What exactly was wrong about overthrowing Saddam?

rjpf1980

Saddam was a violent psychopath who butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Why are people still hanging on about the supposed injustice of overthrowing him?

If he had not been overthrown in 2003 he and his sons would still be in power ruling the Iraqi people with brutal savagery.

100,000 people marched through the streets of Dublin in opposition to his overthrow.

It beggars belief that Bush and Blair are called war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and giving democracy to millions of Iraqis and fighting Islamic extremist savages who attempted to destroy that democracy.

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The only future the Middle East has is when the dictators are gone and the terrorists are defeated. We all know this. Why then was the Iraq War so wrong?

Please explain.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Saddam was a violent psychopath who butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Why are people still hanging on about the supposed injustice of overthrowing him?

If he had not been overthrown in 2003 he and his sons would still be in power ruling the Iraqi people with brutal savagery.

100,000 people marched through the streets of Dublin in opposition to his overthrow.

It beggars belief that Bush and Blair are called war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and giving democracy to millions of Iraqis and fighting Islamic extremist savages who attempted to destroy that democracy.

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The only future the Middle East has is when the dictators are gone and the terrorists are defeated. We all know this. Why then was the Iraq War so wrong?

Please explain.

Which movie was this?

c montgomery

It's how they handled the aftermath of the war which is the most reprehensible.
The legacy they left behind was IS, Iraq is as bad now as it was under Sadam so the question is was any of it worth it.

elefant

Saddam being out of power was cool.

Starting a huge, open-ended, destabilising conflict based on misleading evidence to achieve it wasn't.

Enzokk

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The plan to withdraw all the troops were in motion already by the time Obama came to office. The US people wanted their troops out of there and Bush started this process. You make it sound as if this was a policy of Obama when it was a policy of Bush.

The question is, why only Saddam Hussein? There are many other dictators that have killed many of their own citizens and pose no threat (as we know now, no WMD founds in Iraq) to the UK or US, why Iraq? Why not Zimbabwe?

The Bishop Basher

c montgomery wrote: »

The legacy they left behind was IS, Iraq is as bad now as it was under Sadam so the question is was any of it worth it.

Iraq is now far far worse then it was under Sadam.

Mickeroo

It violated the prime directive.

Timberrrrrrrr

Enzokk wrote: »

The plan to withdraw all the troops were in motion already by the time Obama came to office. The US people wanted their troops out of there and Bush started this process. You make it sound as if this was a policy of Obama when it was a policy of Bush.

The question is, why only Saddam Hussein? There are many other dictators that have killed many of their own citizens and pose no threat (as we know now, no WMD founds in Iraq) to the UK or US, why Iraq? Why not Zimbabwe?

Because Bush was a psycho who felt he had to finish what his Daddy started.

Billions pumped into construction projects that all went to foreign firms even though Iraq had one of the best construction industries in the world.

Oil, oil, oil and oil.

If they were worried about WMD''s they would be attacking North Korea (too scared of the Chinese to try that) and reigning in the Israelis.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Because everyone is racist and islamaphobic, it's their culture and everyone else needs to respect their right to do whatever they like, including murdering.


Seriously though, i think if there was no oil in Iraq, the US wouldn't have bothered

LeinsterDub

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

Bush signed the order to leave Obama had no choice to follow it. The biggest issue with the invasion for me was the hypocrisy of it all we need to liberate Iraq but not Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe. We need to protect civilian but not in Yugoslavia or the Congo

The usual thing about those who forget history being doomed to repeat it.

Saddam was installed as a hard man to bring "stability" to the area. The timing of his accession to power and the revolution in Iran weren't coincidental, nor was the war that started the following year. 20 years of soft genocide leads to a lot of different tensions and divisions within and without a country and that whole aspect seems to have been ignored by the West, once we get rid of him sure everything will be great. A country ruled by a dictator like that generally has a lot of tension waiting to be released so removing the pressure cap along with the army and every kind of "stabilising" influence is going to lead to blow-back.

But hey, what would I know?

Dr Crayfish

Lots lots of stuff. Read this...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report

FTA69

Because the war in Iraq had nothing to do with helping people or making the world a better place - if you honestly think the section of the American establishment which drove this war gave two f*cks about the average Iraqi you're codding yourself in the extreme. Let's just be very clear on one point, Saddam Hussein was America's ally for years. They supported and backed him to the hilt in his war against Iran and they provided him the components for his chemical weapons which he used to deadly affect against the Iranians and the Kurds. He had full US support.

Ten years after that the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz and all these other f*ckers had actually written of the need to remove Saddam Hussein to secure access to energy supplies and to dominate the region with a client state in their pocket. Soon after that Bush was elected and these people set out to realise that vision. In doing so they ramped up a huge propaganda offensive in which Blair lied that we'd all be attacked in London within 45 minutes by weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied that he was responsible for 9/11. All critical thought went out the window as substantial parts of the UK and the US rowed in behind "our boys."

Hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions injured and displaced and all for a war based on oil and geostrategic expansion. Shame on those who instigated that war and shame on the idiots who continue to support it based on narrow jingoism and ignorance.

FTA69

And another thing - the biggest US ally in the region after Israel is Saudi Arabia, a country which spends billions promoting radical Islam abroad to act as a vent for some of the nutters that originate there. Saudi Arabia has an abominable human rights record, is a theocratic and oppressive absolute monarchy and is currently up to its arse in a conflict in another neighbouring country (Yemen).

The fact these bastards are backed militarily and diplomatically without reservation shows you that any involvement in the Middle East is about realpolitik and nothing to do with altruism.

smash

Enzokk wrote: »

The question is, why only Saddam Hussein? There are many other dictators that have killed many of their own citizens and pose no threat (as we know now, no WMD founds in Iraq) to the UK or US, why Iraq? Why not Zimbabwe?

Because oil.

They invaded a country they didn't need to invade. They continued bombing said country, when there was no need to. They didn't put anything in place whatsoever in the gap left. And then it began to fester and fester and now we have ISIS.

So, there's that.

seamus

The one thing about is Iraq is that many people saw it and called it before the war even started. The report yesterday contains very little surprise for anyone who had their head screwed on around the time.

Before the war even started, before Bush and Blair even decided to go in, we knew;

- Saddam had no WMDs
- Saddam provided little or no support to Al-Queda, and certainly had nothing to do with 9/11
- The "45 minutes" claim in the UK report was nonsense
- Bush Jr had been seeking a way to get revenge against Saddam since Bush Jr. took up office`

And yet the two of them bulled on, produced nonsense after nonsense to support their position, which ultimately did nothing except kill a lot more people than Saddam ever did and sow the seeds for ISIS in the Middle East.

It became clear later on, that Bush had already promised big contracts to his buddies in construction and oil firms to "manage" the affairs in Iraq after the Americans and British invaded. And that Bush was getting heavy pressure from Saudi Arabia (who actually did finance 9/11) to give them more control over oil supplies in the region.

Ultimately Saddam was the lesser of the three evils at the time. His removal wasn't wrong, but the way it was achieved, was.

Timberrrrrrrr

timmyntc wrote: »

Saddam had begun selling oil in Euros instead of USD IIRC, which would seriously threaten the US' petrodollar, and the influence that comes with it.

Gaddafi was taken out for the same reason.

Balmed Out

FTA69 wrote: »

And another thing - the biggest US ally in the region after Israel is Saudi Arabia, a country which spends billions promoting radical Islam abroad to act as a vent for some of the nutters that originate there. Saudi Arabia has an abominable human rights record, is a theocratic and oppressive absolute monarchy and is currently up to its arse in a conflict in another neighbouring country (Yemen).

The fact these bastards are backed militarily and diplomatically without reservation shows you that any involvement in the Middle East is about realpolitik and nothing to do with altruism.

Ah good old Saudi Arabia. One would have to wonder what happens when the house of Saud falls. I get the feeling the USA wants it to fall and are happy for Prince Mohammed and his wahhabi nutcase friends to hasten it by their reckless actions in Yemen and at home. The big question is can anything remotely stable arise from it or would the world be better off with the horrible house of Saud.

Balmed Out

Balmed Out wrote: »

Ah good old Saudi Arabia. One would have to wonder what happens when the house of Saud falls. I get the feeling the USA wants it to fall and are happy for Prince Mohammed and his wahhabi nutcase friends to hasten it by their reckless actions in Yemen and at home. The big question is can anything remotely stable arise from it or would the world be better off with the horrible house of Saud.

I dunno, it's hard to see what'll happen for the US to switch horses over to Iran as their buddy in the region.

Agricola

FTA69 wrote: »

Because the war in Iraq had nothing to do with helping people or making the world a better place - if you honestly think the section of the American establishment which drove this war gave two f*cks about the average Iraqi you're codding yourself in the extreme. Let's just be very clear on one point, Saddam Hussein was America's ally for years. They supported and backed him to the hilt in his war against Iran and they provided him the components for his chemical weapons which he used to deadly affect against the Iranians and the Kurds. He had full US support.

Ten years after that the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz and all these other f*ckers had actually written of the need to remove Saddam Hussein to secure access to energy supplies and to dominate the region with a client state in their pocket. Soon after that Bush was elected and these people set out to realise that vision. In doing so they ramped up a huge propaganda offensive in which Blair lied that we'd all be attacked in London within 45 minutes by weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied that he was responsible for 9/11. All critical thought went out the window as substantial parts of the UK and the US rowed in behind "our boys."

Hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions injured and displaced and all for a war based on oil and geostrategic expansion. Shame on those who instigated that war and shame on the idiots who continue to support it based on narrow jingoism and ignorance.

FTA69 wrote: »

And another thing - the biggest US ally in the region after Israel is Saudi Arabia, a country which spends billions promoting radical Islam abroad to act as a vent for some of the nutters that originate there. Saudi Arabia has an abominable human rights record, is a theocratic and oppressive absolute monarchy and is currently up to its arse in a conflict in another neighbouring country (Yemen).

The fact these bastards are backed militarily and diplomatically without reservation shows you that any involvement in the Middle East is about realpolitik and nothing to do with altruism.

A more accurate and concise summation I have yet to read.
The very idea that the invasion was about "liberating" Iraqi's! It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. I suppose when you have a population goofy enough to keep Donald Trump in the presidential race this long, you can pretty much tell them anything.

The_Kew_Tour

Was in Iraq in 2007, and was more than surprised at how popular Saddam had become again, when they realised the barbaric destruction that USA and UK caused.

What for, I don't know, but if I ever see a Iraqi celebrate another USA army person death I actually would understand.

It's as barbaric as Nazi and Russians in WW2

The_Kew_Tour

FTA69 wrote: »

And another thing - the biggest US ally in the region after Israel is Saudi Arabia, a country which spends billions promoting radical Islam abroad to act as a vent for some of the nutters that originate there. Saudi Arabia has an abominable human rights record, is a theocratic and oppressive absolute monarchy and is currently up to its arse in a conflict in another neighbouring country (Yemen).

The fact these bastards are backed militarily and diplomatically without reservation shows you that any involvement in the Middle East is about realpolitik and nothing to do with altruism.

Your 2 posts were brilliant, fair play, well said

rjpf1980

c montgomery wrote: »

It's how they handled the aftermath of the war which is the most reprehensible.
The legacy they left behind was IS, Iraq is as bad now as it was under Sadam so the question is was any of it worth it.

You could make the same argument for intervening in Europe in WW2. The continent ended up partitioned with the Soviets ruling Eastern Europe for decades and the world tethering on the brink of nuclear war. Millions died to liberate Europe from Hitler only to replace one tyranny with another. Would a Cold War between Nazi Europe and America have been any different from a Cold War between the USSR and the US?

rjpf1980

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Was in Iraq in 2007, and was more than surprised at how popular Saddam had become again, when they realised the barbaric destruction that USA and UK caused.

What for, I don't know, but if I ever see a Iraqi celebrate another USA army person death I actually would understand.

It's as barbaric as Nazi and Russians in WW2

The destruction post Saddam was caused by Sunni v Shia. That damage was self inflicted by Iraqis killing each other.

Iraq Body Count clearly shows the overwhelming majority of post invasion casualties were causrd by Sunni and Shia forces not Western troops.

Most of the public are willfully ignorant of the facts and simply blame Bush and Blair. No need to use their brains. They just swallow a simplistic infantile narrative.

The_Kew_Tour

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The destruction post Saddam was caused by Sunni v Shia. That damage was self inflicted by Iraqis killing each other.

Iraq Body Count clearly shows the overwhelming majority of post invasion casualties were causrd by Sunni and Shia forces not Western troops.

Most of the public are willfully ignorant of the facts and simply blame Bush and Blair. No need to use their brains. They just swallow a simplistic infantile narrative.

I'm not talking about what happened after I'm talking about what USA and UK did. Full stop.

And you think that USA and UK had no hand in aftermath? Well sadly they did.

No point saying much more but how anyone can defend the actions of these 2 Army's is beyond. God bless America my ass

donegaLroad

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Saddam was a violent psychopath who butchered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Why are people still hanging on about the supposed injustice of overthrowing him?

If he had not been overthrown in 2003 he and his sons would still be in power ruling the Iraqi people with brutal savagery.

100,000 people marched through the streets of Dublin in opposition to his overthrow.

It beggars belief that Bush and Blair are called war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and giving democracy to millions of Iraqis and fighting Islamic extremist savages who attempted to destroy that democracy.

Obama against all advice withdrew all US troops from Iraq which led a stabilized country to collapse once again when attacked by ISIS.

The only future the Middle East has is when the dictators are gone and the terrorists are defeated. We all know this. Why then was the Iraq War so wrong?

Please explain.

In 2000, Saddam expressed his interest and intentions of dropping the American dollar in favour of the newly introduced Euro, for trading oil.

This would have meant contagion across the Opec countries, and wold have ultimately led to the demise of the US petro dollar.

The US then moved on Saddam in fear of this happening, but they did so under the false pretences of liberating the Iraqi people from this 'evil and brutal dictator' who was hiding weapons of mass destruction that he was going to use against the rest of the world etc.

They claimed that he was also training terrorists, and the Bush administration went as far as to say that there was Osama Bin Laden - al-Qaeda links with Iraq, in an attempt to justify further their invasion.


*this is also what happened with Gadhafi in Libya, as he had planned to drop the US dollar for a new currency he was creating called the Dinar.

rjpf1980

FTA69 wrote: »

Because the war in Iraq had nothing to do with helping people or making the world a better place - if you honestly think the section of the American establishment which drove this war gave two f*cks about the average Iraqi you're codding yourself in the extreme. Let's just be very clear on one point, Saddam Hussein was America's ally for years. They supported and backed him to the hilt in his war against Iran and they provided him the components for his chemical weapons which he used to deadly affect against the Iranians and the Kurds. He had full US support.

Ten years after that the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz and all these other f*ckers had actually written of the need to remove Saddam Hussein to secure access to energy supplies and to dominate the region with a client state in their pocket. Soon after that Bush was elected and these people set out to realise that vision. In doing so they ramped up a huge propaganda offensive in which Blair lied that we'd all be attacked in London within 45 minutes by weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied that he was responsible for 9/11. All critical thought went out the window as substantial parts of the UK and the US rowed in behind "our boys."

Hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions injured and displaced and all for a war based on oil and geostrategic expansion. Shame on those who instigated that war and shame on the idiots who continue to support it based on narrow jingoism and ignorance.

Was WW2 about democracy and the Holocaust of the Jews? The Americans and Russians were involved on an imperialistic carve up of the globe after the European powers ate each other alive in two world wars.

I'm still glad Hitler was gone and Western democracies survived. For Third World countries it made little difference because they were still ruled and are still ruled by colonial powers although now indirectly.

It was still worth it.

Who cares if the power elites had selfish motives for the Iraq War? Saddam is dead an gone and Iraq had a chance at developing into a proper democracy until the moron Obama withdrew the troops the greatest disaster since the American withdrawal from Vietnam.

weisses

rjpf1980 wrote: »

You could make the same argument for intervening in Europe in WW2. The continent ended up partitioned with the Soviets ruling Eastern Europe for decades and the world tethering on the brink of nuclear war. Millions died to liberate Europe from Hitler only to replace one tyranny with another. Would a Cold War between Nazi Europe and America have been any different from a Cold War between the USSR and the US?

What Tyranny did Europe endure after Hitler ?

weisses

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Was WW2 about democracy and the Holocaust of the Jews? The Americans and Russians were involved on an imperialistic carve up of the globe after the European powers ate each other alive in two world wars.

I'm still glad Hitler was gone and Western democracies survived. For Third World countries it made little difference because they were still ruled and are still ruled by colonial powers although now indirectly.

It was still worth it.

Who cares if the power elites had selfish motives for the Iraq War? Saddam is dead an gone and Iraq had a chance at developing into a proper democracy until the moron Obama withdrew the troops the greatest disaster since the American withdrawal from Vietnam.

Comparison between the two

Another country they stupidly invaded.

USA ...USA ...USA

Capt'n Midnight

Like Brexit there was no exit plan. Read Machiavelli on new princes to see why removing Saddam wasn't going to work.

Most Iraqi's are worse off than under Saddam. Things like electricity and sanitation , quality of life etc. Apart from those who are lining their pockets the only people to have benefited were the released political prisoners, and some of them have pointed out that things were worse now for everyone else.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

The public record of violent deaths following the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Documented civilian deaths from violence 160,412 – 179,327
Total violent deaths including combatants 251,000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.