Would Iraq be better off if Saddam was still in power?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sava
Everyone is. It's just a question of to what degree one is a hypocrite.

So? I don't know exactly what your reasons were or how each of those reasons played into your opposition. I also objected to the invasion well beforehand. But I'm not about to pretend (and I'm not accusing you of doing so) to care about the Iraqi people, or that the welfare of the Iraqi people was tops on my list for reasons not to go to war.

But I see this argument coming from people who were opposed to the war... that somehow we ought to be doing what's in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

Sorry, but most of the people opposed to the war in Iraq who are saying things like that didn't give half a **** about the interests of the Iraqi people when the War wasn't an issue. It's become a popular thing to say. But it's just a meaningless talking point. It's hypocrisy.

If everyone who made such statements truly cared about the interests of the Iraqi people (and the people of Darfur and every other group of people who are suffering from violence in the world), then the United States would be taking a more active role in policing the world with the help of the international community.

It's just like in the Muslim world how leaders pretend to bash Israel and care so much about the Palestinians. Oh sure, it's popular on the Arab street to say you are going to crush the Zionists... but it's all rabble rousing nonsense... just like all this bull**** about the Iraqi people.

Why can't people just be honest? There's nothing wrong with being concerned with your own interests first. That's not to say you wish bad things on other people, but there's a pecking order when it comes to who you care about and how much you care about them.

There are some people out there who really do care about every other human being on the planet and demonstrate that love of their fellow human being with their actions. But most everyone else just pretends to be that way because they don't want to seem like an *******. Hypocrisy makes people an *******. Looking after your own self-interest? That just makes you a human being.

Translation: Sava claims he's a hypocrite because 'he's a human being'. That's right, try and taint the rest of us with your failings. You were wrong, just suck it up like a man instead of bleating like a stuck pig...

Of course everyone should be concerned with their own interests first - but that doesn't mean we have to keep on ****ing over people and killing them because they have different beliefs, or have a different skin colour, as Sava seems to think is OK...

Take this dumbass war: Caring about people dying on either side is irrelevant - it was obvious it was a really bad idea. Full stop. No hypocrisy required for that viewpoint whatsoever!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I wrote a term paper for my ethics class in late 2002 about why the Iraq war would be wrong. I can't remember the exact justification, but I seem to remember that at least part of it was that it would destablize the region and send the message to regional hegemons that it's ok to invade weaker countries you don't like as long as you can make up some reasons.

Later, over countless debates, I set out a more practical set of reasons:
1) It would tell other countries that WMD were the only way to make the US mind its own business.
2) Oppressive dictatorship is better than chaos, at least for outside parties (neighbors who get refugees, the US, etc.)
3) There was no proven link to Al Qaeda.
4) the invasion would piss off muslims.
5) etc.

I don't think I've ever claimed to care about the Iraqi people. It's sad that bad stuff is happening to them, but if I felt that it was my duty to care, there's so many other countries that are pretty screwed up right now.

Oh and

Totally agree.

edit: For the record I also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and Clinton's bombing of Serbia. I admit that in those cases I may have been wrong.

Afghanistan was another **** up. IMO the needed to wait another six months exhausting diplomatic routes and building up intelligence on the ground. Leaning on Pakistan to lean on the Taliban might have meant them giving up Bin Laden, or at least his whereabouts...

As for Serbia... WTF!?!?!?!?!?

This is going to sound controversial, but not only was the bombing utterly wrong - but I think we actually targeted the wrong bad guys! The KLA were the ones on the offensive trying to rip a piece of the country away from the Serbs, but then when people was the heavy-handed approach of the Serbs - everyone immediately thought of Srebrenica and the massacres resulting from those.

The Kosovo War and bombing of Serbia was the result of the West's guilt over that being compounded by belatedly trying to atone for that past sin and making an even worse **** up.

Most of the time, if you have to resort to fighting you have already lost the argument.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Afghanistan was another **** up. IMO the needed to wait another six months exhausting diplomatic routes and building up intelligence on the ground. Leaning on Pakistan to lean on the Taliban might have meant them giving up Bin Laden, or at least his whereabouts...

Here I disagree. Originally, I thought it wouldn't work. Turns out, I was wrong. The reason Afghanistan is a mess is because we went to Iraq before the mess was cleaned up.

As for Serbia... WTF!?!?!?!?!?

This is going to sound controversial, but not only was the bombing utterly wrong - but I think we actually targeted the wrong bad guys! The KLA were the ones on the offensive trying to rip a piece of the country away from the Serbs, but then when people was the heavy-handed approach of the Serbs - everyone immediately thought of Srebrenica and the massacres resulting from those.

The Kosovo War and bombing of Serbia was the result of the West's guilt over that being compounded by belatedly trying to atone for that past sin and making an even worse **** up.

Most of the time, if you have to resort to fighting you have already lost the argument.

Well, honestly, I do sympathise with the Serbians. I think that the situation on the ground was a civil war, which the Serbians were somewhat winning due to having an army. The real sort of ethnic cleansing really started after NATO threatened to step in because Slobodan Milosevic realized the only way to win was to remove the Albanians from Kosovo before his country collapsed to the airpower. Maybe it's just pro-Serbian, anti-independence movements bias here.

On the other hand, I do think Serbia is much better off without Milosevic, even if it lost several important chunks. I also think that Serbia is in much better shape because they took down Milosevic themselves rather than having the Americans do it for them.

[SlowwHand]

The poll and results illutrate the lack of intelligence outside of poster's areas of endeavor.

A) It isn't under Bush.
B) For those who think it was better with Hussein alive, you're an idiot.

[Patroklos]

Perhaps pre Gulf War they would be better off under Saddam, but simply using death tolls the Iraqis are better off now.

[Geronimo]

Iraqis would be best off under their locally elected government *if* it were able to pull its act together enough to effectively govern. I'm not sure it could if it tried however.

Failing that, they'd probably have a lower violent death rate and much stronger economy under Saddam so that would be the next best thing.

Iraqi's being governed by Bush is surely the worst of all possible options.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Perhaps pre Gulf War they would be better off under Saddam, but simply using death tolls the Iraqis are better off now.

I'm fairly sure the death toll is higher now. Unless you are including children allowed to die from neglect under saddam as a political ploy to get all sanctions lifted?

[Arrian]

That's right, try and taint the rest of us with your failings. You were wrong, just suck it up like a man instead of bleating like a stuck pig...

Sava was anti-war, you schmuck. His point, which I don't necessarily agree with, is that (most) people in the West don't really care about Iraqis. It's PC to claim to care, but Sava's calling bull****.

I disagree to a point. I care, but I care more about me and mine. Sava's taking it a step further... 'cause he's Sava and that's how he rolls.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sava was anti-war, you schmuck.

Yeah, well he admits to being a hypocrite so obviously he was wrong about something...

His point, which I don't necessarily agree with, is that (most) people in the West don't really care about Iraqis. It's PC to claim to care, but Sava's calling bull****.

I disagree to a point. I care, but I care more about me and mine. Sava's taking it a step further... 'cause he's Sava and that's how he rolls.

Well I don't particularly care, except in the concept that it is bad for people to die/would hate to be in their position. My overriding concern is more that this whole adventure has been a total ****ing waste of life and money by a nation hellbent on producing the polar opposite outcome of its stated aims...

If it were down to me, Saddam would still be in power and his subjects on the whole would be far better off than they are now! In fact the US is friends with/turns a blind eye to numerous dictatorships and oppressive regimes around the world as we speak, so it's not as if my view is in any way controversial...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Saddam is dead and buried. I dare say Iraqis under Saddam would not be a good thing. They likely would suffocate very soon.

Under Bush at lest they're above ground.


For the record this poll is invalid and sux.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Here I disagree. Originally, I thought it wouldn't work. Turns out, I was wrong. The reason Afghanistan is a mess is because we went to Iraq before the mess was cleaned up.

I didn't say don't go in. Just wait using diplomacy, gain intel, work out a plan to actually get the people you're coming for and do it with personnel you can trust...

If you rate the success of Afghanistan purely in terms of taking out Al-qaeda and smashing it's leadership, then we failed!

In fact now we are having to fight an entirely unrelated enemy in the Taliban who are doing Al-qaeda's dirty work for them!

Therefore by attacking Afghanistan, the UK has now lost dozens of soldiers to a foe we weren't even enemies with (in fact, it would be interesting to see how many coalition forces have been killed by Al-qaeda, as opposed to Sunni/Shi'a insurgents and Iranian agents!!???) - not to mention the fact the opium that the Taliban had cracked down on is now finding its way to the UK in record amounts!

AND, it is even debatable that the lot of the average Afghani is any better now than it was under the Taliban.

To me that spells failure with a big fat 'F'!

Well, honestly, I do sympathise with the Serbians. I think that the situation on the ground was a civil war, which the Serbians were somewhat winning due to having an army. The real sort of ethnic cleansing really started after NATO threatened to step in because Slobodan Milosevic realized the only way to win was to remove the Albanians from Kosovo before his country collapsed to the airpower. Maybe it's just pro-Serbian, anti-independence movements bias here.

On the other hand, I do think Serbia is much better off without Milosevic, even if it lost several important chunks. I also think that Serbia is in much better shape because they took down Milosevic themselves rather than having the Americans do it for them.

Exactly. The civil war was precipitated by KLA separatists, the whole thing kicked off because of the knee-jerk and collosal over-reaction of the West still feeling guilty over their abject failure to prevent the massacres perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs...

We all know what tin-pot dictators like Milosevic and Hussein etc are like - they didn't get to positions of power by backing down, even in the face of overwhelming odds!

Which is why we need to play the waiting game with Ahmedinejad because if we're patient he'll piss off his own country way before Iran even comes within a sniff of actually being capable of producing nukes. Attack Iran now and the nation will rally around their lame duck leader out of a misguided sense of nationalism...

Just like Thatcher and the Falklands, she was deeply unpopular in the run up - and a national heroine afterwards because we trashed the Argies...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Just like Thatcher and the Falklands, she was deeply unpopular in the run up - and a national heroine afterwards because we trashed the Argies...

But how popular would Thatcher have become if her actions had led not only to the loss of the islands but to the sinking of several RN vessels with nothing to show for it?

[Patroklos]

I'm fairly sure the death toll is higher now. Unless you are including children allowed to die from neglect under saddam as a political ploy to get all sanctions lifted?

You are fairly wrong. Simply math if you take the UN estimates of Iraqis killed from 91-03 versus 03-06. Adjusted for the longer time frame of course, on average. Saddam is most definetly responsible for the starvation of his people since he had plenty of money and opportunity to stop it. He simply preferred to build palaces.

And there is the fact that Saddam has close to 1.5 (perhaps a little high, but alot nontheless) million on his books for his first two wars, that alone spread over his reign is a close match to whats happening now.

Hell I am pretty sure Saddam killed more Iraqis during the Shia uprising alone than even the worst estimates of Iraq deaths in this war claim.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos


You are fairly wrong. Simply math if you take the UN estimates of Iraqis killed from 91-03 versus 03-06. Adjusted for the longer time frame of course, on average. Saddam is most definetly responsible for the starvation of his people since he had plenty of money and opportunity to stop it. He simply preferred to build palaces.

And there is the fact that Saddam has close to 1.5 million on his books for his first two wars, that alone spread over his reign is a close match to whats happening now.

Hell I am pretty sure Saddam killed more Iraqis during the Shia uprising alone than even the worst estimates of Iraq deaths in this war claim.

There is nothing simple about the math involved because the numbers themselves are so fuzzy and hotly disputed.

There are claims that the civilian death toll since 2003 is over a hundred thousand.

[Patroklos]

Yes, but even that ridiculously high upper limit estimated death toll pales in comparison to some of the lower estimates of yearly deaths from 91-03.