What exactly was wrong about overthrowing Saddam?

rjpf1980

Saddam was a violent psychopath who butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Why are people still hanging on about the supposed injustice of overthrowing him?

If he had not been overthrown in 2003 he and his sons would still be in power ruling the Iraqi people with brutal savagery.

100,000 people marched through the streets of Dublin in opposition to his overthrow.

It beggars belief that Bush and Blair are called war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and giving democracy to millions of Iraqis and fighting Islamic extremist savages who attempted to destroy that democracy.

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The only future the Middle East has is when the dictators are gone and the terrorists are defeated. We all know this. Why then was the Iraq War so wrong?

Please explain.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Saddam was a violent psychopath who butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Why are people still hanging on about the supposed injustice of overthrowing him?

If he had not been overthrown in 2003 he and his sons would still be in power ruling the Iraqi people with brutal savagery.

100,000 people marched through the streets of Dublin in opposition to his overthrow.

It beggars belief that Bush and Blair are called war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and giving democracy to millions of Iraqis and fighting Islamic extremist savages who attempted to destroy that democracy.

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The only future the Middle East has is when the dictators are gone and the terrorists are defeated. We all know this. Why then was the Iraq War so wrong?

Please explain.

Which movie was this?

c montgomery

It's how they handled the aftermath of the war which is the most reprehensible.
The legacy they left behind was IS, Iraq is as bad now as it was under Sadam so the question is was any of it worth it.

elefant

Saddam being out of power was cool.

Starting a huge, open-ended, destabilising conflict based on misleading evidence to achieve it wasn't.

Enzokk

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The plan to withdraw all the troops were in motion already by the time Obama came to office. The US people wanted their troops out of there and Bush started this process. You make it sound as if this was a policy of Obama when it was a policy of Bush.

The question is, why only Saddam Hussein? There are many other dictators that have killed many of their own citizens and pose no threat (as we know now, no WMD founds in Iraq) to the UK or US, why Iraq? Why not Zimbabwe?

The Bishop Basher

c montgomery wrote: »

The legacy they left behind was IS, Iraq is as bad now as it was under Sadam so the question is was any of it worth it.

Iraq is now far far worse then it was under Sadam.

Mickeroo

It violated the prime directive.

Timberrrrrrrr

Enzokk wrote: »

The plan to withdraw all the troops were in motion already by the time Obama came to office. The US people wanted their troops out of there and Bush started this process. You make it sound as if this was a policy of Obama when it was a policy of Bush.

The question is, why only Saddam Hussein? There are many other dictators that have killed many of their own citizens and pose no threat (as we know now, no WMD founds in Iraq) to the UK or US, why Iraq? Why not Zimbabwe?

Because Bush was a psycho who felt he had to finish what his Daddy started.

Billions pumped into construction projects that all went to foreign firms even though Iraq had one of the best construction industries in the world.

Oil, oil, oil and oil.

If they were worried about WMD''s they would be attacking North Korea (too scared of the Chinese to try that) and reigning in the Israelis.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Because everyone is racist and islamaphobic, it's their culture and everyone else needs to respect their right to do whatever they like, including murdering.


Seriously though, i think if there was no oil in Iraq, the US wouldn't have bothered

LeinsterDub

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

Bush signed the order to leave Obama had no choice to follow it. The biggest issue with the invasion for me was the hypocrisy of it all we need to liberate Iraq but not Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe. We need to protect civilian but not in Yugoslavia or the Congo

The usual thing about those who forget history being doomed to repeat it.

Saddam was installed as a hard man to bring "stability" to the area. The timing of his accession to power and the revolution in Iran weren't coincidental, nor was the war that started the following year. 20 years of soft genocide leads to a lot of different tensions and divisions within and without a country and that whole aspect seems to have been ignored by the West, once we get rid of him sure everything will be great. A country ruled by a dictator like that generally has a lot of tension waiting to be released so removing the pressure cap along with the army and every kind of "stabilising" influence is going to lead to blow-back.

But hey, what would I know?

Dr Crayfish

Lots lots of stuff. Read this...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report

FTA69

Because the war in Iraq had nothing to do with helping people or making the world a better place - if you honestly think the section of the American establishment which drove this war gave two f*cks about the average Iraqi you're codding yourself in the extreme. Let's just be very clear on one point, Saddam Hussein was America's ally for years. They supported and backed him to the hilt in his war against Iran and they provided him the components for his chemical weapons which he used to deadly affect against the Iranians and the Kurds. He had full US support.

Ten years after that the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz and all these other f*ckers had actually written of the need to remove Saddam Hussein to secure access to energy supplies and to dominate the region with a client state in their pocket. Soon after that Bush was elected and these people set out to realise that vision. In doing so they ramped up a huge propaganda offensive in which Blair lied that we'd all be attacked in London within 45 minutes by weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied that he was responsible for 9/11. All critical thought went out the window as substantial parts of the UK and the US rowed in behind "our boys."

Hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions injured and displaced and all for a war based on oil and geostrategic expansion. Shame on those who instigated that war and shame on the idiots who continue to support it based on narrow jingoism and ignorance.

FTA69

And another thing - the biggest US ally in the region after Israel is Saudi Arabia, a country which spends billions promoting radical Islam abroad to act as a vent for some of the nutters that originate there. Saudi Arabia has an abominable human rights record, is a theocratic and oppressive absolute monarchy and is currently up to its arse in a conflict in another neighbouring country (Yemen).

The fact these bastards are backed militarily and diplomatically without reservation shows you that any involvement in the Middle East is about realpolitik and nothing to do with altruism.

smash

Enzokk wrote: »

The question is, why only Saddam Hussein? There are many other dictators that have killed many of their own citizens and pose no threat (as we know now, no WMD founds in Iraq) to the UK or US, why Iraq? Why not Zimbabwe?

Because oil.

They invaded a country they didn't need to invade. They continued bombing said country, when there was no need to. They didn't put anything in place whatsoever in the gap left. And then it began to fester and fester and now we have ISIS.

So, there's that.

seamus

The one thing about is Iraq is that many people saw it and called it before the war even started. The report yesterday contains very little surprise for anyone who had their head screwed on around the time.

Before the war even started, before Bush and Blair even decided to go in, we knew;

- Saddam had no WMDs
- Saddam provided little or no support to Al-Queda, and certainly had nothing to do with 9/11
- The "45 minutes" claim in the UK report was nonsense
- Bush Jr had been seeking a way to get revenge against Saddam since Bush Jr. took up office`

And yet the two of them bulled on, produced nonsense after nonsense to support their position, which ultimately did nothing except kill a lot more people than Saddam ever did and sow the seeds for ISIS in the Middle East.

It became clear later on, that Bush had already promised big contracts to his buddies in construction and oil firms to "manage" the affairs in Iraq after the Americans and British invaded. And that Bush was getting heavy pressure from Saudi Arabia (who actually did finance 9/11) to give them more control over oil supplies in the region.

Ultimately Saddam was the lesser of the three evils at the time. His removal wasn't wrong, but the way it was achieved, was.

Timberrrrrrrr

timmyntc wrote: »

Saddam had begun selling oil in Euros instead of USD IIRC, which would seriously threaten the US' petrodollar, and the influence that comes with it.

Gaddafi was taken out for the same reason.

Balmed Out

FTA69 wrote: »

And another thing - the biggest US ally in the region after Israel is Saudi Arabia, a country which spends billions promoting radical Islam abroad to act as a vent for some of the nutters that originate there. Saudi Arabia has an abominable human rights record, is a theocratic and oppressive absolute monarchy and is currently up to its arse in a conflict in another neighbouring country (Yemen).

The fact these bastards are backed militarily and diplomatically without reservation shows you that any involvement in the Middle East is about realpolitik and nothing to do with altruism.

Ah good old Saudi Arabia. One would have to wonder what happens when the house of Saud falls. I get the feeling the USA wants it to fall and are happy for Prince Mohammed and his wahhabi nutcase friends to hasten it by their reckless actions in Yemen and at home. The big question is can anything remotely stable arise from it or would the world be better off with the horrible house of Saud.

Balmed Out

Balmed Out wrote: »

Ah good old Saudi Arabia. One would have to wonder what happens when the house of Saud falls. I get the feeling the USA wants it to fall and are happy for Prince Mohammed and his wahhabi nutcase friends to hasten it by their reckless actions in Yemen and at home. The big question is can anything remotely stable arise from it or would the world be better off with the horrible house of Saud.

I dunno, it's hard to see what'll happen for the US to switch horses over to Iran as their buddy in the region.

Agricola

FTA69 wrote: »

Because the war in Iraq had nothing to do with helping people or making the world a better place - if you honestly think the section of the American establishment which drove this war gave two f*cks about the average Iraqi you're codding yourself in the extreme. Let's just be very clear on one point, Saddam Hussein was America's ally for years. They supported and backed him to the hilt in his war against Iran and they provided him the components for his chemical weapons which he used to deadly affect against the Iranians and the Kurds. He had full US support.

Ten years after that the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz and all these other f*ckers had actually written of the need to remove Saddam Hussein to secure access to energy supplies and to dominate the region with a client state in their pocket. Soon after that Bush was elected and these people set out to realise that vision. In doing so they ramped up a huge propaganda offensive in which Blair lied that we'd all be attacked in London within 45 minutes by weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied that he was responsible for 9/11. All critical thought went out the window as substantial parts of the UK and the US rowed in behind "our boys."

Hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions injured and displaced and all for a war based on oil and geostrategic expansion. Shame on those who instigated that war and shame on the idiots who continue to support it based on narrow jingoism and ignorance.

FTA69 wrote: »

And another thing - the biggest US ally in the region after Israel is Saudi Arabia, a country which spends billions promoting radical Islam abroad to act as a vent for some of the nutters that originate there. Saudi Arabia has an abominable human rights record, is a theocratic and oppressive absolute monarchy and is currently up to its arse in a conflict in another neighbouring country (Yemen).

The fact these bastards are backed militarily and diplomatically without reservation shows you that any involvement in the Middle East is about realpolitik and nothing to do with altruism.

A more accurate and concise summation I have yet to read.
The very idea that the invasion was about "liberating" Iraqi's! It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. I suppose when you have a population goofy enough to keep Donald Trump in the presidential race this long, you can pretty much tell them anything.

The_Kew_Tour

Was in Iraq in 2007, and was more than surprised at how popular Saddam had become again, when they realised the barbaric destruction that USA and UK caused.

What for, I don't know, but if I ever see a Iraqi celebrate another USA army person death I actually would understand.

It's as barbaric as Nazi and Russians in WW2

The_Kew_Tour

FTA69 wrote: »

And another thing - the biggest US ally in the region after Israel is Saudi Arabia, a country which spends billions promoting radical Islam abroad to act as a vent for some of the nutters that originate there. Saudi Arabia has an abominable human rights record, is a theocratic and oppressive absolute monarchy and is currently up to its arse in a conflict in another neighbouring country (Yemen).

The fact these bastards are backed militarily and diplomatically without reservation shows you that any involvement in the Middle East is about realpolitik and nothing to do with altruism.

Your 2 posts were brilliant, fair play, well said

rjpf1980

c montgomery wrote: »

It's how they handled the aftermath of the war which is the most reprehensible.
The legacy they left behind was IS, Iraq is as bad now as it was under Sadam so the question is was any of it worth it.

You could make the same argument for intervening in Europe in WW2. The continent ended up partitioned with the Soviets ruling Eastern Europe for decades and the world tethering on the brink of nuclear war. Millions died to liberate Europe from Hitler only to replace one tyranny with another. Would a Cold War between Nazi Europe and America have been any different from a Cold War between the USSR and the US?

rjpf1980

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Was in Iraq in 2007, and was more than surprised at how popular Saddam had become again, when they realised the barbaric destruction that USA and UK caused.

What for, I don't know, but if I ever see a Iraqi celebrate another USA army person death I actually would understand.

It's as barbaric as Nazi and Russians in WW2

The destruction post Saddam was caused by Sunni v Shia. That damage was self inflicted by Iraqis killing each other.

Iraq Body Count clearly shows the overwhelming majority of post invasion casualties were causrd by Sunni and Shia forces not Western troops.

Most of the public are willfully ignorant of the facts and simply blame Bush and Blair. No need to use their brains. They just swallow a simplistic infantile narrative.

The_Kew_Tour

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The destruction post Saddam was caused by Sunni v Shia. That damage was self inflicted by Iraqis killing each other.

Iraq Body Count clearly shows the overwhelming majority of post invasion casualties were causrd by Sunni and Shia forces not Western troops.

Most of the public are willfully ignorant of the facts and simply blame Bush and Blair. No need to use their brains. They just swallow a simplistic infantile narrative.

I'm not talking about what happened after I'm talking about what USA and UK did. Full stop.

And you think that USA and UK had no hand in aftermath? Well sadly they did.

No point saying much more but how anyone can defend the actions of these 2 Army's is beyond. God bless America my ass

donegaLroad

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Saddam was a violent psychopath who butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Why are people still hanging on about the supposed injustice of overthrowing him?

If he had not been overthrown in 2003 he and his sons would still be in power ruling the Iraqi people with brutal savagery.

100,000 people marched through the streets of Dublin in opposition to his overthrow.

It beggars belief that Bush and Blair are called war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and giving democracy to millions of Iraqis and fighting Islamic extremist savages who attempted to destroy that democracy.

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The only future the Middle East has is when the dictators are gone and the terrorists are defeated. We all know this. Why then was the Iraq War so wrong?

Please explain.

In 2000, Saddam expressed his interest and intentions of dropping the American dollar in favour of the newly introduced Euro, for trading oil.

This would have meant contagion across the Opec countries, and wold have ultimately led to the demise of the US petro dollar.

The US then moved on Saddam in fear of this happening, but they did so under the false pretences of liberating the Iraqi people from this 'evil and brutal dictator' who was hiding weapons of mass destruction that he was going to use against the rest of the world etc.

They claimed that he was also training terrorists, and the Bush administration went as far as to say that there was Osama Bin Laden - al-Qaeda links with Iraq, in an attempt to justify further their invasion.


*this is also what happened with Gadhafi in Libya, as he had planned to drop the US dollar for a new currency he was creating called the Dinar.

rjpf1980

FTA69 wrote: »

Because the war in Iraq had nothing to do with helping people or making the world a better place - if you honestly think the section of the American establishment which drove this war gave two f*cks about the average Iraqi you're codding yourself in the extreme. Let's just be very clear on one point, Saddam Hussein was America's ally for years. They supported and backed him to the hilt in his war against Iran and they provided him the components for his chemical weapons which he used to deadly affect against the Iranians and the Kurds. He had full US support.

Ten years after that the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz and all these other f*ckers had actually written of the need to remove Saddam Hussein to secure access to energy supplies and to dominate the region with a client state in their pocket. Soon after that Bush was elected and these people set out to realise that vision. In doing so they ramped up a huge propaganda offensive in which Blair lied that we'd all be attacked in London within 45 minutes by weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied that he was responsible for 9/11. All critical thought went out the window as substantial parts of the UK and the US rowed in behind "our boys."

Hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions injured and displaced and all for a war based on oil and geostrategic expansion. Shame on those who instigated that war and shame on the idiots who continue to support it based on narrow jingoism and ignorance.

Was WW2 about democracy and the Holocaust of the Jews? The Americans and Russians were involved on an imperialistic carve up of the globe after the European powers ate each other alive in two world wars.

I'm still glad Hitler was gone and Western democracies survived. For Third World countries it made little difference because they were still ruled and are still ruled by colonial powers although now indirectly.

It was still worth it.

Who cares if the power elites had selfish motives for the Iraq War? Saddam is dead an gone and Iraq had a chance at developing into a proper democracy until the moron Obama withdrew the troops the greatest disaster since the American withdrawal from Vietnam.

weisses

rjpf1980 wrote: »

You could make the same argument for intervening in Europe in WW2. The continent ended up partitioned with the Soviets ruling Eastern Europe for decades and the world tethering on the brink of nuclear war. Millions died to liberate Europe from Hitler only to replace one tyranny with another. Would a Cold War between Nazi Europe and America have been any different from a Cold War between the USSR and the US?

What Tyranny did Europe endure after Hitler ?

weisses

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Was WW2 about democracy and the Holocaust of the Jews? The Americans and Russians were involved on an imperialistic carve up of the globe after the European powers ate each other alive in two world wars.

I'm still glad Hitler was gone and Western democracies survived. For Third World countries it made little difference because they were still ruled and are still ruled by colonial powers although now indirectly.

It was still worth it.

Who cares if the power elites had selfish motives for the Iraq War? Saddam is dead an gone and Iraq had a chance at developing into a proper democracy until the moron Obama withdrew the troops the greatest disaster since the American withdrawal from Vietnam.

Comparison between the two

Another country they stupidly invaded.

USA ...USA ...USA

Capt'n Midnight

Like Brexit there was no exit plan. Read Machiavelli on new princes to see why removing Saddam wasn't going to work.

Most Iraqi's are worse off than under Saddam. Things like electricity and sanitation , quality of life etc. Apart from those who are lining their pockets the only people to have benefited were the released political prisoners, and some of them have pointed out that things were worse now for everyone else.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

The public record of violent deaths following the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Documented civilian deaths from violence 160,412 – 179,327
Total violent deaths including combatants 251,000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

rjpf1980

donegaLroad wrote: »

In 2000, Saddam expressed his interest and intentions of dropping the American dollar in favour of the newly introduced Euro, for trading oil.

This would have meant contagion across the Opec countries, and wold have ultimately led to the demise of the US petro dollar.

The US then moved on Saddam in fear of this happening, but they did so under the false pretences of liberating the Iraqi people from this 'evil and brutal dictator' who was hiding weapons of mass destruction that he was going to use against the rest of the world etc.

They claimed that he was also training terrorists, and the Bush administration went as far as to say that there was Osama Bin Laden - al-Qaeda links with Iraq, in an attempt to justify further their invasion.


*this is also what happened with Gadhafi in Libya, as he had planned to drop the US dollar for a new currency he was creating called the Dinar.

The top ISIS commanders are ex Saddam commanders. Look it up. The links between Saddam and jihadis are well documented. Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted and was using the corrupt oil for food program to bribe UN officials like Kofi Anan.

David Kelly who said the dodgy dossier was sexed up nonetheless supported the Iraq War because he discovered Saddam was ready to restart his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted.

Saddamd's brutal human right abuses on their own more than justified overthrowing him.

Do I care if the power elites got their finger out and got rid of Saddam for selfish reasons? Not a bit.

Iraq is better off without Saddam and once IS are rolled up - the Iraqis are fighting back now against IS - the future will be better.

Before things get better you make boo boos along the way.

sunny2004

I am no expert on the situation, guess that applies to everyone else here.

My take on this situation is simple, Blair I actually believed did what he thought was right based on the information he was given. Did he make mistakes ? hell yes, but I am not sure anyone could have predicted the outcome.

As for how the aftermath was dealt with, again, they were trying to deal with an unfolding situation that was out of control. We have a culture of blaming people in hindsight, for me, I don't consider Blair an evil person.. misguided by the information he was given, maybe, but not an evil person.

Hindsight is amazing, it allows the general public to act like they know all the answers.

weisses

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Before things get better you make boo boos along the way.

655000 innocent boo boos to be exact

Chuchote

Saddam was a beast, as are and were many brutal dictators. But America's invasion was nothing to do with that; it was to take revenge for 9/11 - a crazy revenge, since the people involved in 9/11 were not Iraqi but Saudi.
Both invasions of Iraq were times of hideous cruelty. In the first one (George Bush), for instance, Iraqi soldiers fleeing in terror were smothered by earth movers burying them in sand while escaping vehicles were bombed; those who left their vehicles were machine-gunned as they ran.

In the second (George W Bush) the Iraqi casualties were uncountable, and the country's infrastructure was utterly destroyed.

Neither was a 'just war' - a pretty stupid concept in itself, but even within the ideals of that concept, neither qualified. These were wars for capitalist profit, and those who suffered were the ordinary Iraqis who had been oppressed by Saddam and his cronies, and the working-class American soldiers who were killed.

Such a war was bound to have the effect on its perpetrators of standing on a rake, and sure enough it came back up and bloodied the nose of its founders and fomentors - or rather, of the ordinary people of the West, now suffering the ill-placed anger of its victims.

Mr Freeze

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Saddam was a violent psychopath who butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Did he? or was that just what we were led to believe.

The Halabja chemical attack had around 10,000 victims and that was his worst war crime wasn't it?

Dunno where the "hundreds of thousands of his own people" came from, well we do, The states and UK probably say it. Saddam certainly had to go but the idea that he was butchering his own people for no reason until the US/UK came in to save them is absurd. They came from the oil and killed more than Saddam ever did or would have if he was still there.

donegaLroad

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The top ISIS commanders are ex Saddam commanders. Look it up. The links between Saddam and jihadis are well documented. Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted and was using the corrupt oil for food program to bribe UN officials like Kofi Anan.

David Kelly who said the dodgy dossier was sexed up nonetheless supported the Iraq War because he discovered Saddam was ready to restart his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted.

Saddamd's brutal human right abuses on their own more than justified overthrowing him.

Do I care if the power elites got their finger out and got rid of Saddam for selfish reasons? Not a bit.

Iraq is better off without Saddam and once IS are rolled up - the Iraqis are fighting back now against IS - the future will be better.

Before things get better you make boo boos along the way.

Anyone threatening US petrodollar is public enemy No.1

Amalgam

A war wholly driven by 'political intelligence'.

I remember Paul Bremer compiled an impressive slab sized report, outlining religious tensions and social issues surrounding the US's presence in Iraq.

I can't remember if it was Bush himself, or one of his advisors, took great pleasure in telling people that they had tipped their copy into a wastepaper basket the minute they had recieved it. As if that was something to be proud of.

The US military were behind the report too, they knew things were going to kick off, but no one wanted to listen.

lertsnim

weisses wrote: »

What Tyranny did Europe endure after Hitler ?

Quite a lot of Europe had to endure Stalin.

Junkyard Tom

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Do I care if the power elites got their finger out and got rid of Saddam for selfish reasons? Not a bit.

Iraq is better off without Saddam and once IS are rolled up - the Iraqis are fighting back now against IS - the future will be better.

Before things get better you make boo boos along the way.

Tough talk from the safety of your keyboard. Why don't you get your boots on and head out there?

Chuchote

Boo boos? Millions of dead?

weisses

lertsnim wrote: »

Quite a lot of Europe had to endure Stalin.

Luckily not all aye

jmayo

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Saddam was a violent psychopath who butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Yes and do you also know he was supported by the US and Britain.
For instance do you know that the US supplied him with reconnaissance photos during Iran/Iraq war.
Of course Saddam was always suspicious and rightly so.
After all hadn't old Ollie North, using Irish passport, being doing deals with Iran.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Why are people still hanging on about the supposed injustice of overthrowing him?

If he had not been overthrown in 2003 he and his sons would still be in power ruling the Iraqi people with brutal savagery.

100,000 people marched through the streets of Dublin in opposition to his overthrow.

It beggars belief that Bush and Blair are called war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and giving democracy to millions of Iraqis and fighting Islamic extremist savages who attempted to destroy that democracy.

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The only future the Middle East has is when the dictators are gone and the terrorists are defeated. We all know this. Why then was the Iraq War so wrong?

Please explain.

Stop drinking the Republican/Fox News koolaid.

If the US were so interested in democracy then why not invade some other country run by despot ?
Why not invade when Saddam actually gassed the Kurds or why did they leave him butcher the Shias in Southern Iraq after he had been kicked out of Kuwait.
After all they were still massed just across the border in Kuwait and Saudi.

And if the US were so interested in helping Iraq why disband all organs of state and just rush to protect the oil ministry.
They needed the army to remain in place to ensure stability, instead they just broke it up.

It was done on lies and they had absolutely no idea on what to do once he was removed bar give their cronies in Haliburton lucrative contracts.

I actually don't know why I am answering your infantile reasoning.

FTA69 summed it up perfectly.

The fact that you actually believe the US and Britain brought democracy and stability is laughable.
And even worse that that is the reason they invaded in the first place.

BTW there were no problems with Islamic extremist in Iraq pre-invasion because Saddam either imprisoned or executed them.
The US created them.

Likewise with Libya and Syria.
What you and the likes of Bush and Blair fail to understand is that removing these dictators lets the genie out of the bottle.
The inter tribal hatreds and inter religious (even between different sects in islam) hatred boil over.
All the pent up hatred is released and you get one side seeking revenge for the past.

Also when the fook are people in the West going to cop on that our version of democracy and islam, devout islam especially, are incompatible bedfellows.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Was WW2 about democracy and the Holocaust of the Jews? The Americans and Russians were involved on an imperialistic carve up of the globe after the European powers ate each other alive in two world wars.

I'm still glad Hitler was gone and Western democracies survived. For Third World countries it made little difference because they were still ruled and are still ruled by colonial powers although now indirectly.

It was still worth it.

Who cares if the power elites had selfish motives for the Iraq War? Saddam is dead an gone and Iraq had a chance at developing into a proper democracy until the moron Obama withdrew the troops the greatest disaster since the American withdrawal from Vietnam.

Do you have a clue ?

Ehh Hitler invaded countless countries including USSR.
That is why they fought.
And yes some of the countries invaded by Hitler were democracies, others were not.
Japan directly attacked the US so that is why they ended up in the war, although they were involved indirectly long before that.

You can't compare Hitler to Saddam, unless you want to just take to the level of "they were both evil and bad." :rolleyes:

I won't even bother getting dragged into a discussion on South East Asia, although it is yet another example of the US foreign policy not having a clue about people they are fighting.
The US foreign policy broke down to level of "shure aren't they all slanted eyes commies" rather than they are Khmers, Lao, Vietnamese and Chinese and they often don't agree or like each other.
Similar in Iraq where they just label them "Iraqi" rather than see the differences between Arab, Kurd, Shia, Sunni, Christian, Yazidis, etc.

timmyntc

donegaLroad wrote: »

Anyone threatening US petrodollar is public enemy No.1

Expect terrible things to happen to all BRICS member states.

smash

donegaLroad wrote: »

*this is also what happened with Gadhafi in Libya, as he had planned to drop the US dollar for a new currency he was creating called the Dinar.

Even though it does sound like conspiracy theory stuff, there's some fascinating videos and articles about this. Here's a quote:

According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.

And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world.

seamus

smash wrote: »

Even though it does sound like conspiracy theory stuff, there's some fascinating videos and articles about this. Here's a quote:

It sounds likely in Gaddafi's case. Despite being a complete cvnt and a despot, he had in his later years come to realise that clashing with the west was keeping his country in the doldrums. He had extended many olive branches to repair relations (such as apologising for Lockerbie) and start developing Libya into becoming a modern and prosperous country.

An unstable Middle East though is profitable, so private and public organisations were happy to support the Arab Spring and put the brakes on Gaddafi's plans.

Irish Praetorian

smash wrote: »

Even though it does sound like conspiracy theory stuff, there's some fascinating videos and articles about this. Here's a quote:

Probably because it is, you can check my posting history for a debunk of some of this stuff. The TLDR is a country of 6 million with the oil reserves of Nigeria and the gold reserves of Thailand, is not magically going to cause some great revolution in world economics.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The top ISIS commanders are ex Saddam commanders. Look it up. The links between Saddam and jihadis are well documented. Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted and was using the corrupt oil for food program to bribe UN officials like Kofi Anan.

Bullsh/t

David Kelly who said the dodgy dossier was sexed up nonetheless supported the Iraq War because he discovered Saddam was ready to restart his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted.

More bullsh/t

Saddamd's brutal human right abuses on their own more than justified overthrowing him.

So why haven't the Saudis or the North Koreans been liberated? China has a shocking human rights issue why have the good guys nto gone in there? Many am African nation could do with some good ole American freedoms, why are the planes not carpet bombing there?

Do I care if the power elites got their finger out and got rid of Saddam for selfish reasons? Not a bit.

Really? :rolleyes:

Iraq is better off without Saddam and once IS are rolled up - the Iraqis are fighting back now against IS - the future will be better.

Before things get better you make boo boos along the way.

Tell that to the 250 killed and many hundreds injured last week, tell it to the hundreds of thousands who have lost family members due to coalition bombings. American/British helped create IS simply by invading a country and ousting a leader that didn't need ousting that way.

If you honestly believe that this was not about oil and the US petrodollar then you are either extremely naive or extremely deluded.

Irish Halo

lertsnim wrote: »

Quite a lot of Europe had to endure Stalin.

Off Topic:

Don't forget Franco and Salazar in Spain and Portugal.

If Germany had been happy with Austria and the Sudetenland Germany would have stayed a dictatorship just like Spain and Portugal until something broke internally.

Now that would have been an "interesting" three-sided Cold War.

donegaLroad

I love Gerard Celente's remark in this.... :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

ArtSmart

This is a fun read. By 'fun' I mean tragic. It's an excerpt from a book on the west's relationship with Iraq. This bit is Bush snr's decision re Saddam.



"But the Bush administration didn't just turn its back; it actually aided Saddam to suppress the Intifada.

The Uprising Smashed

When Saddam's brutal counter-attack against the rebellions began, the order was given to American troops already deep inside Iraq and armed to the teeth not to assist the rebellion in any way -- though everyone knew that they were condemning the Intifada to an awful defeat. Thanks to their high-flying reconnaissance planes, U.S. commanders would observe the brutal process as it occurred.

At the time, Rocky Gonzalez was a Special Forces warrant officer serving with U.S. troops in southern Iraq. Because he spoke Arabic, he was detached to serve with the Third Brigade of the 101st Infantry when the ground war began. There were about 140 men in his unit, which was stationed at Al Khadir on the Euphrates, just a few kilometers from Kerbala and Najaf.

Rocky was one of the few Americans who could actually communicate with the Iraqis. When the Intifada erupted, the Americans prompted the rebels to raid the local prison in Kerbala and free the Kuwaitis who were being held there. "We didn't think there was going to be a lot of bloodshed," said Gonzalez, "but they executed the guards in the prison." Prior to the uprising, the rebels had also been feeding intelligence to the Americans on what Saddam's local supporters were up to.

From their base, Rocky and his units watched as Saddam's forces launched their counterattack against the rebel-held city. Thousands of people fled toward the American lines, said Gonzalez. "All of a sudden, as far as the eye could see on Highway Five, there was just a long line of vehicles, dump trucks, tractors -- any vehicle they could get -- coming to us in streams."

"The rebels wanted aid, they wanted medical treatment, and some of the individuals wanted us to give them weapons and ammunition so they could go and fight. One of the refugees was waving a leaflet that had been dropped by U.S. planes over Iraq. Those leaflets told them to rise up against the regime and free themselves."

"They weren't asking us to fight. They felt they could do that themselves. Basically they were just saying 'we rose up like you asked us, now give us some weapons and arms to fight.'"

The American forces had huge stocks of weapons they had captured from the Iraqis. But they were ordered to blow them up rather than turn them over to the rebels. "It was gut-wrenching to me," said Gonzalez. "Here we were sitting on the Euphrates River and we were ordered to stop. As a human being, I wanted to help, but as a solider I had my orders."

Ironically, according to a former U.S. diplomat, some of the arms that were not destroyed by American forces were collected by the CIA and shipped to anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan, who at the time were being clandestinely backed by the U.S.

A Shiite survivor of the uprising later said he had seen other American forces at the river town of Nassiriya destroy a huge cache of weapons that the rebels desperately needed. "They blew up an enormous stock of arms," he said. "If we had been able to get hold of them, the course of history would have been changed in favor of the uprising, because Saddam had nothing left at that moment."

Indeed, Saddam's former intelligence chief, General Wafiq al-Samarrai, later recounted that the government forces had almost no ammunition left when they finally squelched the revolt. "By the last week of the intifada," he said, "the army was down to two hundred and seventy thousand Kalashnikov bullets." That would have lasted for just two more days of fighting.

In his autobiography, General Schwarzkopf, without giving details, alludes to the fact that the American-led coalition aided Saddam to crush the uprising. According to his curious reasoning, expressed in another interview, the Iraqi people were not innocent in the whole affair because "they supported the invasion of Kuwait and accepted Saddam Hussein."

Iraqi survivors of the Intifada also claimed that U.S. forces actually prevented them from marching on Baghdad. "American helicopters landed on the road to block our way and stopped us from continuing," they said. "One of the American soldiers threatened to kill us if we didn't turn back." Another Shiite leader, Dr. Hamid al-Bayatti, claimed that the U.S. even provided Saddam's Republican Guards with fuel. The Americans, he charged, disarmed some resistance units and allowed Republican Guard tanks to go through their checkpoints to crush the uprising. "We let one Iraqi division go through our lines to get to Basra because the United States did not want the regime to collapse," said Middle East expert Wiliam Quandt.

The U.S. officials declined even to meet with the Shiites to hear their case. As Peter Galbraith said, "These were desperate people, desperate for U.S. help. But the U.S. refused to talk to any of the Shiite leaders: the U.S. Embassy, Schwarzkopf, nobody would see them, nor even give them an explanation."

The stonewalling continued even when evidence that Saddam was using chemical weapons against the rebels emerged. "You could see there were helicopters crisscrossing the skies, going back and forth," Rocky Gonzalez said. "Within a few hours people started showing up at our perimeter with chemical burns. They were saying, 'We are fighting the Iraqi military and the Baath Party and they sprayed us with chemicals.' We were guessing mustard gas. They had blisters and burns on their face and on their hands, on places where the skin was exposed," he said. "As the hours passed, more and more people were coming. And I asked them, 'Why don't you go to the hospital in Kerbala,' and the response was that all the doctors and nurses had been executed by the Iraqi soldiers, 'so we come to you for aid.'"

One of the greatest concerns of coalition forces during Desert Storm had been that Saddam would unleash his WMD. U.S. officials repeatedly warned Iraq that America's response would be immediate and devastating. Facing such threats, Saddam kept his weapons holstered -- or so the Bush administration led the world to believe.

Rocky's suspicion that Saddam did resort to them in 1991 was later confirmed by the report of the U.S. Government's Iraq Survey Group, which investigated Saddam's WMD after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and concluded that Saddam no longer had any WMD. Almost universally ignored by the media, however, was the finding that Saddam had resorted to his WMD during the 1991 uprising. The "regime was shaking and wanted something 'very quick and effective' to put down the revolt." They considered then rejected using mustard gas, as it would be too perceptible with U.S. troops close by. Instead, on March 7th, 1991 the Iraqi military filled R-400 aerial bombs with sarin, a binary nerve agent. "Dozens of sorties were flown against Shiite rebels in Kerbala and the surrounding areas," the ISG report said. But apparently the R-400 bombs were not very effective, having been designed for high-speed delivery from planes, not slow-moving helicopters. So the Iraqi military switched to dropping CS, a very potent tear gas, in large aerial bombs.

Because of previous U.S. warnings against resorting to chemical weapons, Saddam and his generals knew they were taking a serious risk, but the Coalition never reacted. The lingering question is why."

from


http://www.alternet.org/story/49864/how_george_h.w._bush_helped_saddam_hussein_prevent_an_iraqi_uprising