What exactly was wrong about overthrowing Saddam?

beauf

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?

They pulled out because they were losing.

Youve not explained why you want to bring anarchy and terrorisim and death to countries arund the world.

rjpf1980

beauf wrote: »

They pulled out because they were losing.

Youve not explained why you want to bring anarchy and terrorisim and death to countries arund the world.

Iraq had been stabilized and violence had fallen off dramatically during the surge overseen by General Petraeus. Obama actually gave a speech declaring victory. He was warned not to withdraw all the troops but he went ahead anyway.

The anarchy and death in Iraq was created by Sunni and Shia terrorists.

endagibson

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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

Are they? Can you give an example?

beauf

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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.

We still don't know if there were WMD. Because they were never found.

On that basis they should invade again. Because there is no evidence that they don't have them.

....In an interview with VICE founder Shane Smith, Obama said the rise of the Islamic State was a direct result of the disastrous invasion.

"ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion," Obama said. "Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot."

beauf

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Iraq had been stabilized and violence had fallen off dramatically during the surge overseen by General Petraeus. Obama actually gave a speech declaring victory. He was warned not to withdraw all the troops but he went ahead anyway.

The anarchy and death in Iraq was created by Sunni and Shia terrorists.

The invasion created them. Horse before the Cart.

RustyNut

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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

There was no al-qaeda in Iraq or isis under Saddam.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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.

Diplomacy didn't fail, it wasn't allowed to work.
From the Chilcot report

The UK chose to join the invasion before peaceful options had been exhausted
Chilcot is withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. He says: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.

Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein
Chilcot finds that Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Iraqi regime as he sought to make the case for military action to MPs and the public in the buildup to the invasion in 2002 and 2003. The then prime minister disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action, and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgments of the intelligence services.

If wmd's were the reason for going to war why Iraq?

There was no imminent threat from Saddam
Iran, North Korea and Libya were considered greater threats in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, and the UK joint intelligence committee believed it would take Iraq five years, after the lifting of sanctions, to produce enough fissile material for a weapon, Chilcot finds. Britain’s previous strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time.

Here's what Hans Blix has to say on the issue, it's worth watching to the end.

Now mabey you might answer the question I asked earlier that you Ignored.

How exactly is the average Iraqi better off since the invasion?

end of the road

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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

so do we all, but as much as it's a laudable goal, we have to be realistic.

beach_walker

The one thing that I've always wondered about is the WMD. We're told that many in the West knew that Saddam didn't have them, also we're told how shady many of the actors were (allegations regarding David Kelly's death etc.) and there's no denying the appetitie for war was very real for many reasons, in many circles. So with all that, after the invasion why weren't a few WMDs planted?


Reading the above, I see that people may take me up wrong. I'm not making out that the war was justified or whatever, just always seemed to me to make sense to go that extra mile to solidify the case!

rjpf1980

end of the road wrote: »

so do we all, but as much as it's a laudable goal, we have to be realistic.

Kill one dictator at a time and keep up the war against terrorists.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Kill one dictator at a time and keep up the war against terrorists.

Replace with what? What countries system would you replace it with?

RustyNut

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Kill one dictator at a time and keep up the war against terrorists.

I know you don't like to answer questions but could you share your definition of a terrorist?

Manic Moran

I think we can generally be in agreement that if the primary export of Iraq was oranges, the nation would have been substantially less likely to have attracted the attentions of the US. That said, there is no reason that hypocrisy cannot still yield a beneficial result. True, the US has, for its own pragmatic reasons, not attempted to force regime change on Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. Sortof sucks for the North Korean people, Saudi women, and so on. But should everyone remain under a dictatorship because some nations are off-limits?

There are several ways dictatorships can be broken. The first is a peaceful revolt by the people. Portugal, arguably, would count as such, maybe Tunisia. Another is a not-so-peaceful revolt (to include a military coup, some of which peacefully transfer back to civilian control). Libya and Syria would be cases in point there. Then the dictator can die of natural causes, and leave a gap of control. One need not look past Europe to see what happened after Tito died, and how Yugoslavia fragmented into civil war over the following decade. And the dictator can be forcibly removed by external forces, such as happened in Iraq. I'm not convinced there is very much difference from the point of view of a Bosnian and an Iraqi if the reason for the collapse of the country was internal or external.

beauf wrote: »

Because the quality of life under that was better than what the UK and US left in their wake.

That would have depended on where you were. If you were in Baghdad, then, yes, I think it reasonable to consider that quality of life has gone down. But if you lived outside of Baghdad, i.e. pretty much the entire rest of the country, it becomes a more difficult statement. Saddam cared so much about the South, for example, that until late 2005 there was no paved road from Baghdad to Basra. It was a hundred miles and thensome of gravel. The central electricity grid focused primarily on Baghdad, in Mosul I saw a ridiculous network of private generators hooked up ad-hoc using whatever cables seem to have been available. Of course, Mosul's quality of life right now is pretty poor, given ISIS controls it, but that's of little relevance to the original invasion decision. The power generation levels today are over twice what demand was ten years ago, but fall short because the economy and acquisition of consumer goods has shot up so much that the demand for electricity has more than tripled. I don't have access to other infrastructure figures off the top of my head, but I strongly suspect that the folks I saw drinking river water or walking to my HMMWV for burn treatments have better sources for such things today.

The Iraqis today have a rather incompetent, ineffective government, but it's their incompetent, ineffective government, chosen by them. I was in Mosul for the first elections in decades, in 2005. It was closer to a city-wide three-day street party. Mortar attacks on polling stations did not deter these folks, within ten minutes, the lines were long again. As we drove past people walking home (Vehicles were forbidden for those three days, hence the opportunity to make a street party out of it), they were all proudly showing us their blue fingers (which meant nothing to us, we were never told the mechanics of it.) A substantial amount of the blame for the current state of Iraq lies with the Iraqis themselves.

So with all that, after the invasion why weren't a few WMDs planted?

Actually, they were, by Iraqis who looted them from wherever, and used them as bombs. After a couple of occupation troops were hospitalized after the effects of chemical weapons, we started carrying our masks everywhere with us for a while. Which is a royal pain in the arse, I assure you. A couple of thousand rounds of the stuff were found after the invasion, but it's not commonly mentioned given that it generally pre-dated the 1991 war and because a more logical explanation is that the munitions were simply lost by the Iraqi government, as opposed to being deliberately hidden. Not that a government which loses hundreds of tons of the stuff is particularly reassuring, mind, but it's not evidence of malice per se. But I think the main reason that no WMDs were planted by the coalition was that the coalition were generally honest. Mistaken, with biased pre-conceptions, perhaps, but not conspiratorial. After all, why plant WMDs when the real ones will surely show up soon enough?

RustyNut

beach_walker wrote: »

The one thing that I've always wondered about is the WMD. We're told that many in the West knew that Saddam didn't have them, also we're told how shady many of the actors were (allegations regarding David Kelly's death etc.) and there's no denying the appetitie for war was very real for many reasons, in many circles. So with all that, after the invasion why weren't a few WMDs planted?


Reading the above, I see that people may take me up wrong. I'm not making out that the war was justified or whatever, just always seemed to me to make sense to go that extra mile to solidify the case!

I reckon someone high up in the military or intelligence services took the long view.
They went to war on a lie, a lie that came from politicians who would be long gone from power if and when the truth came out but if professional military or intelligences were to be found to have "planted" evidence to justify the war it could and would most likely come back to bite them in the arse.
Bush and blair have zero credibility left but the professional military people can claim that they just followed their political masters orders to remove sadam and find (the non existent) wmd's.

RustyNut

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think we can generally be in agreement that if the primary export of Iraq was oranges, the nation would have been substantially less likely to have attracted the attentions of the US. That said, there is no reason that hypocrisy cannot still yield a beneficial result. True, the US has, for its own pragmatic reasons, not attempted to force regime change on Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. Sortof sucks for the North Korean people, Saudi women, and so on. But should everyone remain under a dictatorship because some nations are off-limits?

There are several ways dictatorships can be broken. The first is a peaceful revolt by the people. Portugal, arguably, would count as such, maybe Tunisia. Another is a not-so-peaceful revolt (to include a military coup, some of which peacefully transfer back to civilian control). Libya and Syria would be cases in point there. Then the dictator can die of natural causes, and leave a gap of control. One need not look past Europe to see what happened after Tito died, and how Yugoslavia fragmented into civil war over the following decade. And the dictator can be forcibly removed by external forces, such as happened in Iraq. I'm not convinced there is very much difference from the point of view of a Bosnian and an Iraqi if the reason for the collapse of the country was internal or external.



That would have depended on where you were. If you were in Baghdad, then, yes, I think it reasonable to consider that quality of life has gone down. But if you lived outside of Baghdad, i.e. pretty much the entire rest of the country, it becomes a more difficult statement. Saddam cared so much about the South, for example, that until late 2005 there was no paved road from Baghdad to Basra. It was a hundred miles and thensome of gravel. The central electricity grid focused primarily on Baghdad, in Mosul I saw a ridiculous network of private generators hooked up ad-hoc using whatever cables seem to have been available. Of course, Mosul's quality of life right now is pretty poor, given ISIS controls it, but that's of little relevance to the original invasion decision. The power generation levels today are over twice what demand was ten years ago, but fall short because the economy and acquisition of consumer goods has shot up so much that the demand for electricity has more than tripled. I don't have access to other infrastructure figures off the top of my head, but I strongly suspect that the folks I saw drinking river water or walking to my HMMWV for burn treatments have better sources for such things today.

The Iraqis today have a rather incompetent, ineffective government, but it's their incompetent, ineffective government, chosen by them. I was in Mosul for the first elections in decades, in 2005. It was closer to a city-wide three-day street party. Mortar attacks on polling stations did not deter these folks, within ten minutes, the lines were long again. As we drove past people walking home (Vehicles were forbidden for those three days, hence the opportunity to make a street party out of it), they were all proudly showing us their blue fingers (which meant nothing to us, we were never told the mechanics of it.) A substantial amount of the blame for the current state of Iraq lies with the Iraqis themselves.



Actually, they were, by Iraqis who looted them from wherever, and used them as bombs. After a couple of occupation troops were hospitalized after the effects of chemical weapons, we started carrying our masks everywhere with us for a while. Which is a royal pain in the arse, I assure you. A couple of thousand rounds of the stuff were found after the invasion, but it's not commonly mentioned given that it generally pre-dated the 1991 war and because a more logical explanation is that the munitions were simply lost by the Iraqi government, as opposed to being deliberately hidden. Not that a government which loses hundreds of tons of the stuff is particularly reassuring, mind, but it's not evidence of malice per se. But I think the main reason that no WMDs were planted by the coalition was that the coalition were generally honest. Mistaken, with biased pre-conceptions, perhaps, but not conspiratorial. After all, why plant WMDs when the real ones will surely show up soon enough?

How many wmd's were used by the us forces?

KingBrian2

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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.

The world still has not tackled the true source of Al Qaeda which is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These countries are Islamic states.

Manic Moran

RustyNut wrote: »

How many wmd's were used by the us forces?

Unless you're the FBI and you consider anything which blows up to be a WMD (a definition I'm not happy with), none, obviously.

RustyNut

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless you're the FBI and you consider anything which blows up to be a WMD (a definition I'm not happy with), none, obviously.

What definition wold you use?

Manic Moran

RustyNut wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless you're the FBI and you consider anything which blows up to be a WMD (a definition I'm not happy with), none, obviously.

What definition wold you use?

CBRN

IrishTrajan

If "oil" was the only reason the US got involved in Iraq, why didn't they also invade Venezuela? Similar population, a lot more oil, and it's right on America's doorstep.

Unless, you know, there was more than one reason why the US went into Iraq, and the corruption was political manoeuvring by wealthy individuals instead of the sole reason.

old_aussie

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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.

Please explain.

We gave them democracy, something that is incompatible with their religion.

Religion is always the winner in life.:rolleyes:

We should leave all countries alone unless they declare war on us.

mulbot

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If "oil" was the only reason the US got involved in Iraq, why didn't they also invade Venezuela? Similar population, a lot more oil, and it's right on America's doorstep.

Unless, you know, there was more than one reason why the US went into Iraq, and the corruption was political manoeuvring by wealthy individuals instead of the sole reason.

The oil was a bonus,geo-political strategy seems to have been one of the main reasons,

rjpf1980

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Replace with what? What countries system would you replace it with?

Parliamentary democracy.

rjpf1980

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The world still has not tackled the true source of Al Qaeda which is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These countries are Islamic states.

The Saudis and the Pakistanis will get theirs in time.

rjpf1980

beauf wrote: »

The invasion created them. Horse before the Cart.

Sunni and Shia violence has existed for centuries.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The Saudis and the Pakistanis will get theirs in time.

Get what?

Will the US turn on them the way they do every other country when they are no longer useful?

beauf

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Sunni and Shia violence has existed for centuries.

So what. The specific groups you refer to as terrorists, were formed in direct response to the war.

beauf

RustyNut wrote: »

How many wmd's were used by the us forces?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless you're the FBI and you consider anything which blows up to be a WMD (a definition I'm not happy with), none, obviously.

Manic Moran wrote: »

CBRN

There is the depleted Uranium issue.

Timberrrrrrrr

beauf wrote: »

There is the depleted Uranium issue.

Not a WMD more of an improvised artillery she'll that uses depleted uranium rods instead of high explosives. A cruise missile would kill more than a D.U.R and is not considered to be a WMD.

The lasting effects of a D.U.R however iis another issue and I for one would consider them to be chemical weapons (of sorts) but that is a different argument for a different day.

beauf

Kinda going off topic though. The issue isn't the War.

Just that there was no plan for the vaccum that was left.

beauf

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Not a WMD more of an improvised artillery she'll that uses depleted uranium rods instead of high explosives. A cruise missile would kill more than a D.U.R and is not considered to be a WMD.

The lasting effects of a D.U.R however iis another issue and I for one would consider them to be chemical weapons (of sorts) but that is a different argument for a different day.

I was referring the antiTank rounds the A10 Aircraft used they they sprayed all over the county.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/pentagon-announces-u-turn-on-du-against-is

With Hindsight they probably wouldn't (shouldn't) have used them.