What exactly was wrong about overthrowing Saddam?

mulbot

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If "oil" was the only reason the US got involved in Iraq, why didn't they also invade Venezuela? Similar population, a lot more oil, and it's right on America's doorstep.

Unless, you know, there was more than one reason why the US went into Iraq, and the corruption was political manoeuvring by wealthy individuals instead of the sole reason.

The oil was a bonus,geo-political strategy seems to have been one of the main reasons,

rjpf1980

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Replace with what? What countries system would you replace it with?

Parliamentary democracy.

rjpf1980

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The world still has not tackled the true source of Al Qaeda which is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These countries are Islamic states.

The Saudis and the Pakistanis will get theirs in time.

rjpf1980

beauf wrote: »

The invasion created them. Horse before the Cart.

Sunni and Shia violence has existed for centuries.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The Saudis and the Pakistanis will get theirs in time.

Get what?

Will the US turn on them the way they do every other country when they are no longer useful?

beauf

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Sunni and Shia violence has existed for centuries.

So what. The specific groups you refer to as terrorists, were formed in direct response to the war.

beauf

RustyNut wrote: »

How many wmd's were used by the us forces?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless you're the FBI and you consider anything which blows up to be a WMD (a definition I'm not happy with), none, obviously.

Manic Moran wrote: »

CBRN

There is the depleted Uranium issue.

Timberrrrrrrr

beauf wrote: »

There is the depleted Uranium issue.

Not a WMD more of an improvised artillery she'll that uses depleted uranium rods instead of high explosives. A cruise missile would kill more than a D.U.R and is not considered to be a WMD.

The lasting effects of a D.U.R however iis another issue and I for one would consider them to be chemical weapons (of sorts) but that is a different argument for a different day.

beauf

Kinda going off topic though. The issue isn't the War.

Just that there was no plan for the vaccum that was left.

beauf

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Not a WMD more of an improvised artillery she'll that uses depleted uranium rods instead of high explosives. A cruise missile would kill more than a D.U.R and is not considered to be a WMD.

The lasting effects of a D.U.R however iis another issue and I for one would consider them to be chemical weapons (of sorts) but that is a different argument for a different day.

I was referring the antiTank rounds the A10 Aircraft used they they sprayed all over the county.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/pentagon-announces-u-turn-on-du-against-is

With Hindsight they probably wouldn't (shouldn't) have used them.

Timberrrrrrrr

beauf wrote: »

I was referring the antiTank rounds the A10 Aircraft used they they sprayed all over the county.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/pentagon-announces-u-turn-on-du-against-is

With Hindsight they probably wouldn't (shouldn't) have used them.

Again though normal high explosives would do more damage than these, I get where you are coming from with this by the way. Yes depleted uranium rounds for all intents and purposes are (for want of a better word) "nuclear (ish? ) weapons but the term WMD is strictly used for actual WMD''s such as nuclear bombs, chemical weapons etc that have the ability to wipe out hundreds or thousands with one hit.

beauf

Hence, this post.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless you're the FBI and you consider anything which blows up to be a WMD (a definition I'm not happy with), none, obviously.

Asking about coalition WMP is the wrong question. They should have asking about the health impact of the UD rounds scattered all over the country. No one really thought about the clean up of them though.

jmayo

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Sunni and Shia violence has existed for centuries.

And yet you think that parliamentary democracy could be forced upon them ?
It never seems to cross your mind that Saddam was actually holding a lid on this violence between the various sects of islam and the various ethnic groups ?

All the US and it's lackies did was change the dynamic between the two and lift the lid.

RustyNut

beauf wrote: »

There is the depleted Uranium issue.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Not a WMD more of an improvised artillery she'll that uses depleted uranium rods instead of high explosives. A cruise missile would kill more than a D.U.R and is not considered to be a WMD.

The lasting effects of a D.U.R however iis another issue and I for one would consider them to be chemical weapons (of sorts) but that is a different argument for a different day.

Depleted Uranium is a radiological weapon. It is radioactive as well as chemically toxic. It's the UK/US version of dirty bombs.
Here is a report by Robert Fisk (without pictures. do an image search for Falluja Babies only if you have a strong stomach) that explains the horrors left behind by this poison.

But it doesn't stop there.There are the mark 77 bombs, the modern version of napalm. White phosphorus was also used against civilian areas and god only knows what else the used that they managed to keep under their hat.

Manic Moran

Napalm and White Phosphorous are very nasty incendiary weapons, but not unlawful under any treaties or agreements currently in force.

DU is not a radiological weapon either, it's kinetic energy weapon, although it is a low-grade alpha emitter. Its biggest problem is that as a heavy metal, those who consume it can start to suffer the effects of heavy metal poisoning. It can affect the local environment either by seeping into the water table, or by being breathed in. The former would happen even if the ammunition were made of lead (A problem civilian rifle ranges in the US are currently dealing with), the latter is more unique to DU due to its pyrophorric nature, but it is also a very localised issue. (i.e. if you're not playing on the destroyed tank, it's not an issue). Mr Fisk's report is emotional, but not a scientific study. Those would be things done by, for example, the Royal Society, World Health Organisation or the European Comission

RustyNut

Manic Moran wrote: »

Napalm and White Phosphorous are very nasty incendiary weapons, but not unlawful under any treaties or agreements currently in force.

DU is not a radiological weapon either, it's kinetic energy weapon, although it is a low-grade alpha emitter. Its biggest problem is that as a heavy metal, those who consume it can start to suffer the effects of heavy metal poisoning. It can affect the local environment either by seeping into the water table, or by being breathed in. The former would happen even if the ammunition were made of lead (A problem civilian rifle ranges in the US are currently dealing with), the latter is more unique to DU due to its pyrophorric nature, but it is also a very localised issue. (i.e. if you're not playing on the destroyed tank, it's not an issue). Mr Fisk's report is emotional, but not a scientific study. Those would be things done by, for example, the Royal Society, World Health Organisation or the European Comission

I admire the way you tow the us military line but I don't think any of these babies were playing on destroyed tanks. From the UK independent.

Manic Moran

From the article in the UK Independent: "Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects."

We do know that white phosphorous has been used as a common munition since at least WW2, napalm since at least the Korean War, and DU since the 1980s. Given all the liberal uses of these munitions in places from Bosnia to Vietnam, Najaf to Palestine, why has Fallujah particularly suffered this nexus?

Perhaps there was a release of something other than these munitions in Fallujah? I am perfectly happy to accept that the war was the catalyst for whatever happened, but it seems a little thin to blame it on these munitions.

rjpf1980

jmayo wrote: »

And yet you think that parliamentary democracy could be forced upon them ?
It never seems to cross your mind that Saddam was actually holding a lid on this violence between the various sects of islam and the various ethnic groups ?

All the US and it's lackies did was change the dynamic between the two and lift the lid.

Shia and Sunni violence should be stopped. By force.
Parliamentary democracy has to be imposed. By force.
Saddam was keeping a lid on violence between different sects but how do you chance Iraq? By force.
The only way Enlightenment values are to triumph worldwide is by force.
Every barrier in the way of progress must be wiped out.