Was It Right To Remove Saddam?

[Donny]

I enjoyed the Video of his Hanging.. this is enough reason...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm

[dr.chimps]

Removed, yes. It's the how and when that was terrible.

x2

[Obvious Gimmick]

As Americans, we HAVE to have a boogie man. This fell was no threat to the west and Bush knew that. But he spoke a funny language and didn't look like us, so fuck him. Plus it gave Halliburton and others a chance to make a few bucks, so double fuck him 

[f450]

Much worse rulers in the world today.

It was a cowardly and ridiculous move by Bush and the US may never recover from the fall out. At this point the international community laughs when the US talks about another country i.e. russia, breaking international law. The US invaded a sovereign country just because, destroyed it and turned it into a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.

How about the US invade a country with a truly fucked up leader that blacks out communication with the outside world and makes all his "subjects" worship him .. while commiting heinous acts whenever he feels like it because there is no international oversight... Invade North Korea .. yeah, that will never happen. they got Nukes.

The US is nothing but a bully and we all know bullies never ever pick on someone their own size. Its sad what this country has turned to. And for what its worth, the US is a cesspool of corruption. The entire government is bought and paid for by monied interests. But what are you gonna do right? Type about it?

[Donny]

As Americans, we HAVE to have a boogie man. This fell was no threat to the west and Bush knew that. But he spoke a funny language and didn't look like us, so fuck him. Plus it gave Halliburton and others a chance to make a few bucks, so double fuck him 

yes very true... we all know there were other motives here as well.. Money and Greed.

[dr.chimps]

As Americans, we HAVE to have a boogie man. This fell was no threat to the west and Bush knew that. But he spoke a funny language and didn't look like us, so fuck him. Plus it gave Halliburton and others a chance to make a few bucks, so double fuck him 

Hey, nothing sells (shitty) domestic policy like foreign wars. PolySci 101.      

[MORTALCOIL]

How about the US invade a country with a truly fucked up leader that blacks out communication with the outside world and makes all his "subjects" worship him .. while commiting heinous acts whenever he feels like it because there is no international oversight... Invade North Korea .. yeah, that will never happen. they got Nukes.

Nothing to gain in North Korea. The country is of very little importance on a geo-strategic level. Iraq: much different, specially back then. Remember this was post-9/11. Americans suddenly understood they fucked up big time in Afghanistan (helping the Taiibans over the Northern Alliance) and that their dear Saoudi (and Qatari) friends were the main funders of international terrorism (they still are and still got us by our oil-dependant balls). Remember that most of the Persian Gulf "Kingdoms" are British-drawn imaginary countries built on the scraps of the Ottoman Empire. Iraq, like Syria, does have some kind of historical meaning and moreover has a real population (above 20 million back when the war started). With unreliable allies with very little real structures (Saoudi Arabia's population is 2/3 foreign workers-Qatar is 1,6 million foreigners for 300 000 locals- most foreigners being almost slaves). It suddenly sounded like a great idea to bring back into the game an important country like Iraq. Americans thought that this would be a piece of cake and that they would be welcomed as saviors. Naivety and cynicism don't really work together.

[syntaxmachine]

Iraq is plagued with tribalist and sectarian strife, an uneducated population constrained by limited cognitive competences, weak institutions, and no effective force for internal security, among other things.

The country's only hope is a strong-willed military man who can take control and mobilize support, maintaining order via distinctly non-democratic means and yet who will be amenable to Western influence if only for pragmatic reasons. Hmm -- that sounds familiar for some reason.

[headhuntersix]

Much worse rulers in the world today.

It was a cowardly and ridiculous move by Bush and the US may never recover from the fall out. At this point the international community laughs when the US talks about another country i.e. russia, breaking international law. The US invaded a sovereign country just because, destroyed it and turned it into a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.

How about the US invade a country with a truly fucked up leader that blacks out communication with the outside world and makes all his "subjects" worship him .. while commiting heinous acts whenever he feels like it because there is no international oversight... Invade North Korea .. yeah, that will never happen. they got Nukes.

The US is nothing but a bully and we all know bullies never ever pick on someone their own size. Its sad what this country has turned to. And for what its worth, the US is a cesspool of corruption. The entire government is bought and paid for by monied interests. But what are you gonna do right? Type about it?

What shithole country that doesn't matter are u from?

[TheGrinch]

Look, when Iraqi terrorists blew up the WTC and saddam stockpiled chemical weapons, he sealed his own fate. .

um..... the "terrorists" where NOT from Iraq....

read much?

[TheGrinch]

um..... the "terrorists" where NOT from Iraq....

[24KT]

Look, when Iraqi terrorists blew up the WTC and saddam stockpiled chemical weapons, he sealed his own fate. .

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

[MORTALCOIL]

Iraq is plagued with tribalist and sectarian strife, an uneducated population constrained by limited cognitive competences, weak institutions, and no effective force for internal security, among other things.

The country's only hope is a strong-willed military man who can take control and mobilize support, maintaining order via distinctly non-democratic means and yet who will be amenable to Western influence if only for pragmatic reasons. Hmm -- that sounds familiar for some reason.

If you think Saddam was that, you are mistaken. Saddam was a puppet from the get-go and one of the most idiotic leaders in the region (far from Hafez El-Assad for example). The only thing that made his regime stable for more than ten years was the embargo after the Koweit war (which actually worsened the situation you describe at first in your post). His "decision" to attack Iran (backed by the US, GB, France, Saoudi Arabia and Koweit) was the dumbest move one can imagine. The situation the country is into right now is a direct consequence of his decisions.

[headhuntersix]

But.........had the US left maybe a BDE of stuff and dudes around Bagdad, none of this would be happening. 1 Combat aviation BN with apaches and lift would be enough to have kept these guys inside Syria. With an ROE that allowed air to hit their camps, this could be avoided.

[Archer77]

Iraq is plagued with tribalist and sectarian strife, an uneducated population constrained by limited cognitive competences, weak institutions, and no effective force for internal security, among other things.

The country's only hope is a strong-willed military man who can take control and mobilize support, maintaining order via distinctly non-democratic means and yet who will be amenable to Western influence if only for pragmatic reasons. Hmm -- that sounds familiar for some reason.

Great post. You're absolutely right.  I was going to write a nearly identical statement before I caught your post.

[dario73]

Yes, it was right to remove Saddam.

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


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-once-called-iraq-one-obamas-great-achievments_794909.html

As Iraq falls apart, it's worth remembering Vice President Joe Biden hailing that country as one of President Obama's "great achievements" in a 2010 interview with then CNN host Larry King:

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

[Soul Crusher]

LMFAO - expect silence from the libfags on this one

Yes, it was right to remove Saddam.

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


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-once-called-iraq-one-obamas-great-achievments_794909.html

As Iraq falls apart, it's worth remembering Vice President Joe Biden hailing that country as one of President Obama's "great achievements" in a 2010 interview with then CNN host Larry King:

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

[syntaxmachine]

But.........had the US left maybe a BDE of stuff and dudes around Bagdad, none of this would be happening. 1 Combat aviation BN with apaches and lift would be enough to have kept these guys inside Syria. With an ROE that allowed air to hit their camps, this could be avoided.

Strategically, does it necessarily make sense to prop up a dictatorial Iranian satellite (most experts agree that that is what the Shia-dominated Maliki regime is) in the region? Personally, would you want to die for it?

If you think Saddam was that, you are mistaken. Saddam was a puppet from the get-go and one of the most idiotic leaders in the region (far from Hafez El-Assad for example). The only thing that made his regime stable for more than ten years was the embargo after the Koweit war (which actually worsened the situation you describe at first in your post). His "decision" to attack Iran (backed by the US, GB, France, Saoudi Arabia and Koweit) was the dumbest move one can imagine. The situation the country is into right now is a direct consequence of his decisions.

Whether Saddam was "idiotic" or not, the power structure he built and led maintained the functional integrity of the colonial fiction known as Iraq for a quarter of a century -- and seemingly would have continued to do so absent Western intervention -- in addition to serving as a bulwark against a rising Iran, our putative opponent in the region. Look at what happened the moment we dissolved that power structure: is this not evidence that it was preserving a modicum of stability?

He was also clearly amenable to Western influence as evinced by our relationship with him right up until his invasion of Kuwait.

Can you clarify why you think the 1990's sanctions enhanced stability in Iraq?

[bears]

Strategically, does it necessarily make sense to prop up a dictatorial Iranian satellite (most experts agree that that is what the Shia-dominated Maliki regime is) in the region? Personally, would you want to die for it?

Whether Saddam was "idiotic" or not, the power structure he built and led maintained the functional integrity of the colonial fiction known as Iraq for a quarter of a century -- and seemingly would have continued to do so absent Western intervention -- in addition to serving as a bulwark against a rising Iran, our putative opponent in the region. Look at what happened the moment we dissolved that power structure: is this not evidence that it was preserving a modicum of stability?

He was also clearly amenable to Western influence as evinced by our relationship with him right up until his invasion of Kuwait.

Can you clarify why you think the 1990's sanctions enhanced stability in Iraq?

I really can't help but agree.  you really can't argue against the fact that he did stabilize the region to simply because of how unstable he was.  and they all knew that shit.  he didn't have respect he had fear.  and fear fucking works. 

The diplomatic relations that everyone wants to have with the Middle East are just never going to happen.  We should have a business relationship with them, nothing more.  But that will NEVER happen.  There's no good answer to what we should ever be doing over there in my opinion. 

[OzmO]

Yes, but the fact is they both kept the terrorists out and the religious lunatics in check.

We've turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, and now Obama and McCain want to fight alongside Al-Qaeda against the legitimate government of Syria.

Yep.  Agreed

We should have never went into Iraq. 

[240 is Back]

Yep.  Agreed

We should have never went into Iraq. 

what reason(s) did we go into Iraq, Oz?

[Archer77]

what reason(s) did we go into Iraq, Oz?

Take your pick.

[OzmO]

what reason(s) did we go into Iraq, Oz?

To rid the world of an evil tyrant
Protect America from WMDs
Spread democracy


Obviously.   

[Kazan]

To rid the world of an evil tyrant
Protect America from WMDs
Spread democracy


Obviously.   

Secure Oil reserves

[MORTALCOIL]

Strategically, does it necessarily make sense to prop up a dictatorial Iranian satellite (most experts agree that that is what the Shia-dominated Maliki regime is) in the region? Personally, would you want to die for it?

Whether Saddam was "idiotic" or not, the power structure he built and led maintained the functional integrity of the colonial fiction known as Iraq for a quarter of a century -- and seemingly would have continued to do so absent Western intervention -- in addition to serving as a bulwark against a rising Iran, our putative opponent in the region. Look at what happened the moment we dissolved that power structure: is this not evidence that it was preserving a modicum of stability?

He was also clearly amenable to Western influence as evinced by our relationship with him right up until his invasion of Kuwait.

Can you clarify why you think the 1990's sanctions enhanced stability in Iraq?

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.