Iraq (and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan).

Dr_Teeth

Civil war is the only scenario now. All the wealthy Iraqis have left, most of the middle class have either left or are trying to. These are the people who had the interest, skills and resources to build a country. That just leaves the poor, the unemployed and the religious nuts to kill each other until one side 'wins' (the Shia with Iran's help).

DadaKopf

Crappy poll. All of the above minus 'New Democratic Iraq'.

It's currently civil war, and civil war is the process by which Sunni and Shiah dominated regions will emerge. The US is still trying to impose a monopoly of force, based in Baghdad, but the solution is federal, and it seems likely that federal means a 'Balkanised' Iraq.

Interesting how the rhetoric has shifted towards 'securing Baghdad' and not 'Iraq' as if power is concentrated there, when it's actually spread across a number of centres. Given that political and ideological power is broadly in the hands of clerics now, and since Islam is a decentralised religion, it seem strategically impossible for the US and UK to impose order. And no matter how many Iraqi guards and police are employed to secure the country, they'll be perceived as outsiders and, hence, have no legitimacy to maintain the federal states' monopoly of force.

So... a Balkanised Iraq, following civil war, split between Sunni and Shia and Kurds, plagued by faction fighting, and presided over by a weak-to-non-existent central administration whose role is purely optical.

Jimoslimos

Suff wrote:

That can easily apply for the entire MiddleEast

Yes true, but my main point was that Iraqis are expected to feel pride at recent events which they have had no hand in. I know its not a very good analogy but do you see many Germans "celebrating" or having national pride at the defeat of Hitler and nazism?

redspider

redspider wrote:

The US invaded Iraq to bring so-called democracy. That was an ill-concieved objective in the first place and has clearly failed, and even the US see that now.

sovtek wrote:

No the US invaded because Saddam had WMD's that threatened the US.

I wasnt really clear or detailed enough in that part of my post.

I think that the US attacked Iraq/Saddam's regime for a number of reasons, some of which I think included (in 2003):

- to establish an Oil-rich US friendly state in the region
- to establish a 'beach head' in the Middle East
- to flex world superpower muscles and keep ME countries in line
- to influence stable Oil supply from the region
- to further US interests
- to avenge/finish the 1991 Iraq/Kuwait war
- to establish a country that would counteract Iran/Syria and other
countries in the region

Note that these were not publicly stated aims.

As we all know, and as many of us suspected at the time, the WMD threat was a false ruse which was used to 'fool' the US and UK powers and populaces, and unfortunately it worked. It did not fool the UN though or many other countries yet they did not do enough to prevent the invasion. The invasion was carried out illegally under internationally agreed laws as the US/UK did not get the UN resolution that was needed.

Later, as the WMD excuse was finally admitted to be false and baseless, as well as any linkages to Al-Qaeda, the excuse of the invasion being the 'right thing to do' anyway and that democracy would be brought in getting rid of the tyrant Saddam and his regime was used.

Overall, the US has bitten off more than it bargained for. Like many regimes in the past, releasing 'democratic principles' into a country like this is not easy and is fraught with dangers. The Iraq/Iran situation, the Sunni v Shia situation has as a result of the defeat of the Saddam regime been revealed, and both groupings have become active against each other on every level, even personal. There are examples of people that lived together under Saddam's regime now hating each other in a sectarian way.

Saddam ran a Sunni regime althought not overtly fundamental as Iran is with the Shia. That withstanding, the Sunni minority were able to 'rule over' the Shia majority. The Kurds were a '3rd class' grouping and there are probably also other divisions and groupings which others more informed than me will know about.

Iraq is now in a total mess, and many lives have been lost and many more have been maimed and injured and many will continue to be.

What a disaster .....

redspider

redspider

redspider wrote:

Interesting to see that Blair is very very quiet on the topic, considering that other senior UK Government ministers have clearly laid out their abhorrence on Saddam's hanging. Blair's conscience must be playing havok with him now, although no doubt he is getting by by reading the bible and by being as jolly as only he can be in such diversity.

So, Blair has eventually made a statement and said that what happened to Saddam was wrong. I guess even he realises that his hanging is clearly a Shia versus Sunni retribution and will be seen as such.

Yet, typical Blair-ism, he explains it off that even though it was wrong that Saddam also did many wrongs. He seems to justify his death as an "oh well, he had it coming to him". This is Tony doing his own personal psychology and which allows him to sleep at night. He used the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war as a war crime which Saddam perpetrated. Hold on a econd, wasnt this the war that was endorsed by the US and backed by them supporting Saddam, a proxy war against the 'evil' fundamentalist state of Iran an dthe Ayatollah. By such logic Tony, then the US president at the time should also be a war crime.

Blair's logic is false and he is delusional. The problem though is that he is in power and has got away with it so far and the likelihood is that he will get away with it.

The hand of history Tony, however, will judge you differently I think, and rather than touching you on the shoulder it will be battering you over the head as a misguided leader of your time.

redspider

LostinBlanch

redspider wrote:

So, Blair has eventually made a statement and said that what happened to Saddam was wrong. I guess even he realises that his hanging is clearly a Shia versus Sunni retribution and will be seen as such.

Well 102 Shias were hanged from lamposts in a Sunni area of Baghdad after he was executed. They were held as hostages to be killed in revenge for his execution.

redspider wrote:

The hand of history Tony, however, will judge you differently I think, and rather than touching you on the shoulder it will be battering you over the head as a misguided leader of your time.

redspider

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=27&si=1751544&issue_id=15084
DOWNING Street's decision to commit British troops to the ill-fated war in Iraq will be exposed to the gaze of one of Britain's finest satirists next week, as More 4 broadcasts 'The Trial of Tony Blair', written by Alastair Beaton.

The 90-minute drama is set in 2010, by which time Tony Blair is being arrested for alleged war crimes and sent to stand trial in The Hague. Its script mercilessly lampoons Mr Blair and his wife Cherie, as well as taking swipes at David Cameron, who is portrayed as hell-bent on capturing the vegetarian vote.

The production is likely to anger Mr Blair's supporters, and supporters of the Iraq war, who will see it as one-sided and liable to spread cynicism about politicians.

But executive producer David Aukin said: "It's a sign of a healthy democracy that our politicians are fair game to make fun of. It's a tradition that's hundreds of years old, and Britain is one of the few cultures in the world where it exists. You can't imagine the French would make an equivalent film about Chirac, or the Italians about Berlusconi. It's unlikely any US broadcaster would make a similar film about George Bush."

Mr Beaton has written a series of plays and books lampooning New Labour, including the television play 'A Very Social Secretary', about David Blunkett's affair with 'The Spectator' magazine publisher, Kimberly Quinn.

That play, also shown on More4, prompted a letter from Mr Blunkett's lawyers warning against any invasion of the privacy of the son born from his relationship with Mrs Quinn. (© Independent News Service)

Nick_oliveri

Wasn't Blair against executions in the first place? And when asked about this did not answer??

Now all of a sudden he says "the manner wasn't correct".
F*ckin spin doctors!

LostinBlanch wrote:

DOWNING Street's decision to commit British troops to the ill-fated war in Iraq will be exposed to the gaze of one of Britain's finest satirists next week, as More 4 broadcasts 'The Trial of Tony Blair', written by Alastair Beaton.

Cant wait for this tbh. Looks good.

redspider

LostinBlanch wrote:

DOWNING Street's decision to commit British troops to the ill-fated war in Iraq will be exposed to the gaze of one of Britain's finest satirists next week, as More 4 broadcasts 'The Trial of Tony Blair', written by Alastair Beaton.

The 90-minute drama is set in 2010, by which time Tony Blair is being arrested for alleged war crimes and sent to stand trial in The Hague. Its script mercilessly lampoons Mr Blair and his wife Cherie, as well as taking swipes at David Cameron, who is portrayed as hell-bent on capturing the vegetarian vote.

The problem with a satire is that it is a mere satire and thus fiction. I dont think Tony or his cronies have any worries about it, and in a way it detracts from the serious issues that should be put under scrutiny. The chances of a US or UK leader being tried for war crimes is slim and next to zero as no western country is likely to take up the case or endorse it.

I understand that under Belgian law any crime anywhere in the world can be taken to court with or without the accused in court. That would be an interesting but only an academic execise, and a costly one at that for whoever would take it.

Redspider