If Saddam still ruled, there would be no Arab Spring

[Colpy]

"If Saddam still ruled, there would be no Arab Spring"

Can anyone imagine how the Arab spring would have played out if a keystone Arab state, oil-rich and heavily armed with a track record of intervention in its neighbours’ affairs and a history of all-out mass repression against its own civilians, were still the private property of a sadistic crime family? As it is, to have had Iraq on the other scale from the outset has been an unnoticed and unacknowledged benefit whose extent is impossible to compute. And the influence of Iraq on the Libyan equation has also been uniformly positive in ways that are likewise often overlooked.

Christopher Hitchens: If Saddam still ruled, there would be no Arab Spring | Full Comment | National Post

So very interesting.

Could it be, is it feasible, that President George W. Bush is responsible for a liberation movement that has already changed the face of the Middle East.........and may shatter the chains of millions of people?

It is possible.

I laugh.

Death to tyrants.

 

[petros]

Is it possible Bernadette will turn back into your dad Bernie?

 

[earth_as_one]

The US led Iraq invasion was an unprovoked war crime which needlessly cost hundreds of billions ($US), resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, including coalition soldiers and turned about 5 million people into homeless refugees.

If we waited until now before intervening, the Iraqi people could have overthrown Hussein themselves with far less outside interference and at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Avro]

"If Saddam still ruled, there would be no Arab Spring"



Christopher Hitchens: If Saddam still ruled, there would be no Arab Spring | Full Comment | National Post

So very interesting.

Could it be, is it feasible, that President George W. Bush is responsible for a liberation movement that has already changed the face of the Middle East.........and may shatter the chains of millions of people?

It is possible.

I laugh.

Death to tyrants.

Nope, nice try though.

This action began in Tunisia by a little fruit vendor and began a chain reaction.

This could have spilled over into Iraq where the Kurds and the Shi'a out number the Sunni's 3 to 1.

Would have saved the US from going nearly bankrupt and saved thousands of American lives.

Interventionalist like you love to prance around the world saving kittens from trees at our own exspense.:roll:

Interesting you'd post an article by an anit-religious zelot who's real motivation is just that.

 

[In Between Man]

Could it be, is it feasible, that President George W. Bush is responsible for a liberation movement that has already changed the face of the Middle East.........and may shatter the chains of millions of people?

History will vindicate George W. Bush.

 

[TenPenny]

I'm reading the book, The Forever War, by Dexter Filkins. The more I read, the more I realize that we need to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as we reasonably can, because we cannot accomplish anything useful or permanent.

Reading about the Afghans who switch sides from day to day at random, makes you realize that there is no upside to the west's involvement.

 

[Corduroy]

If we waited until now before intervening, the Iraqi people could have overthrown Hussein themselves with far less outside interference and at a fraction of the cost.

If you believe this, you know nothing about Iraq or Saddam Hussein. It's amazing that after 8 years of attacking the war, the pro-genocidal tyrant left hasn't learned a thing about their genocidal tyrant.

 

[mentalfloss]

I'm reading the book, The Forever War, by Dexter Filkins. The more I read, the more I realize that we need to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as we reasonably can, because we cannot accomplish anything useful or permanent.

Reading about the Afghans who switch sides from day to day at random, makes you realize that there is no upside to the west's involvement.

Yup.


The American promise of a stable, prosperous democratic Iraq has instead given rise to persisting civil conflict based on sectarian and ethno-linguistic divisions of Sunni and Shi’a, Kurd and Arab. The American-constructed post-Saddam Hussein system has managed to institutionalize these vertical and factional divisions in Iraqi society; the US essentially ensconced the Shi’a and Kurdish groups and their political parties. Its system of government quotas based on such socio-cultural divisions has put Iraq back decades, its power-hungry ethnic and sectarian factional blocs in Parliament concerned with their narrow interests rather than the Iraqi nation. Iraq’s system is reminiscent of Lebanon’s “confessional” socio-political system established by the French in 1943. The factions have little incentive to cooperate and more incentive to feel they cannot compromise lest the other side wins.

The American war to oust Saddam not only targeted Iraq’s infrastructure but also the ensuing occupation and civil war created some 1.5 million Iraqi refugees, the vast majority Sunni, and an equal number of internally displaced persons. Most of the external refugees constituted the great urban, cosmopolitan Iraqi middle and upper classes who gave Iraq its coherence and who were the greatest hope for a liberal, democratic Iraqi state. Among other consequences, the American invasion aggravated Sunni-Shi’a identities and opened the door for potential Kurdish secession.

The tragedy that is Iraq | openDemocracy

 

[BaalsTears]

Democracy is exclusively a Western concept. It has never originated independently outside the West. It requires a cultural context within which to grow, or imposition by a hegemon. Democracy cannot survive in the Arab world.

 

[Colpy]

I'm reading the book, The Forever War, by Dexter Filkins. The more I read, the more I realize that we need to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as we reasonably can, because we cannot accomplish anything useful or permanent.

Reading about the Afghans who switch sides from day to day at random, makes you realize that there is no upside to the west's involvement.

Yeah....I have some sympathy for the view that Afghanistan is a waste of time, especially since Karzai has turned out to be such a democratic disappointment.

Alternatives, anyone?

The ONLY alternative, in my books, would have been to bomb the place back into the stone age after 9-11. And I mean destroy the nation utterly. Bomb them until there was regime change. We simply could not allow a nation to support our enemies, to provide them safe haven, to allow their nation to be used as a launching point for war against the west...........9-11 was the Pearl Harbour of the Islamic War.

But we tried, instead, to do good, to support Afghanistan's emergence into the 21st century.......

I kinda prefer us as the good guys.

And if we opt for the alternative, Canada need not buy F-35s.....we should buy heavy bombers instead. Or cruise missile technology. Or both.

Oh....wasn't this thread about Iraq?????

 

[petros]

Saddam did what he was paid very to do by some very influential people. Like all contracts they come to an end when the services of that person are no longer required.

Which one of the Saddam doubles was hung on TV while the real one relaxes and leads a quiet life in Argentina where all good dictators go to retire.

 

[Colpy]

The US led Iraq invasion was an unprovoked war crime which needlessly cost hundreds of billions ($US), resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, including coalition soldiers and turned about 5 million people into homeless refugees.

If we waited until now before intervening, the Iraqi people could have overthrown Hussein themselves with far less outside interference and at a fraction of the cost.

Right.........

The American War of Independence was an unprovoked war crime which killed tens of thousands of people...........and set all the people of the western world on the road to freedom.

The Civil War was an unprovoked war crime that killed 625,000 people..........and ended slavery in the USA forever.

The Second World War was a unprovoked war crime..........I mean, what does Poland have to do with us?.........that killed as many as 50 million people........and stopped German, Italian and Japanese fascism from dominating the earth.

And the Iraqi people did revolt against Hussein after the First Gulf war.......both Kurds in the north, and Shia in the south...........they were mercilessly slaughtered, with 100,000 dead, and a real genocide carried out against the Shia marsh people of the south....the marshes they depended on drained, mass graves found, at least one with as many as 10,000 graves in it.

BTW, 100,000 is more than the Israelis have killed in 63 years of war.

 

[mentalfloss]

Saddam did what he was paid very to do by some very influential people. Like all contracts they come to an end when the services of that person are no longer required.

Which one of the Saddam doubles was hung on TV while the real one relaxes and leads a quiet life in Argentina where all good dictators go to retire.

Saddam and Mengele were good poker buddies.

And the Iraqi people did revolt against Hussein after the First Gulf war.......both Kurds in the north, and Shia in the south...........they were mercilessly slaughtered, with 100,000 dead, and a real genocide carried out against the Shia marsh people of the south....the marshes they depended on drained, mass graves found, at least one with as many as 10,000 graves in it.

C'mon, you should really tell people the beginning of this story..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shakinghands_high.OGG

How was Iraq able to mercilessly slaughter all of those innocents? Why don't you look at the receipt.

First we arm them, then we kill them.
And then we get to call ourselves heroes... all the way to the bank.

 

[Colpy]

Saddam and Mengele were good poker buddies.



C'mon, you should really tell people the beginning of this story..

File:Shakinghands high.OGG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How was Iraq able to mercilessly slaughter all of those innocents? Why don't you look at the receipt.

First we arm them, then we kill them.
And then we get to call ourselves heroes... all the way to the bank.

Unfortunately, your reply is absolute nonsense.

Where did you see the US making money off of this?

Where did you see massive arms sales by the US to Iraq?

The answer: you didn't. Because there were none. If you want to look for massive sales of weapons, nuclear technology, chemicals etc to the Iraqis you have to look at France, Germany, the USSR, China.....all of whom vehemently opposed war with Iraq.

Iran is an Islamic looney state...in case you haven't noticed....and an enemy of the USA.......the Americans helped Saddam with intelligence so that he could prevent Iran from gaining control over more of the Persian Gulf area, and area essential to American strategic interests. In other words, the USA was acting in a very limited way to protect its strategic interests.....and ours.

thank GOD you lefties aren't running the world........we'd all be wearing sheets and reading the Koran in 6 months.

 

[Corduroy]

• The West supported Saddam Hussein and sold him weapons

What's the point of this argument? Seems to me that the people who make it often don't explicitly announce their conclusions, but it's obvious what they are implying.

• Therefore the West should not have helped the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam Hussein

I ask you, does this follow logically? Is it part of your moral system that if you do something wrong you shouldn't attempt to correct the problem? I hear people mention Saddam Hussein and the Shah in Iran and myriad other regimes the US has unfortunately supported over the years and I think they sound like perfect arguments in favour of intervention. You can say that you shouldn't do anything about X country because it's none of your business, but once you start arguing that you are responsible for the problem in X country, you are arguing that it is your business and that you have a responsibility to do the right thing.

 

[earth_as_one]

If you believe this, you know nothing about Iraq or Saddam Hussein. It's amazing that after 8 years of attacking the war, the pro-genocidal tyrant left hasn't learned a thing about their genocidal tyrant.

I was against Hussein back in the 1980's when he committed his worst crimes and was protected by the US. When Hussein gassed the Kurds, the US tried to blame Iran. When the rest of the world imposed an arms embargo against Iraq the US increased their arms sales to Iraq. I've never advocated genocide or tyranny and I find such claims insulting. I supported an arms embargo against Iraq, but I was against blocking food and medicine.

Right.........

The American War of Independence was an unprovoked war crime which killed tens of thousands of people...........and set all the people of the western world on the road to freedom.

The Civil War was an unprovoked war crime that killed 625,000 people..........and ended slavery in the USA forever.

The Second World War was a unprovoked war crime..........I mean, what does Poland have to do with us?.........that killed as many as 50 million people........and stopped German, Italian and Japanese fascism from dominating the earth.

And the Iraqi people did revolt against Hussein after the First Gulf war.......both Kurds in the north, and Shia in the south...........they were mercilessly slaughtered, with 100,000 dead, and a real genocide carried out against the Shia marsh people of the south....the marshes they depended on drained, mass graves found, at least one with as many as 10,000 graves in it.

BTW, 100,000 is more than the Israelis have killed in 63 years of war.

That last line is called moral relatively. Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity can't be excused because someone else once did something worse. That would be like saying murder is OK as long as you aren't as bad as Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo.

The US justified the 2003 invasion because Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs and supported the people responsible for 9/11. Neither of those true and were manipulations which fooled gullible people into supporting a war crime.

US intervention in Iraq for humanitarian reasons could have been justified back in 1992 revolt, but not in 2003 when no atrocities were being committed and Iraq was relatively peaceful and safe. If Hussein was still in power, I expect he'd be under the same sort of pressure from his people as Gadhafi, at which point intervention might be justified.

 

[CDNBear]

That last line is called moral relatively.

You'd be the resident authority on that. You're well known for your moral relativism.

 

[earth_as_one]

• The West supported Saddam Hussein and sold him weapons

What's the point of this argument? Seems to me that the people who make it often don't explicitly announce their conclusions, but it's obvious what they are implying.

• Therefore the West should not have helped the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam Hussein

I ask you, does this follow logically? Is it part of your moral system that if you do something wrong you shouldn't attempt to correct the problem? I hear people mention Saddam Hussein and the Shah in Iran and myriad other regimes the US has unfortunately supported over the years and I think they sound like perfect arguments in favour of intervention. You can say that you shouldn't do anything about X country because it's none of your business, but once you start arguing that you are responsible for the problem in X country, you are arguing that it is your business and that you have a responsibility to do the right thing.

Turning Iraq into a war zone resulted in about a million violent deaths and made about 5 million people refugees. The US never "helped" the Iraqi people overthrow their despot. The US invaded and occupied another country to seize control of its oil wealth. Back in 2003, a genocidal civil war was taking place in the DRC which killed about 3 million people over 5 years. It barely made our news and certainly no one was advocating humanitarian intervention in that crisis. In comparison, nothing was going on in Iraq at the time to justify foreign intervention. Which proves claims that the US invaded raq for the benefit of the Iraqi people is pure BS.

Maybe you do more about what was going on in Iraq just before the US led invasion. Would you please list the atrocities which were going on in Iraq at the time which justified the US led invasion occupation. As far as I know, Iraq was safe and peaceful in 2003, 2002, and 2001. As far as I know, you'd have to back over a decade to find a serious atrocities in Iraq. You obviously know something I don't, so please enlighten me...

 

[Colpy]

Turning Iraq into a war zone resulted in about a million violent deaths and made about 5 million people refugees. The US never "helped" the Iraqi people overthrow their despot. The US invaded and occupied another country to seize control of its oil wealth. Back in 2003, a genocidal civil war was taking place in the DRC which killed about 3 million people over 5 years. It barely made our news and certainly no one was advocating humanitarian intervention in that crisis. In comparison, nothing was going on in Iraq at the time to justify foreign intervention. Which proves claims that the US invaded raq for the benefit of the Iraqi people is pure BS.

Maybe you do more about what was going on in Iraq just before the US led invasion. Would you please list the atrocities which were going on in Iraq at the time which justified the US led invasion occupation. As far as I know, Iraq was safe and peaceful in 2003, 2002, and 2001. As far as I know, you'd have to back over a decade to find a serious atrocities in Iraq. You obviously know something I don't, so please enlighten me...

You do what you can, when you can..............in the nation's interest.

Which does not change one iota the benefit nor the correctness of destroying Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

 

[TenPenny]

Which does not change one iota the benefit nor the correctness of destroying Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Destroying...Iraq.

And people wonder why there are 'insurgents'.

The 'insurgents' are the people of Iraq, who will smile and nod and take your money one minute, and fire a grenade launcher at you the next. They don't want Americans in their country.