What exactly was wrong about overthrowing Saddam?

RustyNut

Two Tone wrote: »

Google Gaddafi's harem (if you have a strong stomach). Shudder...

Not disagreeing but I'd still prefer - by infinity - to be living in the US under Bush than Iraq under Saddam.

But the real question is would you prefer to be living in Iraq under Sadam or in the post Sadam Bush/Blair Iraq?

AMKC

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?

After 9/11 America needed to show it was still a strong/powerful Country and they picked Iraq to have a fight with as they thought it was strong but that turned out to be very wrong. They found the out quick enough all the Iraqi soldiers were demorelised and they were quickly beaten with many surrendering.
I don,t think Saddam ever had the means to deliver a chemical or gas attack as far as Kabul never mind London he did have chemical and gas weapons do but by the time America decided to fight him they were all gone but the UN inspectors that were in the country never confirmed this because they never got to account for all of them as Saddam had his own army destroy about half of them but did not declare it for some reason maybe because he new if he did then his people would rise up against him and he needed to be able to keep that from happening and he knew a long as the people thought he had these weapons they would not rise up against him. He could have done this indefinitely if 9/11 had not happened but not after America needed a target a he was it.

BalcombeSt4

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I guarantee you if you go out tomorrow and disband the Gardaí Síochána their would be anarchy in this country now imagine doing it in a country that is divided along religious and tribal lines and you get Iraq today.

You don't even have to imagine it. You can just look at the North of this country in the 70's & 80's. I know the RUC didn't disband but law and order pretty much broke down in Loyalist & Republican strongholds.

KingBrian2

AMKC wrote: »

After 9/11 America needed to show it was still a strong/powerful Country and they picked Iraq to have a fight with as they thought it was strong but that turned out to be very wrong. They found the out quick enough all the Iraqi soldiers were demorelised and they were quickly beaten with many surrendering.
I don,t think Saddam ever had the means to deliver a chemical or gas attack as far as Kabul never mind London he did have chemical and gas weapons do but by the time America decided to fight him they were all gone but the UN inspectors that were in the country never confirmed this because they never got to account for all of them as Saddam had his own army destroy about half of them but did not declare it for some reason maybe because he new if he did then his people would rise up against him and he needed to be able to keep that from happening and he knew a long as the people thought he had these weapons they would not rise up against him. He could have done this indefinitely if 9/11 had not happened but not after America needed a target a he was it.

That's all well and good but back to the present day we have to have leaders who recognize what a blunder that war was if we keep having gvts that don't listen and continue to try failed old policies the world risks getting into other illegal wars.

rjpf1980

A very interesting article in the Sunday Independent featured interviews with Iraqis living in Ireland who are glad Saddam Hussein is gone.

One of them is Alaa Saleh who plays GAA in Co. Kerry.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as the carnage escalated, it was not uncommon for liberal Londoners he came across, who learned of his background, to "apologise" for the way the British government had handled the war.

His response usually surprised them: "I agreed that mistakes had been made, but I told them that the removal of Saddam was not a mistake. He was a tyrant. He murdered whole families on a whim. He had women raped. He gassed the Kurds. Even the mess that Iraq is in now is better than Saddam being in power."

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/but-most-iraqis-believe-removing-saddam-was-right-34870754.html

Most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone. He would not have been overthrown only for the 2003 invasion.

The posters on this thread who say Iraqis would be better off under Saddam should be ashamed of themselves.

beauf

rjpf1980 wrote: »

...The posters on this thread who say Iraqis would be better off under Saddam should be ashamed of themselves.

He wants them to leave Iraq and move to UK

.."What doesn't make sense is that the government doesn't allow more Iraqis to take up residence in Britain. The UK didn't stay to clean up the mess that they made - so you would think allowing people to escape that mess might be the least they could do."...

weisses

rjpf1980 wrote: »

A very interesting article in the Sunday Independent featured interviews with Iraqis living in Ireland who are glad Saddam Hussein is gone.

One of them is Alaa Saleh who plays GAA in Co. Kerry.



http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/but-most-iraqis-believe-removing-saddam-was-right-34870754.html

Most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone. He would not have been overthrown only for the 2003 invasion.

The posters on this thread who say Iraqis would be better off under Saddam should be ashamed of themselves.

Ahh well

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/it-was-better-to-live-in-iraq-under-saddam-9532742.html

or

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-iraq-better-off-now-than-it-was-under-saddam-hussein

Wanderer78

I wonder could we use the ould wmd's 'trick' to move enda and co along!

rjpf1980

weisses wrote: »

Ahh well

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/it-was-better-to-live-in-iraq-under-saddam-9532742.html

or

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-iraq-better-off-now-than-it-was-under-saddam-hussein

A mass murdering tyrant who slaughtered men women and children? Funny how you live in the free democratic West and you will never have to live for a minute under the reign of a despot but you recommend tyranny to Iraqis?

RustyNut

rjpf1980 wrote: »

A mass murdering tyrant who slaughtered men women and children?

Is this george w you are talking about?

Irish Praetorian

rjpf1980 wrote: »

A mass murdering tyrant who slaughtered men women and children? Funny how you live in the free democratic West and you will never have to live for a minute under the reign of a despot but you recommend tyranny to Iraqis?

I've used this argument myself a few times, but there is a corollary; not only do we live in a relatively free/democratic party of the world, but we also live in stable/peaceful societies. For Iraq, the transformation has been from a stable/peaceful undemocratic society to a violent/unstable but more representative one - their lot has not really been improved as much as one burden has been traded for another.

rjpf1980

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I've used this argument myself a few times, but there is a corollary; not only do we live in a relatively free/democratic party of the world, but we also live in stable/peaceful societies. For Iraq, the transformation has been from a stable/peaceful undemocratic society to a violent/unstable but more representative one - their lot has not really been improved as much as one burden has been traded for another.

Hussein's regime was a stable peaceful society where people were arrested and tortured and murdered by the hundreds of thousands?

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Hussein's regime was a stable peaceful society where people were arrested and tortured and murdered by the hundreds of thousands?

Unlike the paradise it is now since they were given their freedoms :rolleyes:

Irish Praetorian

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Hussein's regime was a stable peaceful society where people were arrested and tortured and murdered by the hundreds of thousands?

Saddams regime is thought to have killed 250,000 people over 25 years, by contrast that number would appear to have been reached again in only 8 years following the 2003 Invasion (although that does involve using higher than average estimates, but I've avoided the gibbering '1 million dead!11' nonsense). It's a numbers game but it would seem reasonable to assert post Invasion Iraq has a far higher death toll than repressive Saddam Iraq.

beauf

We're meant to reply to this with another straw man.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

A mass murdering tyrant who slaughtered men women and children? Funny how you live in the free democratic West and you will never have to live for a minute under the reign of a despot but you recommend tyranny to Iraqis?

So you recommend destroying hospitals, and schools, in fact the infrastructure of a entire country and then abandoning it to civil war, anarchy, terrorist groups and atrocities.

Irish Praetorian

beauf wrote: »

We're meant to reply to this with another straw man.



So you recommend destroying hospitals, and schools, in fact the infrastructure of a entire country and then abandoning it to civil war, anarchy, terrorist groups and atrocities.

With respect, I think its a far stretch to imagine that NATO had some consistent policy of wanting to destroy hospitals, schools and infrastructure. More to the point, when were talking about NATO's responsibility for abandoning the country into anarchy, are we excluding from any kind of the responsibility the local elements doing the bombings, the kidnappings and the violence?

The fúcking Summer holidays have a lot to answer for here.

KingBrian2

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I've used this argument myself a few times, but there is a corollary; not only do we live in a relatively free/democratic party of the world, but we also live in stable/peaceful societies. For Iraq, the transformation has been from a stable/peaceful undemocratic society to a violent/unstable but more representative one - their lot has not really been improved as much as one burden has been traded for another.

Syria was one sure secular state and President Bashar Al Assad was hell of a lot less brutal than Saddam Hussein yet that did not deter the Neocons from wanting to oust him.

Goes to show human rights was not a factor in the consideration for going to war in Iraq. It was all war mongering and it created a power vacuum that has destabilized the region.

Irish Praetorian

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Syria was one sure secular state and President Bashar Al Assad was hell of a lot less brutal than Saddam Hussein yet that did not deter the Neocons from wanting to oust him.

Goes to show human rights was not a factor in the consideration for going to war in Iraq. It was all war mongering and it created a power vacuum that has destabilized the region.

Emphasis on 'wanting', although the influence of the 'neo-cons' some three years into Obama's presidency remains to be seen, there was no intervention, at-least not initially.

Quite frankly I'm not sure Syria today is in any better position than Iraq despite having not been invaded by the US, despite not having its 'brutal but effective' strongman toppled, but then we wouldn't want to intimate that the region might have any reasons for its troubles apart from the US right?

KingBrian2

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Emphasis on 'wanting', although the influence of the 'neo-cons' some three years into Obama's presidency remains to be seen, there was no intervention, at-least not initially.

Quite frankly I'm not sure Syria today is in any better position than Iraq despite having not been invaded by the US, despite not having its 'brutal but effective' strongman toppled, but then we wouldn't want to intimate that the region might have any reasons for its troubles apart from the US right?

That country was a place where Shi'ites, Sunni's & Christians lived in peace. Islam was the state religion but it was not extremist. It was everything Saudi Arabia despised. Women walked the streets dressed like we do in the west. The second largest party after the Baathist's was the Communist Party which wanted a more egalitarian state. Syrians treated like saviours in Lebanon and to their fellow Palestinian Arabs. The Kurds were provided refuge from the Turkish onslaught. All under the so called tyranny of the state.

rjpf1980

beauf wrote: »

We're meant to reply to this with another straw man.



So you recommend destroying hospitals, and schools, in fact the infrastructure of a entire country and then abandoning it to civil war, anarchy, terrorist groups and atrocities.

Obama abandoned it.

I seem to remember Bush was saying that once Saddam was gone Iraq should be rebuilt and a new democracy would be created and the terrorists should be defeated? He was laughed at and called an idiot wasn't he?

Obama pulled out the troops didn't he and not long after Islamic State took over territory didn't they?

Might want to have a rethink yeah?

Two Tone

rjpf1980 wrote: »

A mass murdering tyrant who slaughtered men women and children?

You're definitely having a laugh because you are pretty much saying - without any embarrassment - that slaughtered men, women and children = ok in one context, not ok in other context.

Funny how you live in the free democratic West and you will never have to live for a minute under the reign of a despot but you recommend tyranny to Iraqis?

Nobody recommended tyranny - are you going to stop telling people they have said stuff which they haven't said or what?

You also live in the democratic West and you never had to live amidst the invasion of Iraq.

KingBrian2

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Obama abandoned it.

I seem to remember Bush was saying that once Saddam was gone Iraq should be rebuilt and a new democracy would be created and the terrorists should be defeated? He was laughed at and called an idiot wasn't he?

Obama pulled out the troops didn't he and not long after Islamic State took over territory didn't they?

Might want to have a rethink yeah?

In Obama's defense he did get rid of Osama Bin Laden and did what he was put into office to do. Bring the troops home. The military would have pressed for more time but he wanted America's soldiers to priorities on fighting Al Qaeda. The Iraq crisis was political in nature requiring diplomacy not war to work.

rjpf1980

Two Tone wrote: »

You're definitely having a laugh because you are pretty much saying - without any embarrassment - that slaughtered men, women and children = ok in one context, not ok in other context.

Millions of Iraqis voted and continue to vote in democratic elections. They fully embraced the new Iraq. Millions of Iraqis who now live under IS were abandoned to their faith when Western troops pulled out too soon which precipitated the collapse. The Iraqi government is democratically elected and they are fighting to reclaim their country from IS as we speak with Western help after Obama reversed his policy of retreat from the Middle East.

Nobody recommended tyranny - are you going to stop telling people they have said stuff which they haven't said or what?

Go back and read the thread. Several posters have said Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

You also live in the democratic West and you never had to live amidst the invasion of Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq brought about the creation of a democratic Iraq. A democratic Iraq that the West is currently helping push back IS.

Gringo180

rjpf1980 wrote: »

A mass murdering tyrant who slaughtered men women and children? Funny how you live in the free democratic West and you will never have to live for a minute under the reign of a despot but you recommend tyranny to Iraqis?

But doesn't the west also support tyranny in the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt?

Irish Praetorian

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That country was a place where Shi'ites, Sunni's & Christians lived in peace. Islam was the state religion but it was not extremist. It was everything Saudi Arabia despised. Women walked the streets dressed like we do in the west. The second largest party after the Baathist's was the Communist Party which wanted a more egalitarian state. Syrians treated like saviours in Lebanon and to their fellow Palestinian Arabs. The Kurds were provided refuge from the Turkish onslaught. All under the so called tyranny of the state.

Er, think we can all appreciate pre-war Syria without waxing poetic about it. My point was, the fact that such a society can disintegrate without a foreign invasion shows the kind of powerful undercurrent operating in the region. Also 'so-called' tyranny? Syria was still an authoritarian regime, not a utopia.

RustyNut

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Millions of Iraqis voted and continue to vote in democratic elections. They fully embraced the new Iraq. Millions of Iraqis who now live under IS were abandoned to their faith when Western troops pulled out too soon which precipitated the collapse. The Iraqi government is democratically elected and they are fighting to reclaim their country from IS as we speak with Western help after Obama reversed his policy of retreat from the Middle East.



Go back and read the thread. Several posters have said Iraqis were better off under Saddam.



The invasion of Iraq brought about the creation of a democratic Iraq. A democratic Iraq that the West is currently helping push back IS.

How exactly are the ordinary people Iraq better off since the invasion.
Is the basic infrastructure that we all need to survive better or worse Do they have better incomes? A better health service, better education? Better security?
How about the 10's of thousands of baby's born with massive tumors and horrific deformation caused by American depleted uranium weapons. The thousands of families who are too terrified to have children because of the effects of the chemical weapons used by the Americans.
Not to mention the sectarian bombings carried out by various factions, and all that before we even get to the terror that isis are bringing to the world.
It wasn't Obama withdrawing the military from Iraq that caused the problems, It was bush and Blair sending them in in the first place.

rjpf1980

Gringo180 wrote: »

But doesn't the west also support tyranny in the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt?

They shouldn't. I want all the dictators everywhere to go. I want every country in the world to one day be democratic.

But enough about me.

You don't think Saddam should have been overthrown which means you don't have a problem with dictatorship in the above countries either.

rjpf1980

RustyNut wrote: »

How exactly are the ordinary people Iraq better off since the invasion.
Is the basic infrastructure that we all need to survive better or worse Do they have better incomes? A better health service, better education? Better security?
How about the 10's of thousands of baby's born with massive tumors and horrific deformation caused by American depleted uranium weapons. The thousands of families who are too terrified to have children because of the effects of the chemical weapons used by the Americans.
Not to mention the sectarian bombings carried out by various factions, and all that before we even get to the terror that isis are bringing to the world.
It wasn't Obama withdrawing the military from Iraq that caused the problems, It was bush and Blair sending them in in the first place.

Saddam Hussein's regime that caused the problems.

rjpf1980

KingBrian2 wrote: »

In Obama's defense he did get rid of Osama Bin Laden and did what he was put into office to do. Bring the troops home. The military would have pressed for more time but he wanted America's soldiers to priorities on fighting Al Qaeda. The Iraq crisis was political in nature requiring diplomacy not war to work.

Do you know what Islamic State was calling itself a few years ago? Al-Qaeda In Iraq.

Diplomacy failed. Saddam Hussein defied UN resolution after UN resolution. Bush gave him ultimatums to comply with weapons inspectors. Saddam could have opened sites up to Hans Blix and saved himself. He didn't. The only reason we now know there were not WMD is because of the invasion. That reason alone justified it.