Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power

[symyjym]

I clicked on this thread and the advert that came up was muslim dating. Anyone else?

No but I got a Vectone free sim mobile ad, with a call Iraq at 6p a minute.

Didn't know that Google Ads reached into forums on this level to spy on comments. Until now.

 

[Willy Dangle]

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.

Thought he was dead, he'd be pretty useless.

 

[mona]

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.

Of course Britain is in no way like the USA. We have a Foreign Secretary who has wisely counselled against taking a good guy/bad guy stance in the so-called Arab Spring, the Syrian Conflict and the shenanigans in Ukraine.

 

[drew]

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256

Of course his sons were worse than he was, but we were in a position to push Iraq to reform and oversee a smooth transition so that they were not part of the future. We chose to flatten the country and take the heartout of its infrustructure leaving future generations to suffer.

Great idea

If you read that article, the figure is arrived at by a randomised survey of 2000 families. The Iraq Body Count is based on documented deaths. And what exactly are war related causes? Sunni v Shiite? That was going on before the war!

 

[symyjym]

If you read that article, the figure is arrived at by a randomised survey of 2000 families. The Iraq Body Count is based on documented deaths. And what exactly are war related causes? Sunni v Shiite? That was going on before the war!

It was a war zone that we created, and hundreds were being killed by car bombs on a daily basis.

It's easy to say that only 140,000 civilians were killed even if that figure was correct, only you can probably times that figure by four if you include the seriously injured, amputees and other life affecting conditions.

You obviously need an empathy injection because it’s easy to gloss over the effect on Iraq whilst sitting comfortably in peaceful Sussex.

 

[father_and_son]

Of course Britain is in no way like the USA. We have a Foreign Secretary who has wisely counselled against taking a good guy/bad guy stance in the so-called Arab Spring, the Syrian Conflict and the shenanigans in Ukraine.

No. Don't think we are like US. We are the weedy kid who hangs around with the class bully. Weak, spineless, knows he's doing wrong but too scared of upsetting America. If anything it makes us even more pathetic.

 

[thisistips]

No Iraq war, no Arab spring I reckon. Therefore no Egypt, Libya or Syria wars. Blair would probably be held in high regard.

 

[thisistips]

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256

Of course his sons were worse than he was, but we were in a position to push Iraq to reform and oversee a smooth transition so that they were not part of the future. We chose to flatten the country and take the heartout of its infrustructure leaving future generations to suffer.

Great idea

Equivalent to all of Brighton and hove, Worthing and Lewes being killed, in a country roughly half the size of the UK. Put it in perspective. If that happened here, reckon there'd be a few extremists.

 

[drew]

It was a war zone that we created, and hundreds were being killed by car bombs on a daily basis.

It's easy to say that only 140,000 civilians were killed even if that figure was correct, only you can probably times that figure by four if you include the seriously injured, amputees and other life affecting conditions.

You obviously need an empathy injection because it’s easy to gloss over the effect on Iraq whilst sitting comfortably in peaceful Sussex.

I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs of the war just the fact that you quote a figure of those killed based on a poll of only 2000 and by reading a few media reports. Neither figures are likely to be 100% accurate but I'm more inclined to err towards a figure based on documented deaths rather than just hearsay!

The original question was whether Iraq would have been better off had the coalition not gone in. If you take the IBC figure and even include a margin of error of 20% it is still less than the 180,000 killed by Saddam in one campaign.

Finally, on what do you base the assertion that we were in a position to push reform? Saddam had a vice like grip on the country and suppressed ruthlessly any hint of rebellion (look at what he did in Dujail!).

 

[symyjym]

I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs of the war just the fact that you quote a figure of those killed based on a poll of only 2000 and by reading a few media reports. Neither figures are likely to be 100% accurate but I'm more inclined to err towards a figure based on documented deaths rather than just hearsay!

The original question was whether Iraq would have been better off had the coalition not gone in. If you take the IBC figure and even include a margin of error of 20% it is still less than the 180,000 killed by Saddam in one campaign.

Finally, on what do you base the assertion that we were in a position to push reform? Saddam had a vice like grip on the country and suppressed ruthlessly any hint of rebellion (look at what he did in Dujail!).

I am not going to write a thousand page document on Iraq reform. Saddam was weak and on his knees before we went in there and there is a very strong argument that the war was illegal anyway.

War is barbaric whichever way you look at it and the West has to lead by example, not teach the Middle East that war and death is the way forward. People forget that it was only in 1918 that women were allowed to vote in this country. Change develops over time and you cannot bomb countries into the future because it took us hundreds of years.

Ruling by fear is not a new concept and it has been practiced throughout our history. The West has a duty to practice what it preaches and help countries out of their dark ages, not destroy them.

Anyway UTA