What exactly was wrong about overthrowing Saddam?

rjpf1980

Two Tone wrote: »

I think they mean the nonchalance towards hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed. This is not a minor blip, even if you understandably wanted Saddam ousted. It's easy to be blasé about them when you live far, far away and are not affected by it. You express concern about those living under Saddam but how come another kind of suffering is ok?

To overthrow a dictator war is unavoidable. Death and destruction and chaos are inevitable until the atoms reform around a new gravitational centre.

rjpf1980

beauf wrote: »

you

Unfortunately creating them faster than you "defeat" them is a flawed mindset.

Do you stop weeding and mowing your lawn because they grow back? Cut your nails and they grow back too.

At the micro level the school yard bully needs to be dealt with. The purse snatcher and the graffiti artist and the drug peddlers. At a macro level white collar corruption and organized crime and at an international level the dictators rogue states and terrorism. At every level there has to be endless vigilence and force must be used to prevent civilization unravelling in the school yard the neighbourhood or at state and global level.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

To overthrow a dictator war is unavoidable. Death and destruction and chaos are inevitable until the atoms reform around a new gravitational centre.

So why hasnt America gone in to remove North Korean dictator if they are so concerned about human rights?

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Do you stop weeding and mowing your lawn because they grow back? Cut your nails and they grow back too.

At the micro level the school yard bully needs to be dealt with. The purse snatcher and the graffiti artist and the drug peddlers. At a macro level white collar corruption and organized crime and at an international level the dictators rogue states and terrorism. At every level there has to be endless vigilence and force must be used to prevent civilization unravelling in the school yard the neighbourhood or at state and global level.

Ha!!!

rjpf1980

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So why hasnt America gone in to remove North Korean dictator if they are so concerned about human rights?

He has a nuke and China is his best buddy. I want him gone as much as you. Something will give and it won't be nice when it happens but it must.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

He has a nuke and China is his best buddy. I want him gone as much as you. Something will give and it won't be nice when it happens but it must.

So you say the bullies need taking out but only the little ones :rolleyes:

mulbot

rjpf1980 wrote: »

To overthrow a dictator war is unavoidable. Death and destruction and chaos are inevitable until the atoms reform around a new gravitational centre.

They're only called dictators when they don't play ball with the interests of the US,when they do they get called Allies-

rjpf1980

mulbot wrote: »

They're only called dictators when they don't play ball with the interests of the US,when they do they get called Allies-

A dictator is a dictator is a dictator.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

A dictator is a dictator is a dictator.

This is the same "dictator" who was armed by the US, Who the US backed against a war with Iran. They are only "dictators" when it suits the US to call them that.

Why haven't the US gone after the many other "dictators" around the globe?

Two Tone

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Nobody protested!

Literally nobody? Ah unlikely. Also your statement that those who shouted loudest probably care the least is a load of poopypants. I mean, I get what you're saying about selective outrage but that's no excuse to throw logic out the window either.

Also, I get your disgust with Saddam of course, but where your argument falls down is: those suffering under Saddam - huge concern, but no problem with those same people being mowed down by the US/British military. Suffering in one context - unacceptable... but the suffering caused by hundreds of thousands being killed due to the invasion to capture Saddam... meh, that's just war, minor conflict when there are billions in the world.

You berate others for selective, inconsistent caring but you're doing the very same thing.

Believe me, I'd rather live under Bush or Blair than Saddam, but hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed and cities being destroyed and now just loads more instability - while nobody sane cares that Saddam is gone, another kind of hell was created in the process of his removal.

BalcombeSt4

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.

1. We were lied to about the reasons he was being overthrown.
2. He was overthrown illegally.
3. It was complete hyporcisy because the US funded and armed Saddam to inavde Iran.
4. It was complete hypocrisy as the West was supporting him when he committed his most brutal crimes.
5. It was complete hypocrisy as the US had backed, were backing and are still backing brutal dictators in other countries just like they did Saddam when it was in their intrest to.
6. The war created the condidtions for ISIS and other extremists to thrive in. There was never a suicide bombing in Iraq before the invasion there's close to 3000 since.
7. It left half a million people dead, more injured and millions refugees. Half a million people dead on a pack of lies.
8. The vast majority of Iraqi's said life under Saddam was bad but what they have now is even worse.
9. The vast majority of Iraqi's never wanted anybody invading their country whether it was done with or without UN approval.
10. There main Arab allies are Saudi Arabia even though the Saudi government has funded more terrorism in a day then Saddam did his whole life.

BalcombeSt4

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?

It probably wouldn't have been a "cold" war if it was between the Nazi's and anybody.

BalcombeSt4

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.

Are you off your head on crack or something?

It was only a disaster because the US never should have been there in the first place and the invasion of Vietnam was the biggest war crime post-WW2.

jmayo

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Killed by Sunni and Shia terrorists backed by Saudi Arabia and Iran if you would care to research the figures.

When has the end of a dictatorship not been accompanied by bloodshed?

Portugal 1975
Spain 1975.
One could also say South Africa early 90s.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Violence and chaos follow and then things settle down. It's a risk and sacrifice worth it in the end.

You see the thing is you think these countries in Middle East/Africa are comparable to Western countries.
You don't just dump the dictator, round up a few guys and voila they are all holding parliamentary elections and before you know it they have adopted a new constitution and embracing full open democracy.

Fook sake you might as well work for the state department with that limited mindset of the world. :rolleyes:

rjpf1980 wrote: »

How do you overthrow dictators and destroy their armies and defeat insurgencies without fighting it out and killing them? Civilians are like trees and buildings and fields and mountains. They get ground up because they are in the way. When France was being liberated in World War 2 every metre was contested and French towns and villages became rubble and men women and children in the path of the fighting were killed by artillery and bombs. No war can avoid civilian deaths. Tragic but that's reality. Freedom is more sacred than life. That makes the dying and suffering worth it. The future is what is being fought over. It cannot be given up to dictators or religious fanatics.

The more you talk the more you show how little you know.
You can't compare the liberation of France with Iraq.
France was a long established democracy where an invader was being removed.
It wasn't an inter tribal, inter religious state where a ruling elite were being removed.
One of the invading armies was an actual French army, the French police were not disbanded, the civil service was not being torn apart.

If anything Germany is more comparable to Iraq and even then Germany was in now way as tribal or divided as Iraq.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Funny how you live in a free democracy and benefit from all the advantages thereof but you prescribe dictatorship and tyranny for people who are flesh and blood like you?

And modern day Syria, Libya and Iraq are better options ?

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

There is a brilliant book about the overthrowing of Sadaam and the Americans attempts at running the country afterwards by American Journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran called "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone".

It was turned into the fictional film Green Zone (starring Matt Damon) which I haven't seen.

The book is a brilliant observation of how wrong the Americans got it despite the people involved in trying to run the country generally being decent people with their hearts in the right place but just being hopelessly naive about everything.

He doesn't really take sides regarding the occupation of Iraq and whether it was right or wrong but he gives a good overview of how the post-invasion occupation was handled.

I'd highly recommend it to anyone, it's a great read and I rarely if ever read non-fiction books.

SPOLIER ALERT.

Actually the OP reminds me of the Greg Kinnear character who thinks the Americans can parachute in a US educated sponsored leader and shure all the local tribes, various ethnic groups and religious groups are going to rally around and pledge allegiance to the new flag ala the US.

Never a thought that all these guys want to settle old scores and get back at the other side for having a boot to their throats during the Saddam years.

It is just infantile reasoning with no understanding of the underlying demographics and history.
And the OP shows it in spades.

Rikand

tayto lover

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So why hasnt America gone in to remove North Korean dictator if they are so concerned about human rights?

Or the Israelis who have persecuted the Palestinians for many years and continue to do so.

beauf

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Do you stop weeding and mowing your lawn because they grow back? Cut your nails and they grow back too.

At the micro level the school yard bully needs to be dealt with. The purse snatcher and the graffiti artist and the drug peddlers. At a macro level white collar corruption and organized crime and at an international level the dictators rogue states and terrorism. At every level there has to be endless vigilence and force must be used to prevent civilization unravelling in the school yard the neighbourhood or at state and global level.

But they didn't deal with it. They did a bad job and made the problem worse not better.

rjpf1980

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This is the same "dictator" who was armed by the US, Who the US backed against a war with Iran. They are only "dictators" when it suits the US to call them that.

Why haven't the US gone after the many other "dictators" around the globe?

So you agree he should have gone? Yes you do! Thank you!

rjpf1980

beauf wrote: »

But they didn't deal with it. They did a bad job and made the problem worse not better.

Obama grabbed defeat out of the jaws of victory by pulling out the troops.

rjpf1980

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you say the bullies need taking out but only the little ones :rolleyes:

Yes. You seem very sore that a psychopathic dictator is dead and gone. Do you need to send flowers to the Hussein family?

Maximus Alexander

You seem very naive OP.

Two Tone

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Yes. You seem very sore that a psychopathic dictator is dead and gone. Do you need to send flowers to the Hussein family?

Dude, ya gotta try and engage in debate without telling people they've said sh-t that they didn't say.

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

So you agree he should have gone? Yes you do! Thank you!

Can you show a post where I said that?

Timberrrrrrrr

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Yes. You seem very sore that a psychopathic dictator is dead and gone. Do you need to send flowers to the Hussein family?

The real psycho was the one who rigged an election to get into power and then went to war because "god" told him to.

Two Tone

Saddam was a lot worse than Bush - don't be "that guy" either.

RustyNut

Two Tone wrote: »

Saddam was a lot worse than Bush - don't be "that guy" either.

Bush really showed his stuff when after the invasion of Iraq he changed the use of Abu Ghraib from a place where people who opposed the Sadam regime were taken to be humiliated, tortured and killed into a much nicer place where people who opposed the Bush/Blair regime were taken to be humiliated, tortured and killed.

Junkyard Tom

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The real psycho was the one who rigged an election to get into power and then went to war because "god" told him to.

He may as well have been a glove puppet. The people around him were the dangerous ones. The neocons are still calling for US intervention all over the Middle East except the one place that could do with a bit of democracy and suppression of its toxic Islamism.

KingBrian2

I guarantee you if you go out tomorrow and disband the Gardaí Síochána their would be anarchy in this country now imagine doing it in a country that is divided along religious and tribal lines and you get Iraq today.

AlekSmart

seamus wrote: »

It sounds likely in Gaddafi's case. Despite being a complete cvnt and a despot, he had in his later years come to realise that clashing with the west was keeping his country in the doldrums. He had extended many olive branches to repair relations (such as apologising for Lockerbie) and start developing Libya into becoming a modern and prosperous country.

An unstable Middle East though is profitable, so private and public organisations were happy to support the Arab Spring and put the brakes on Gaddafi's plans.

Although many here consider Gadaffi's threat centred around the Libyan Dinar,I believe the final straw for "Western Interests" was the RASCOM Communications Satellite programme,which most certainly threatened to significantly reduce the regions dependence upon Foreign Satellites and Communications systems.

https://therisingcontinent.com/2013/10/18/when-gaddafi-rescued-africa-financially/

An African satellite only costs a one-time payment of $400 million and the continent would no longer have to pay a $500 million annual lease. Which banker would not finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation, ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the US and Europe made only vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to Western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyans put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that is how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.

Added to this was the very real possibility of Gadaffi's system being out of the reach of Western surveillance and that was most certainly a negative factor.

Whilst the current focus is almost universally on the U.S. and the U.K.,it has to be recalled that the European Nations threw their weight in behind the destabilization of Libya also...particularly the wily old Italian,Berlusconi and Sarkozy of France.

Two Tone

Google Gaddafi's harem (if you have a strong stomach). Shudder...

RustyNut wrote: »

Bush really showed his stuff when after the invasion of Iraq he changed the use of Abu Ghraib from a place where people who opposed the Sadam regime were taken to be humiliated, tortured and killed into a much nicer place where people who opposed the Bush/Blair regime were taken to be humiliated, tortured and killed.

Not disagreeing but I'd still prefer - by infinity - to be living in the US under Bush than Iraq under Saddam.