14 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompIt has been suggested by some - a strong man to put rebellious Iraqis back in their place. He did run a brutal state but one where a Christian was deputy president and woman were unveiled and well educated. In the 1980´s he was favoured by the US - even when he was using chemical weapons.
I get the feeling the U.S. would have been better off leaving Saddam in power. Since, monster tho he may have been. he wasnt our monster.
After seeing the outpouring of love for the Iraqis that Bush supporter have shown in this forum you'd think their solution would be to put him back!
If Alawi stays, any reason for thinking he will be any better?
14 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeI dont think we'll see a "Free Saddam" movement start in the States, though.
It has been suggested by some - a strong man to put rebellious Iraqis back in their place. He did run a brutal state but one where a Christian was deputy president and woman were unveiled and well educated. In the 1980´s he was favoured ...[text shortened]... If Alawi stays, any reason for thinking he will be any better?
You do raise an interesting point about Christians and women and begs these questions:
Just who was he oppressing?
Was he really any more oppressive than our friends the Saudis?
Just who and what are we fighting for anyway?
15 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOr, the way they did in Cambodia...
If US troops left tomorrow, the human beings in Iraq would try to solve their problems like we do here...
Having made the decision to attack a country which (we now know) posed no imminent threat to us, and having destroyed the existing regime and dismantled most of its instruments of power, don't we have a moral responsibility to fill the vacuum?
Taking a pragmatic view, I believe all our options are bad, but that the best option now is for us to stay put and try to provide enough security for elections. If we withdraw now we'll be creating a situation a lot like the one in Afghanistan before the Taliban took over. And Iran would *love* to introduce Iraq to their special brand of government with us out of the picture.
So from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the justification for immediate withdrawal.
15 Nov 04
Originally posted by lloydkYeah, you're right, Hitler should have stayed in Poland for a while to set up a free, democratic government!!
Or, the way they did in Cambodia...
Having made the decision to attack a country which (we now know) posed no imminent threat to us, and having destroyed the existing regime and dismantled most of its instruments of power, don't we have a moral responsibility to fill the vacuum?
Taking a pragmatic view, I believe all our options are bad, but that the ...[text shortened]... oth a moral and pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the justification for immediate withdrawal.
15 Nov 04
Originally posted by lloydkFrom any standpoint saying "we messed up!!, so what can we do except continue to mess up? " seems a bit odd .
Or, the way they did in Cambodia...
Having made the decision to attack a country which (we now know) posed no imminent threat to us, and having destroyed the existing regime and dismantled most of its instruments of power, don't we have a moral responsibility to fill the vacuum?
Taking a pragmatic view, I believe all our options are bad, but that the ...[text shortened]... oth a moral and pragmatic standpoint, I don't see the justification for immediate withdrawal.
Most of what you say is true but we arent the people that can fix it. No government that we create there will stand without our continuing military involvement.
The awful truth is that nothing you said shouldnt have been forseen before we toppled Saddam!!!
15 Nov 04
2 edits
Originally posted by lloydkIf we are going to blame American presidents for Saddam, I suggest you start with Ronald Reagan. Now I know Reagan is considered close to a saint, but he allowed Saddam to become a monster.
For those of you who view the U.S. presence in Iraq as an indefensible Republican adventure, I suggest to you that Bill Clinton would also have pursued this war, and has, in fact, defended Bush's decision to undertake it:
http://www.cnn. ...[text shortened]... t of millions, but seriously, what do you think America should do?
In September 1980 Iraq invaded Iran and the war continued right through the Reagan years. Although officially neutral, the US established diplomatic relations in 1984 - broken since 1967. They supplied arms and information to both sides during this conflict - sometimes urging an arms embargo while simultaneously making arms shipments. Support extended to reflagging Iraqi oil tankers and protecting them from Iranian attack - while allowing Saddam to attack Iranian oil tankers.
As Iran pushed back the Iraqis, Saddams forces used chemical weapons. No protest came from the Reagan White House - indeed the US blocked a Security Council resolution condemning the use of weapons of mass destruction. A million died in Saddam´s war on his neighbour between 1980 and 1988.
What Saddam learnt from Reagan was:
An unprovoked attack on a neighbouring state is rewarded with a flow of arms, intelligence information and credits
The use of chemical weapons is acceptable to the US -even Rumsfield did not condemn it when he visited Saddam in Baghdad.
Two years later, Saddam´s troops invaded Kuwait.
15 Nov 04
Originally posted by frogstompApparently extensive plans were drawn up at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration for handling the reconstruction of Iraq, and Bush disregarded them.
The awful truth is that nothing you said shouldnt have been forseen before we toppled Saddam!!!
"The tragedy is that so much of this was avoidable. The Bush administration went into Iraq with a series of prejudices about Iraq, rogue states, nation-building, the Clinton administration, multilateralism and the U.N. It believed Iraq was going to vindicate these ideological positions. As events unfolded the administration proved stubbornly unwilling to look at facts on the ground, new evidence and the need for shifts in its basic approach. It was more important to prove that it was right than to get Iraq right." - Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4711931/
16 Nov 04
It really depends on why we are there. This is not clear. If we are there to protect the USA, then we need to tell the Iraqis that we will not tolerate any government that is hostile to us. If we are there to liberate the Iraqis, a hell of a lot more Iraqis need to step up and beg us to be there to save them.
16 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo where did freedom go? The first reason was WMD- second was links to terrorism - third was freedom for Iraqis.
It really depends on why we are there. This is not clear. If we are there to protect the USA, then we need to tell the Iraqis that we will not tolerate any government that is hostile to us. If we are there to liberate the Iraqis, ...[text shortened]... t more Iraqis need to step up and beg us to be there to save them.
So what excuse are we up to now for being in Iraq?