nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

rjpf1980

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.

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

rjpf1980 wrote: »

How else would Saddam go except through war? Ask him? Blow him a kiss? Please!

Umm... nobody suggested asking him or blowing him a kiss.

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.

... 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.

Arsemageddon

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.

By any chance are you a big fan of those Call of Duty games?

rjpf1980

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?

FalconGirl

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.

Ehhhh, radical Islam has worsened significantly since Saddam was overthrown. No doubt about it. We've seen new levels of barbarism.

Lesser of two evils to keep him and Gaddafi in power in my opinion.

rjpf1980

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.

Saddam was not going to go except by force and you all know it. Death and destruction and suffering and setbacks are inevitable in war. War is terrible but progress has only been made by sacrifice. There is no other way.

Two Tone

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Today the Shia and Kurds ARE free of Saddam and they are fighting for their lives against ISIS.

Yeah so one horror replaced with another. Not seeing the upside like.

You would condemn to perpetual tyranny?

I'd say they would absolutely love it - shur what other way would they be thinking only "I'd love a bit of condemning people to perpetual tyranny."

Look, I do understand what you mean about it being the only way to get Saddam, who was obviously a brutal dictator, but it is so hard to support something that led to hundreds and thousands of innocent lives being wiped out and communities destroyed, and just to conclude "Meh, that's war" (colossal cop-out of the highest order). People can think that while thinking life under Saddam's regime was horrendous too.

Plus, how come only Saddam? What about all the other tyrants who were not tackled and their people forgotten about by Bush and Blair (the latter of whose hands were tied IMO tbh)? Remember too: The US was buddies with Saddam up to the late 80s, so I'm not too sure about what concern there was for people living under Saddam's regime.

rjpf1980

FalconGirl wrote: »

Ehhhh, radical Islam has worsened significantly since Saddam was overthrown. No doubt about it. We've seen new levels of barbarism.

The behavior merely reflects the belief system that was always there. ISIS will be smashed. Radical Islam can create carnage but it cannot stop a civilization that can send space craft to the furthest limits of our solar system. It is in its death throes. The Iranian theocrats are losing ground as we speak to reformers and modernists in Iran. In Saudi Arabia the plummeting price of oil and geriatric rulers mean their days are numbered too.

rjpf1980

Two Tone wrote: »

Yeah so one horror replaced with another. Not seeing the upside like.

I'd say they would absolutely love it - shur what other way would they be thinking only "I'd love a bit of condemning people to perpetual tyranny."

Look, I do understand what you mean about it being the only way to get Saddam, who was obviously a brutal dictator, but it is so hard to support something that led to hundreds and thousands of innocent lives being wiped out and communities destroyed, and just to conclude "Meh, that's war" (colossal cop-out of the highest order). People can think that while thinking life under Saddam's regime was horrendous too.

Plus, how come only Saddam? What about all the other tyrants who were not tackled and their people forgotten about by Bush and Blair (the latter of whose hands were tied IMO tbh)? Remember too: The US was buddies with Saddam up to the late 80s, so I'm not too sure about what concern there was for people living under Saddam's regime.

All the tyrants will go in time. In a globalized world it is inevitable. After wars are over the rebuilding starts and societies recover and power on.

Despite all the minor conflicts and bluster we are seeing greater cooperation between the world powers not less.

KingBrian2

The US used the 9/11 attacks as a justification to go to war with the entire Arab World. They were already in Afghanistan pursuing Bin Laden before stopping at the mountains not wanting to go into Pakistan. The Neocons in the White House went after Saddam Hussein who had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Two Tone

rjpf1980 wrote: »

All the tyrants will go in time. In a globalized world it is inevitable. After wars are over the rebuilding starts and societies recover and power on.

Despite all the minor conflicts and bluster we are seeing greater cooperation between the world powers not less.

What minor conflicts? The invasion of Iraq certainly was not minor. I dunno if all tyrants will go in time tbh.

rjpf1980

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The US used the 9/11 attacks as a justification to go to war with the entire Arab World. They were already in Afghanistan pursuing Bin Laden before stopping at the mountains not wanting to go into Pakistan. The Neocons in the White House went after Saddam Hussein who had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein's defiance of the US for 12 years emboldened Bin Laden and jihadists generally. They believed America was a weak horse and not a strong horse as Bin Laden put it himself. It is no accident that after the American withdrawal from Iraq that Islamists were emboldened to launch insurgencies on European streets. The loud mouth Islamists who were laughed at 20 years ago are now making us all sit and take notice.

The only thing dictators and terrorists understand is force and they will only stop when a good portion of them are dead and the survivors decide it's just not worth continuing.

rjpf1980

Two Tone wrote: »

What minor conflicts? The invasion of Iraq certainly was not minor. I dunno if all tyrants will go in time tbh.

There are billions of people in the world. The deaths of a few hundred thousand mean little really despite all the faux outrage. The people who make the most noise about probably care least of all.

Dirty Dingus McGee

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

Two Tone

rjpf1980 wrote: »

There are billions of people in the world. The deaths of a few hundred thousand mean little really despite all the faux outrage. The people who make the most noise about probably care least of all.

Ah in fairness that's just an assumption, and pretty unlikely - also I don't see how it's all fake outrage, surely plenty of it is genuine.
The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people does not mean little, to be fair. You don't view the deaths at the hands of Saddam in that light (and nor would I blame you).

Gringo180

rjpf1980 wrote: »

And why not? America would be on the road to Third World status if it didn't defend it's vital interests. If that means blood then so be it.

Your either throlling or your just a horrible kunt.

[Deleted User]

I find it odd that the people who were most vociferous in calling on the US to bomb Gaddafi and get rid of other dictators like Assad and Mubarak, are also the ones having a go at Bush/Blair over ousting Saddam.

I remember being so optimistic when the Arab Spring kicked off, naively hoping for a grassroots democracy to grow and prosper.

The painful and bloody years since then have led me to believe that the best situation for the Middle East is to have ruthless dictators in many of the biggest countries there.

It's harsh but unfortunately when it comes to Western intervention in the Middle East, it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Intervene..........you have blood on your hands. Don't intervene.........you have blood on your hands indirectly (e.g. in the hypothetical situation of no intervention in Libya).

rjpf1980

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

The devil is the devil is the devil.

rjpf1980

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it odd that the people who were most vociferous in calling on the US to bomb Gaddafi and get rid of other dictators like Assad and Mubarak, are also the ones having a go at Bush/Blair over ousting Saddam.

I remember being so optimistic when the Arab Spring kicked off, naively hoping for a grassroots democracy to grow and prosper.

The painful and bloody years since then have led me to believe that the best situation for the Middle East is to have ruthless dictators in many of the biggest countries there.

It's harsh but unfortunately when it comes to Western intervention in the Middle East, it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Intervene..........you have blood on your hands. Don't intervene.........you have blood on your hands indirectly (e.g. in the hypothetical situation of no intervention in Libya).

Funny how you live in a free democracy and benefit from all the advantages thereof but you prescribe dictatorship and tyranny for people who are flesh and blood like you? You'll never have to complain about anything except poor service in a restaurant or late delivery of your post. It would be comical if not so deadly serious.

rjpf1980

Gringo180 wrote: »

Your either throlling or your just a horrible kunt.

Because I want dictators gone and terrorists defeated? We cannot be less ruthless than our enemies.

Two Tone

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Because want dictators gone and terrorists defeated? We cannot be less ruthless than our enemies.

I think they mean the nonchalance towards hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed. This is not a minor blip, even if you understandably wanted Saddam ousted. It's easy to be blasé about them when you live far, far away and are not affected by it. You express concern about those living under Saddam but how come another kind of suffering is ok?

beauf

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Because I want dictators gone and terrorists defeated? We cannot be less ruthless than our enemies.

you

Unfortunately creating them faster than you "defeat" them is a flawed mindset.

rjpf1980

Two Tone wrote: »

Ah in fairness that's just an assumption, and pretty unlikely - also I don't see how it's all fake outrage, surely plenty of it is genuine.
The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people does not mean little, to be fair. You don't view the deaths at the hands of Saddam in that light (and nor would I blame you).

Putin slaughtered as many in Chechnya. Hundreds of thousands have died in Darfur and Yemen and Congo and other places. Nobody protested.

When the West moves to overthrow dictators and wipe out terrorist vermin the human rights brigade suddenly screams at full voice.

Please forgive my cynicism.about their sincerity.

Two Tone

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Putin slaughtered as many in Chechnya. Hundreds of thousands have died in Darfur and Yemen and Congo and other places. Nobody protested.

When the West moves to overthrow dictators and wipe out terrorist vermin the human rights brigade suddenly screams at full voice.

Please forgive my cynicism.about their sincerity.

I dunno if "nobody" protested but far fewer did, so fair point.

KingBrian2

People have made a lot of good points on here but something is missing and that is this the main driver of Islamism came out of the Gulf not Baghdad. It was elsewhere in the Islamic world that Jihadists were plotting similar atrocities like 9/11 for example the less cited terror attack from Asia to North America hijacking a dozen planes.

Everyone is getting upset that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant but for the most part he was contained, harmless & isolated. Indeed the British and French were getting closer to Iran to curtail Saddam's ambitions so the war was the ultimate distraction from what was a noble objective namely going after the jihadists responsible for 9/11.

I don't want to go down the whole crazy conspiracy theorists though for those Americans who were lied about the invasion it came as a clear indication that the US gvt was capable of deceit and undermined the gvt in all areas of public life. You can't get war wrong.

Arsemageddon

Gringo180 wrote: »

Your either throlling or your just a horrible kunt.

Or worse still, a re-reg.

riclad

The american ,s go to a country ,remove the dictator,
then leave ,chaos ensues, see libya,iraq,
nation building is complex ,
those countrys, need a new police force, army,legal system.
And to make a new civil service thats not corrupt and treats everyone fairly is tough .
And its tough to do with countrys,
with various different factions, ethnic ,religious groups ,
who have acess to weapons .
And who hate each other .
I do,nt think the americans mean to wreck a countrys ,
they just lose interest a few years after the war is over .

Dirty Dingus McGee

There is a brilliant book about the overthrowing of Sadaam and the Americans attempts at running the country afterwards by American Journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran called "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone".

It was turned into the fictional film Green Zone (starring Matt Damon) which I haven't seen.

The book is a brilliant observation of how wrong the Americans got it despite the people involved in trying to run the country generally being decent people with their hearts in the right place but just being hopelessly naive about everything.

He doesn't really take sides regarding the occupation of Iraq and whether it was right or wrong but he gives a good overview of how the post-invasion occupation was handled.

I'd highly recommend it to anyone, it's a great read and I rarely if ever read non-fiction books.

Junkyard Tom

rjpf1980 wrote: »

I don't have to because rough men and women protect me and you while we sleep.

Speak for yourself. I don't dream about rough men in my sleep.

rjpf1980

Two Tone wrote: »

I dunno if "nobody" protested but far fewer did, so fair point.

Nobody protested!