FalconGirl wrote: » Ehhhh, radical Islam has worsened significantly since Saddam was overthrown. No doubt about it. We've seen new levels of barbarism.
rjpf1980 wrote: » Today the Shia and Kurds ARE free of Saddam and they are fighting for their lives against ISIS.
You would condemn to perpetual tyranny?
Two Tone wrote: » Umm... nobody suggested asking him or blowing him a kiss. ... leaving hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed and homes destroyed. It seems a caveat is required here: saying this does not mean I support radical islam or dictators.
rjpf1980 wrote: » How else would Saddam go except through war? Ask him? Blow him a kiss? Please! He had to go and Bush and Blair had the balls to overthrow him. He is gone and the Middle East and world will ultimately be safer. A long war between civilisation and barbarism has begun and the modern civilized world will ultimately win. Dictators and radical Islam must be annihilated.
Arsemageddon wrote: » . There was no insurgency until Iraq was invaded. That's easy for you to say when you're not the one dying or suffering. Bush Sr encouraged the Kurds and the Shia to rise up in 1991 and they died in their tens and tens of thousands while US troops sat in Kuwait. The Saddam regime continued for 12 more long years. Imagine 12 years of continued tyranny after coming so close to being free? Today the Shia and Kurds ARE free of Saddam and they are fighting for their lives against ISIS. You would condemn to perpetual tyranny?
. There was no insurgency until Iraq was invaded. That's easy for you to say when you're not the one dying or suffering.
rjpf1980 wrote: » How else would Saddam go except through war? Ask him? Blow him a kiss? Please!
He had to go and Bush and Blair had the balls to overthrow him. He is gone and the Middle East and world will ultimately be safer. A long war between civilisation and barbarism has begun and the modern civilized world will ultimately win. Dictators and radical Islam must be annihilated.
Two Tone wrote: » Yeah I don't get it - it's as if to say "Being opposed to the war in Iraq means being a big fan of Saddam", as if it is not possible to have no time for either.
rjpf1980 wrote: » How do you overthrow dictators and destroy their armies and defeat insurgencies without fighting it out and killing them? . Probably for the best if you don't first arm those dictators to the teeth to fight proxy wars on your behalf. There was no insurgency until Iraq was invaded. Freedom is more sacred than life. That makes the dying and suffering worth it That's easy for you to say when you're not the one dying or suffering.
rjpf1980 wrote: » How do you overthrow dictators and destroy their armies and defeat insurgencies without fighting it out and killing them?
Freedom is more sacred than life. That makes the dying and suffering worth it
Two Tone wrote: » I don't think people take issue with the overthrowing of Saddam, but of the many deaths of innocents and the outright destruction of cities it took in order to finally get him. The high moral ground can hardly be taken by those who instigated all that death and destruction.
beauf wrote: » No one is praising Saddam or defending him. If you have to resort to Straw man you are literally clutching at straws.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Which movie was this?
Sand wrote: » That's because it was a policy of Obama. Bush embarked on the 'surge', greatly increasing the number of US troops to pacify large parts of Iraq. People assumed this would fail. It did not fail. The 'surge' drawdown began, but in 2008 McCain ran on a ticket where he openly stated US troops would have to remain in Iraq for 50 years (i.e. a smaller/peacetime garrison as in Germany from the 1940s up to the present day) to support the Iraqi government and US interests. His logic (like Bush before him when announcing the surge) was that the Iraqi government was too weak to stand by itself, and if US troops left prematurely the situation would get worse and result in the return of US forces later. However what people heard was US troops in Iraq for 50 years and completely lost their minds. Obama on the other hand rode to the White House (crushing the presumed Democrat nominee Clinton) by committing to a complete US withdrawal at any cost. There was a very popular idea at the time that the presence of US troops was *causing* the violence, and if US troops withdrew, peace would breakout. Obama disagreed with the logic of McCain and went ahead with the withdrawal. As predicted, the violence didn't end with the withdrawal of US troops. Instead things went rapidly downhill to the point that the Iraqi government was unable to hold the country together without the US vetoing its sectarian tendencies and the Iraqi army was unable to resist a few thousand jihadists in pickup trucks from taking over half of Iraq without US troops to lead and support them. Now US troops are back in Iraq to retrieve a situation that probably wouldn't have got so far out of hand if they hadn't been withdrawn prematurely.
rjpf1980 wrote: » Thousands of people were tortured and executed by Saddam's regime every year. In the region of Iraq still controlled by the Shia led government thousands of people are NOT tortured and executed every year and prior to the withdrawal of American troops at the end of the surge which brought a brief end to violence in Iraq thousands of people were NOT being tortured and executed every year. In regions surrendered to Isis thousands ARE tortured and murdered. It is no accident that leading members of the insurgency during the American occupation were former Saddam commanders and it is no accident these same commanders are in control of Islamic State. Isn't it wonderful how the very people who praise dictators don't have to live for a minute or an hour or a day or a year under their brutal rule?
smash wrote: » Even though it does sound like conspiracy theory stuff, there's some fascinating videos and articles about this. Here's a quote:
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?
beauf wrote: » Because the quality of life under that was better than what the UK and US left in their wake. You might suggest that it was a route the country needed to go, to improve. But theres no way of knowing that. All we know is that its worse now.
rjpf1980 wrote: » 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.
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?
Grayson wrote: » The problem with removing Saddam by invasion is that it was like deciding to get rid of a rat living in a house by burning the house to the ground. Saddam killed an average of about 5000 of his own citizens per year. That was horrible. However some estimates place the number of iraqi's killed since then at three quarters of a million. That's before the millions who were displaced or fled. That's before we include the hundreds of thousands who have been killed in Syria by Islamist groups like ISIS who were created because of the war. So yeah, the invasion of Iraq. Very smart decision.
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.....
smash wrote: » Can you seriously not see how a monetary system backed by something of worth would trigger a global economic crises? Paying for oil would just be the start. Diamonds would follow and so on and so on.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » World Gold Council - sounds like a made up name but its real. Also, Africa (notwithstanding my earlier comments about the difficulty of administration) which collectively produces about as much oil as Russia or in other words, less than 10% of world oil production, is going to trigger some massive currency revolution?
smash wrote: » No, but the dinar would also be used across all African nations to purchase oil. And I don't know where you're getting your 8,000 tonnes from in the USA. As of 2016, Fort Knox holdings are 4,582.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Because the only seller of oil in the world is Libya?
