I think the more important question is, are WE better off without Saddam?  Offhand, given the casualties, the costs and the clusterfuck that exists there now, I would say "no."

(December 30, 2015 at 12:10 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Our adventurism in Iraq long predates either George Bush. We've been involved since the late 70s and every Democrat has gleefully taken part. Bill Clinton's sanctions killed how many? I recall his secretary of state Madeleine Albright said killing 500,000 children in Iraq was worth it to try to get Saddam out of power:

Yes, I remember that. And I remember the Monica Lewinsky bombings to distract the public from a BJ.

(December 30, 2015 at 12:26 am)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 29, 2015 at 5:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That's one of the most outstandingly stupid things I've heard in a long time.  It is no more morally right to launch a pre-emptive war than it is to shoot someone on the off chance he might decide to rob a bank someday.

Boru

That is a laughably false analogy.

I'll admit that it's somewhat flawed (all analogies are), but I don't think it qualifies as 'false'.  The point is whether or not you can punish an actor (either a State or an individual) for crimes not yet committed.   Hussein was a thug and a brute, no possible doubt, but the fact, as real as a fist in the face, was that he hadn't committed an act of war against the US or its allies or even its interests.  The first Gulf War, the one based on the invasion of Kuwait, was different.  He had committed an act of war and got his arse handed to him for his troubles.  But none - absolutely NONE - of the reasons given for the sequel either panned out or justified that war.  It was a war of political economics and expediency, and the nightmare situation today in the Middle East is the direct result.  The steaming great hypocrisy of the US justifying the war by saying that Hussein was an existential threat is utterly laughable and morally repugnant.  The three real reasons that Saddam was attacked were:  1)  The US desperately needed something to bomb after 9/11;  2)  Attacking Iraq was politically more expedient than attacking North Korea; and 3)  I won't come right out and say it, but here's a hint:  It rhymes with 'fetroleum'.

But back to the analogy:  Saddam was attacked and deposed based on what he might have done.  This is directly analogous to an individual being incarcerated or executed for a crime they might eventually commit.

Boru

(December 30, 2015 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 1)  The US desperately needed something to bomb after 9/11;  2)  Attacking Iraq was politically more expedient than attacking North Korea; and 3)  I won't come right out and say it, but here's a hint:  It rhymes with 'fetroleum'.

Going out on a limb there, but I wouldn't entirely rule out a 4th reason. Getting one over daddy. Bush the older didn't march for Bagdad and didn't seek to overthrow Saddam because he knew it wasn't politically opportune. And more than that, his allies, a real coalition of major countries at the time, wouldn't have stood for it.

Given Shrubs history however, having been a rather unsuccessful businessman and a known pissant at a time, made him the black sheep of his family. Maybe he wanted to prove something to daddy. The rumors certainly made the rounds back then.

I'm a bit appalled to see so many people forget who and what Saddam was.  All anyone is discussing is our embarrassing war.    Perhaps, going forward, we should leave people under their despots and tyrants, the world over, because we're afraid of embarrassing wars, because we worry that something bad might happen if we try to help people, we worry that if we get rid of one terrible cunt :gasp and shock:.........there may be more.

Clearly -all- of that is our fault, and the world and iraq would be a better place if we'd just left it all alone. lol.

(December 30, 2015 at 7:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm a bit appalled to see so many people forget who and what Saddam was.  All anyone is discussing is our embarrassing war.    Perhaps, going forward, we should leave people under their despots and tyrants, the world over, because we're afraid of embarrassing wars, because we worry that something bad might happen if we try to help people, we worry that if we get rid of one terrible cunt :gasp and shock:.........there may be more.

Clearly -all- of that is our fault, and the world and iraq would be a better place if we'd just left it all alone. lol.

No, it's not your fault. It's the fault of a certain ignorant clique, who led you there.

As for all of the above, you're talking as if the removal of these dictators was in any way, shape or form, an altruistic endeavor. It's just a cynical political move, sold and candy coated to the people at home, as freeing a certain people.

If it was altruistic, the Sauds would have been removed long ago. Nobody would buttkiss Erdogan or all the other abyssmal figures that are still good allies and friends of the West. That's not opportune and so all this talk about how bad Saddam was, is an entirely moot point. He hadn't been removed, if he had continued to play western ball as he did in the 80ies.

What remains is reality. Ugly, I know, but the wanring of what would happen if Saddam got removed, were there. And they were crystal clear for anyone having the slightest information on the ethnic as well as religious problems of the region called Iraq.

More absurdity.  The removal of a despot needn't be undertaken for altruistic reasons...it is still the removal of a despot.  That we haven;t removed -every- despot or some other despot is no excuse as to why we would leave one particular despot in place.  We aren't 5 years old handing out lollipops on a system of "everybody gets one or nobody gets one".

You are here now decrying the loss of Saddams controlling influence without acknowledging the manner in which he cultivated and exerted that control, understandably so - as an ackowledgement of this is reason aplenty to depose him.  America was lied into a war, sure.  America dropped the ball, sure.  None of this changes the fact that Iraq was a failed state headed by a despot. All of our embarrassment or discomfort with our own leaders, or policies...with the turn of events in the middle east, none of this changes that.

(December 30, 2015 at 8:21 am)Rhythm Wrote: None of this changes the fact that Iraq was a failed state headed by a despot.

And your point is, given that the West is worse off now and more Iraqi people were killed than Saddam could hope to kill within a decade?

We should leave despots in power, because it might cause us westerners a hardship in deposing them...or because they either threaten directly or indirectly their own public with the spectre of what terrible men might replace them?  What a convenient world to be a despot in. Didn't you just get through telling me about ugly? Getting rid of one of these guys is ugly. Is that a reason not to do it, to leave those people to their fates? We might fuck it up, is that a reason to leave those people to their fates? People may die, is that a reason to leave those people to their fates?

(December 30, 2015 at 8:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: We should leave despots in power, because it might cause us westerners a hardship in deposing them...or because they either threaten directly or indirectly their own public with the spectre of what terrible men might replace them?  What a convenient world to be a despot in.  Didn't you just get through telling me about ugly?  Getting rid of one of these guys is ugly.  Is that a reason not to do it, to leave those people to their fates?  We might fuck it up, is that a reason to leave those people to their fates?  People may die, is that a reason to leave those people to their fates?

We should leave them in power if the outcome is considerably worse than leaving them in power. As has been predicted by real experts.

Min posted that Clausewitz quote a few pages earlier. That's making the point pretty nicely. If you aren't attacked or threatened and even more if you don't know what you're in for, keep the hell out.

I just noticed, he pposted it in a different threrad. Here it is.

(December 29, 2015 at 6:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: “No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”


Carl Von Clauswitz