The Iraq war was a disgrace, but sometimes we forget just how much

[Monte Carlo]

I calls balls on your argument, sir. Just because we don't have the resources to treat every person with a disease doesn't mean we can't treat any of them on the grounds of 'fairness'. Not to put too fine a point on it, but **** your fairness. **** it in the ear.

 

Seriously though. When have I ever said I was cool with, say, the Myanmarese junta?

 

I suppose you forgot the little fact he was mainly a 'bad man' because he was going to blow up the world with all his WMD...

 

Nope, he got me at the bit where he dropped poison gas on the Marsh Arabs and fed dissidents into industrial shredding machines.

 

I do find it amusing how, in their unseemly haste to smear the Bush Whitehouse, the anti-war brigade seek to airbrush Saddam into some hapless Middle Eastern dictator-lite.

[Humodour]

History shows Saddam was a violent, evil man and any attempts to characterise him as otherwise are suspect.

[mkreku]

It will take time before things get better, change is usually abrupt and chaotic.

No. No, it definitely is not. Change is usually slow and orderly. By voicing your opinion, by using diplomacy, by outside influences, the people itself, politics, etc. Not even during a revolution are things abrupt and chaotic, mainly because all the underlying systems remain intact and only the head is changed.

 

Unless some warmongering country from across the world suddenly wants your oil and bombs you back to the middle ages. Then it's fast, abrupt and chaotic.

[Nepenthe]

It will take time before things get better, change is usually abrupt and chaotic.

No. No, it definitely is not. Change is usually slow and orderly. By voicing your opinion, by using diplomacy, by outside influences, the people itself, politics, etc. Not even during a revolution are things abrupt and chaotic, mainly because all the underlying systems remain intact and only the head is changed.

 

Some revolutions are more total than others. IIRC the Khmer Rouge basically killed everybody who didn't have calloused hands. That cleaned the clock of the civil service pretty effectively.

[Volourn]

"Life in Iraq now is far worse than it was under Sadam."

 

No.

[Calax]

I personally don't deny that he was a bad man, but then just being a bad man isn't a reason to come in, and topple his government.

 

Hell, if we (america) hadn't been complete idiots in 91 he'd have probably gone down then due to a civil uprising because he had no air support.

[Volourn]

"Hell, if we (america) hadn't been complete idiots in 91 he'd have probably gone down then due to a civil uprising because he had no air support. "

 

I agree, but Amerika is far from the only coutnry blameless than that. It was poloitics. Bush Sr only backed off taking out Hussein because ME countries as well as the European allies.were dead set against a full fledge invasion againast a fellow ME country even if Hussein himself wans't exactly popular. That's what haoppens when the 'politically correct' thing triumphs over the morally right thing.

Iraq could have been freed from Hussein then, and I have a funny feeling that it would have been much cleaner since Iraq War part 2 there was a lot of mistrust from Iraqis who remembered that betrayal.

[Orogun01]

It will take time before things get better, change is usually abrupt and chaotic.

No. No, it definitely is not. Change is usually slow and orderly. By voicing your opinion, by using diplomacy, by outside influences, the people itself, politics, etc. Not even during a revolution are things abrupt and chaotic, mainly because all the underlying systems remain intact and only the head is changed.

 

Unless some warmongering country from across the world suddenly wants your oil and bombs you back to the middle ages. Then it's fast, abrupt and chaotic.

Either you are being sarcastic and i'm missing the point or you are serious. In which case I say that changes in regimes are not often peaceful, this one is made worse by the fact that we tore down the underlying systems and the impoverishment in the area. A unique area that has as many factions as people.

[Calax]

"Hell, if we (america) hadn't been complete idiots in 91 he'd have probably gone down then due to a civil uprising because he had no air support. "

 

I agree, but Amerika is far from the only coutnry blameless than that. It was poloitics. Bush Sr only backed off taking out Hussein because ME countries as well as the European allies.were dead set against a full fledge invasion againast a fellow ME country even if Hussein himself wans't exactly popular. That's what haoppens when the 'politically correct' thing triumphs over the morally right thing.

Iraq could have been freed from Hussein then, and I have a funny feeling that it would have been much cleaner since Iraq War part 2 there was a lot of mistrust from Iraqis who remembered that betrayal.

You missed my point entirely volo... I mean after we'd basically annihilated the iraqi military machine in 91 they were in negotiations with us and an uprising was taking place in the south. The Iraqi military commanders asked to be allowed to launch their helicopters (not saying for what, but basically to turkey shoot any rebel in existance) and the American commander gave permission. If he hadn't Hussein would have fallen then due to a populace uprising.

[Fighter]

No.

 

Yes. As heard from people who've actually been there before and after. You could walk the streets freely, there was order, now there are people with guns on every corner and death. Lofty ideals are the last thing on someone's mind when they go through that, trust me.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Fighter

[Volourn]

"You missed my point entirely volo... I mean after we'd basically annihilated the iraqi military machine in 91 they were in negotiations with us and an uprising was taking place in the south. The Iraqi military commanders asked to be allowed to launch their helicopters (not saying for what, but basically to turkey shoot any rebel in existance) and the American commander gave permission. If he hadn't Hussein would have fallen then due to a populace uprising."

 

You missed my point entirely. I didn't diagree with you, but the point is, the reason that the Amerikan commander 'gave permission' is ebcause other countries didn't want a full scale invasion of Iraq to take place and Bush SR decided to do what the majority wanted. *shrug*

 

EVERYONE is responsible for that.

 

 

 

"Yes. As heard from people who've actually been there before and after. You could walk the streets freely, there was order, now there are people with guns on every corner and death. Lofty ideals are the last thing on someone's mind when they go through that, trust me."

 

No.. As heard from people who've actually been there before and after. You can be non Sunni and have more than spaghetti power, and not be murdered because you disagree with those in power. Also don't have to worry as much about the Iraqi gov't wiping you out almost completely. *cough* Iraqi Marshes *cough* Trust me.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Volourn

[mkreku]

Before the war ~100% of Iraqi children got free education (school). After the war? Under 30%. Before the war Iraq had an infant mortality rate less than 20/1000. After the war? Close to 100/1000. And so on.

 

There are lots of reports on this. Here's one: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199209243271306

 

Iraq was pretty highly ranked as a country before the war. Now? Bottom.

[Thorton_AP]

You realize that that New England Journal of Medicine is referring to the 1991 Gulf War right?

[Volourn]

Yeah, everybody knows that at one point Iraq (along with Isreal) was a a sueprstar of the ME as far as being morernized. But, Hussein ruined that with his decisions, and destroyed the country with his wars, and his mass murders, and his death grip of the country. Thanks mkreku for helping the cause to prove Hussein waasn't a positive for Iraq.

[mkreku]

Yes, I do. Are you suggesting another year to start counting Iraq's misfortunes?

 

Saying that bombing for oil is bad is not the same as saying Hussein was good for Iraq. Compared to war, hell yeah, Hussein was better. But good? No. That was not the point though.

[Orogun01]

Yes, I do. Are you suggesting another year to start counting Iraq's misfortunes?

 

Saying that bombing for oil is bad is not the same as saying Hussein was good for Iraq. Compared to war, hell yeah, Hussein was better. But good? No. That was not the point though.

Can you offer any other alternatives to better Iraq without bombing it?

 

In before waiting for Hussein to die.

[Meshugger]

The Iraqi was layers of bull**** stacked upon another. It will make this generation more cynical than the one before for many reasons, being:

 

1. The Realpolitik.

- Multiple nations had Iraq and its geographical position as a zone of interest. Russia and the EU had ties to the its industry and natural resources, and China as well. Those who were cut out of the loop with the US on top, saw an oppurtunity to shift the balance and took it. It was bold, cold and ruthless at the same time.

 

2. The war on terror doctrine.

- Global war against an idea, a method if you may. Treated as such, it will never be won. In worst case scenario, the defenders of democracy will fall and become the oppressors themselves.

 

3. The idea of enforced positivity.

- Bush and Blair were the most guilty of this. If you are the aggressor and want to force liberty and democracy on nation, it will never bear fruit. No, you cannot compare it to Germany and Japan after WWII. They were the aggressors, the allies were not.

 

4. Iraq being a threat.

- Saddam couldn't even give a budge against Iran in a 10 year long war. Then most of the army was destroyed in operation Desert Storm. Then another 10 years of embargo. The country was done, Saddam was done. The only thing left was the image of him being a supreme leader of a desert.

 

5. The humanitarian effort.

- It was a convenience. A surprising side effect. If Saddam would've been as democratic as Hosni Mubarak, no one would've cared how much of a tyrant he was.

 

What a joke, wikileaks or not.

 

It's still a joke.

[Hurlshort]

We all realize that Saddam had plenty of opportunity to avoid a US invasion, right? The guy did everything he could to egg it on. Still not saying it was the right choice to go in, but if we are pointing fingers, the big middle one should be pointed at him.

[Thorton_AP]

Yes, I do. Are you suggesting another year to start counting Iraq's misfortunes?

 

Saying that bombing for oil is bad is not the same as saying Hussein was good for Iraq. Compared to war, hell yeah, Hussein was better. But good? No. That was not the point though.

 

 

Were your sources confusing the 2003 war with the 1991 war? Because I'd be surprised if you felt the UN shouldn't have intervened in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

 

Because it seems like the glory years of Iraq's education system came before the 1990 (i.e. before the Gulf War). The article you linked earlier regarding infant mortality rate is also pre-post 1991 Gulf War.

 

 

Serious question: Are you criticizing the war in 2003, or the 1991 war?

[mkreku]

Serious question: Are you criticizing the war in 2003, or the 1991 war?

Why make a distinction? What would be the point? The US attacked Iraq in 1991, then Iraq were put on sanctions for a decade before being ruthlessly bombed AGAIN in 2003. What would be the point of measuring the "well being" of the Iraqi people in that disastrous decade between the two wars? I see it as one continuous period as Iraq never has had a chance to rebuild since 1991, no matter how much the Americans are applauding themselves for bringing "democracy" to the region.

[Hurlshort]

Serious question: Are you criticizing the war in 2003, or the 1991 war?

Why make a distinction? What would be the point? The US attacked Iraq in 1991, then Iraq were put on sanctions for a decade before being ruthlessly bombed AGAIN in 2003. What would be the point of measuring the "well being" of the Iraqi people in that disastrous decade between the two wars? I see it as one continuous period as Iraq never has had a chance to rebuild since 1991, no matter how much the Americans are applauding themselves for bringing "democracy" to the region.

 

What are you talking about? Operation Desert Storm in '91 was in Kuwait, after Iraq invaded them. The goal was the liberation of Kuwait. There was no serious attempt at invading Iraq, other than the pursuit of the retreating army. This is a retreating army that lit 700 oil wells on fire, if you recall, causing a huge pollution issue and costing Kuwait 1.5 billion dollars.

 

You are seriously weakening your argument by including the '91 war. Kuwait pleaded for assistances against Iraq, and a huge coalition responded.

[mkreku]

Yes, of course. And in 2003 USA saved the world from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. We know.

 

---

 

Edit:

 

Ok, I have no idea what's so difficult to understand here, but I will try to clarify.

 

Someone in this thread claimed that the people of Iraq were better of after the war than under Saddam.

 

I claim that's not true. But I am measuring an Iraq BEFORE the 1991 war, BEFORE a decade of the harshest economic sanctions ever. When do you want to compare "after the war" against? Saddam in 2002, after 12 years of sanctioning terror? Saddam in 1992, in the middle of war?

 

The closest we have to a Saddam-led Iraq in a normal state is before 1991, which is when we can compare it to "after the war".

Edited November 11, 2010 by mkreku

[Hurlshort]

Yes, but you seem to be working very hard at pinning all the blame on the US for the woes of Iraq. The US didn't force Saddam to invade Kuwait. The biggest culprit here is Saddam Hussein. I can easily meet you in the middle here and say the US has handled the current occupation terribly. I have no problem saying that the second war was flawed from the start. But Hussein was the ruthless dictator here, and he did everything he could to make the original gulf war happen, the economic sanctions happen, and the eventual regime toppling Iraq war happen.

[Volourn]

"I claim that's not true. But I am measuring an Iraq BEFORE the 1991 war, BEFORE a decade of the harshest economic sanctions ever. When do you want to compare "after the war" against? Saddam in 2002, after 12 years of sanctioning terror? Saddam in 1992, in the middle of war?

 

The closest we have to a Saddam-led Iraq in a normal state is before 1991, which is when we can compare it to "after the war".

"

 

You DO realzie that Saddam was the ruler after the First gulf War. iraq's troubkles were directly the result of Saddam's rulership and HIS decisions. Iraq, along with Isreal, were considered the 'prime' countries in the ME to take the next step into modernization. However, Hussein screwed that up. Iraq's downfall is 100% Saddam's fault so how can anyone claim that Iraq was better off with Saddam in charge. Have you not forgotten the Iraq-Iran war which lastest for YEARS and cost MANY Iraqi lives and is what they ultimiately to Iraq's ruination because it resulted in Saddam thinking it was a good idea to invade Kuwait.

 

Sorry dude, but Iraq was worse off with Saddam in power. His history of dictatorship is evidence enough of how horrible he did with that country. He was pretty successful as a dictator. He was absolute failure as a leader. HE *ruined* the country.

 

Period.

[Thorton_AP]

Serious question: Are you criticizing the war in 2003, or the 1991 war?

Why make a distinction? What would be the point? The US attacked Iraq in 1991, then Iraq were put on sanctions for a decade before being ruthlessly bombed AGAIN in 2003. What would be the point of measuring the "well being" of the Iraqi people in that disastrous decade between the two wars?

 

You can argue the sanctions, but at the same time, Iraq was on the decline BEFORE 1991, and I am curious if you think that the UN should not have intervened on behalf of Kuwait?

 

 

The closest we have to a Saddam-led Iraq in a normal state is before 1991, which is when we can compare it to "after the war".

 

Saddam Hussein was also an aggressor that invaded a country in 1991. Your argument loses weight since the 1991 Gulf War was Saddam Hussein's fault, not the US (or anyone else's).

Edited November 11, 2010 by Thorton_AP