Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power



goldstone

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
7,108
An off-topic subject to take our minds off tomorrow.

No doubt in my mind looking at what has gone on in Iraq since Saddam was toppled and with sectarian violence at its highest level for years, that the country would have been far better off if the west had not interfered. Thousands of lives would have been saved, both Iraqis and foreign troops. Middle Eastern countries are clearly not ready for western style democracy and should be left alone to move forward at their own pace.

Same is true in Syria where the country was far better off when Assad was running the show. The civil war has achieved absolutely nothing and has ruined the country.

Egypt is another example. Much better and more stable country under Mubarak.

Message to western powers:
- keep your noses out of the domestic affairs of other countries
- you cannot and should not try to impose western style democracy everywhere in the world
- put massive pressure on the Israelis to reach an agreement on the Palestine question. If this problem was sorted it would have a positive effect on the region and the Israelis are currently the problem.

That's the world's problems sorted. Now off to fix my shed.
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,094
Chandlers Ford
I think you meant to write that 'SOME people in Iraq would be better off'?

I'm not sure that the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs were particularly enjoying life under Saddam.
 




skipper734

Registered ruffian
Aug 9, 2008
9,189
Curdridge
The Western countries do have a proprietary interest though, as they created the artificial countries in the first place.
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,094
Chandlers Ford
For whatever reason, fundamentalist Muslims want to turn the clock back to the middle ages. This will never be compatible with democracy, western or otherwise. It's an insoluble problem as is the Israel / Palestine conflict.

That's a whole different argument, to the one the OP started.

Saddam's elite had no more intention of living the lives of 'fundamentalist muslims' than I do.

I don't the Kuran implicitly lists the requirements for a good muslim to stock up on marble bathrooms, gold taps and western prostitutes.
 




symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
An off-topic subject to take our minds off tomorrow.

No doubt in my mind looking at what has gone on in Iraq since Saddam was toppled and with sectarian violence at its highest level for years, that the country would have been far better off if the west had not interfered. Thousands of lives would have been saved, both Iraqis and foreign troops. Middle Eastern countries are clearly not ready for western style democracy and should be left alone to move forward at their own pace.

Same is true in Syria where the country was far better off when Assad was running the show. The civil war has achieved absolutely nothing and has ruined the country.

Egypt is another example. Much better and more stable country under Mubarak.

Message to western powers:
- keep your noses out of the domestic affairs of other countries
- you cannot and should not try to impose western style democracy everywhere in the world
- put massive pressure on the Israelis to reach an agreement on the Palestine question. If this problem was sorted it would have a positive effect on the region and the Israelis are currently the problem.

That's the world's problems sorted. Now off to fix my shed.

I agree, some people think there were two options; Leave him to it, or bomb the hell out of Iraq.

There was a third option, force him to reform and send the UN in to oversee the human rights.

The trouble is we raised the country to the ground and have now left them to it.

The country had good infrastructure in place to build from and now they have nothing.

Some of the best educated people in the world were Iraqi’s, and we employed many of their doctors over here in the UK. They had good schools and hospitals and we wiped them out.

Also not forgetting that the U.S. supplied arms to Iraq to fight their war against Iran, including chemical weapons.

What's that old saying? "Lead by example"
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,094
Chandlers Ford
Very easy to create a "stable" country by suppressing the rights and voices of everyone who disagrees with you!

Doesn't make it better.

Quite.

Particular in a case like Iraq, where 'suppression' actually translates as 'genocide'.
 




There would probably be about a million fewer dead Iraqis - so they would be significantly better off. He was a hemmed in, broken tyrant when the Americans went in to make a point. He could still be in power now though but it was the job of the Iraqi people to get rid of him, not US and British bombs and missiles.
 


father_and_son

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
Quite.

Particular in a case like Iraq, where 'suppression' actually translates as 'genocide'.

In general I'm very anti-American. A nation brought up with the unwavering belief that there is always a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in every conflict (they are brainwashed on the sh*t coming out of Hollywood almost from birth) is a VERY dangerous nation to be the world's only superpower. The sooner another "bad guy" (China?) steps up to replace the old "bad guy" (USSR) and acts as a balance to them on the international stage the better IMHO.
 


supaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 19, 2004
9,609
The United Kingdom of Mile Oak
An off-topic subject to take our minds off tomorrow.

No doubt in my mind looking at what has gone on in Iraq since Saddam was toppled and with sectarian violence at its highest level for years, that the country would have been far better off if the west had not interfered. Thousands of lives would have been saved, both Iraqis and foreign troops. Middle Eastern countries are clearly not ready for western style democracy and should be left alone to move forward at their own pace.

Same is true in Syria where the country was far better off when Assad was running the show. The civil war has achieved absolutely nothing and has ruined the country.

Egypt is another example. Much better and more stable country under Mubarak.

Message to western powers:
- keep your noses out of the domestic affairs of other countries
- you cannot and should not try to impose western style democracy everywhere in the world
- put massive pressure on the Israelis to reach an agreement on the Palestine question. If this problem was sorted it would have a positive effect on the region and the Israelis are currently the problem.

That's the world's problems sorted. Now off to fix my shed.

So what you're saying is that countries are better off with a tyrannical dictator in charge than not. Good luck with your shed...mind it doesn't collapse in on you when you're not expecting it.
 




symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
There would probably be about a million fewer dead Iraqis - so they would be significantly better off. He was a hemmed in, broken tyrant when the Americans went in to make a point. He could still be in power now though but it was the job of the Iraqi people to get rid of him, not US and British bombs and missiles.

Yep we could have used him in the right way and brought the country forward and through transition. Lets face it he probably only had a few more years left of rule because of his age and may well have died from natural causes by now.

We took 5 or 10 years off his life at the cost of death and misery to millions. If we add up the years taken from all those people who died because of it and since then it's about 500,000 if not a lot more. So if you add up the amount of human years lost it totals to about 6 million human years taken with a quick guess. And that is not including the seriously injured.
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,094
Chandlers Ford
Yep we could have used him in the right way and brought the country forward and through transition. Lets face it he probably only had a few more years left of rule because of his age and may well have died from natural causes by now.

We took 5 or 10 years off his life at the cost of death and misery to millions. If we add up the years taken from all those people who died because of it and since then it's about 500,000, so if you add up the amount of human years lost it totals to about 6 million human years taken with a quick guess. And that is not including the seriously injured.

Interesting sums.

Why have you not included the 'human years' lost to the ethnic groups that his regime were systematically slaughtering, before the invasion?
 


goldstone

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
7,108
So what you're saying is that countries are better off with a tyrannical dictator in charge than not. Good luck with your shed...mind it doesn't collapse in on you when you're not expecting it.

Based on recent experience in these countries, the answer is yes. And the west should leave well alone.
 




symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
Interesting sums.

Why have you not included the 'human years' lost to the ethnic groups that his regime were systematically slaughtering, before the invasion?

Are you ignoring the fact that the US provided arms and chemical weapons to Iraq to fight their own war against Iran. Six million died over the eight years of war between them.

The west made him the man he was in the first place.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,094
Chandlers Ford
Are you ignoring the fact that the US provided arms and chemical weapons to Iraq to fight their own war against Iran. Six million died over the eight years of war between them.

The west made him the man he was in the first place.

I'm not ignoring anything. You were the one trying to boil things down to simple quantifiable figures.

My point is that you cannot simply take a hard stance that 'whatever happens in another country is none of our business, and they should left to get on with it, however distasteful'.

Decisions will always need to be made, on a case by case basis, but sometimes the actions of a regime are simpy too appalling to continue to ignore.
 


symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
Yep we could have used him in the right way and brought the country forward and through transition. Lets face it he probably only had a few more years left of rule because of his age and may well have died from natural causes by now.

We took 5 or 10 years off his life at the cost of death and misery to millions. If we add up the years taken from all those people who died because of it and since then it's about 500,000 if not a lot more. So if you add up the amount of human years lost it totals to about 6 million human years taken with a quick guess. And that is not including the seriously injured.

My mistake Iraqi lives taken in human years is more like 150 million years.
 









Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here