Was It Right To Remove Saddam?

[Jack T. Cross]

What?!?!  I don't know if this is a deliberate piece of troll bait, ...or the product of USA public education.  

He was trying to be funny. And it worked.

[George Whorewell]

Dumbest decision Bush ever made. As we are seeing first hand, the middle east needs strongmen dictators. The alternative is much, much, much worse.

The muslim world is largely comprised of illiterate, inbred, impoverished scum. The only thing these "people" respect is strength. Better to have a stable dictator than a rag-tag bunch of ideological towel head terrorists. Both America and the world in general would be safer if Saddam was still in power.  

[RRKore]

Yes, it was right to remove Saddam.

What was wrong was electing an idiot like obamatheclown to the presidency.

Laughable pivot is laughable. 

Besides, isn't it nearly time for you shift over to anti-Hillary mode?

Seek help, dude.

[syntaxmachine]

Simple: look at Cuba, North Korea, Iran from the moment the recent sanctions. Shortage of any kind (food, medicine, etc...) is always a great opportunity for dictators. People don't rebel when the situation is at its worse. French Revolution 101: you need an uppercoming (middle?) class to have a change in structure. My point being, as a reply to your first post, that what made Saddam friendly to the West is what a few years after made him our foe and that what is happening right now is not "happening because" he's no longer in charge but because he has been in charge for so long. I'm not saying the US have no responsability in this but his reign has been a major factor.

Can't our claims be consistent? Maybe Saddam's iron fist did successfully maintain the functional integrity of Iraq, and: the sanctions helped him in this endeavor, and his decisions have contributed to the current disarray upon his being removed from power.

At the very least, I suspect that we can agree that a serious option to consider is dissolving this colonial fiction and divvying the land along sectarian/ethnic lines: look at the relative peace and economic prosperity of the ethnically/religiously homogenous Kurdish region, for example (I'm sure there's more to the Kurds' success, but it's a start).

[MORTALCOIL]

Can't our claims be consistent? Maybe Saddam's iron fist did successfully maintain the functional integrity of Iraq, and: the sanctions helped him in this endeavor, and his decisions have contributed to the current disarray upon his being removed from power.

At the very least, I suspect that we can agree that a serious option to consider is dissolving this colonial fiction and divvying the land along sectarian/ethnic lines: look at the relative peace and economic prosperity of the ethnically/religiously homogenous Kurdish region, for example (I'm sure there's more to the Kurds' success, but it's a start).

100% agreed. I've always said this was the poisonous gift the Brits and the French left, creating so called nations when it was just drawings on a map. Only countries with a true consistency: Iran (old synthetic empire) and Turkey. The worse to come: Saoudi Arabia (29 million people, 20 million foreign workhorses), Qatar (300 000 natives for 1,7 million foreigners). How long can this function?

[headhuntersix]

The Kurds have seized Kirkuk and will hold it. The Pesh are competent and hate the arabs so no issues there. Any move further south then Bagdad and I think the Shia will be able to stop the current offensive.  It won't be pretty for a while.

[flipper5470]

The wheels were put in motion before Bush took office...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

...and things likely wouldn't have been much different had Gore been elected.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-al-gore-would-have-invaded-iraq-and-what-it-tells-us-about-syria/article14105322/