Iraq is a Safer Place Without Saddam?!!

[maineman]

No, I don't think we should go in to Uganda.

Funny how you complain about my not answering a question on a country we aren't discussing... when at the same time you continue to fail to answer the questions I asked you.

With our troops on the border protecting the no fly zone... what do you think we should have done at that point?

Why not back it up and not put a half a million troops on the border to begin with? I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. period.

In the wake of 9/11, Saddam was doing three things that were in our national interests and he was doing them better than we could do them ourselves, and it wouldn't have cost us a dime.
1. He kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a training/staging ground.
2. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
3. He provided an effective regional foil to Iranian hegemony

And... just so we get it straight.... you are all for righteously invading, conquering and occupying sovereign nations to stop despotic dictators from raping and pillaging their population... but not if those dictators are merely negroes without a bunch of oil. Is that about right?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why not back it up and not put a half a million troops on the border to begin with? I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. period.

Back up what? The no fly zone? For how long? and AGAIN... this was one of the points the terrorist groups were using as a reason to attack us. Can't help notice but you are AGAIN avoiding the questions.

In the wake of 9/11, Saddam was doing three things that were in our national interests and he was doing them better than we could do them ourselves, and it wouldn't have cost us a dime.
1. He kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a training/staging ground.
2. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
3. He provided an effective regional foil to Iranian hegemony

True... but we could not leave our troops there indefinitely. There was an ever growing anger about their presence in Saudi. So, again, would you have left the troops there? Or pulled them out? I know you would not have gone in as Bush did. But which of the other two options would you have done?

And... just so we get it straight.... you are all for righteously invading, conquering and occupying sovereign nations to stop despotic dictators from raping and pillaging their population... but not if those dictators are merely negroes without a bunch of oil. Is that about right?

The above is simply a bunch of crap a desperate piece of shit would create when losing an argument. I said we should have gone into Iraq because leaving the no fly zone troops there indefinitely was causing greater and greater hostility. Your Uganda question was regarding a country where we had no troops enforcing no fly zones. If the situation was the same, my response would have been the same. Regardless of your pathetic piece of shit attempts at race baiting.

Tell you what Maine, how about you just shut the fuck up if you are unwilling to have an honest discussion?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Why not back it up and not put a half a million troops on the border to begin with? I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. period.

In the wake of 9/11, Saddam was doing three things that were in our national interests and he was doing them better than we could do them ourselves, and it wouldn't have cost us a dime.
1. He kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a training/staging ground.
2. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
3. He provided an effective regional foil to Iranian hegemony

And... just so we get it straight.... you are all for righteously invading, conquering and occupying sovereign nations to stop despotic dictators from raping and pillaging their population... but not if those dictators are merely negroes without a bunch of oil. Is that about right?

Not just Uganda, what about Zimbabwe, or Rwanda? Tony Blair, who I don't have much time for usually, did act over Sierra Leone and kick out the Ghaddafi backed rebels.

 

[NOVA]

Why not back it up and not put a half a million troops on the border to begin with? I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. period.

In the wake of 9/11, Saddam was doing three things that were in our national interests and he was doing them better than we could do them ourselves, and it wouldn't have cost us a dime.
1. He kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a training/staging ground.
2. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
3. He provided an effective regional foil to Iranian hegemony

And... just so we get it straight.... you are all for righteously invading, conquering and occupying sovereign nations to stop despotic dictators from raping and pillaging their population... but not if those dictators are merely negroes without a bunch of oil. Is that about right?

Why don't you put that question to Obama .... or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi....you lefties have a huge list to pick from....

• Central African Republic
• Darfur
• Democratic Republic of Congo
• Eastern Burma
• Eastern Chad
• Iraq
• Somalia
• Sri Lanka
• [h=2]* Syria[/h]
• Oh wait....Obama has taken a big interest in Syria....but then Syria has oil.....funny how hypocrisy from the left don't penetrate your skull ....

www.9-11commission.gov/hearings
Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Saddam's Iraq and Support for Terrorism
Testimony of 9/11 Commission witness focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Husayn. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism:
Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam. ,,http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

If the left or Obama cared about sunnis and shiites slaughtering one another, we'd still be there.

Iranian hegemony ?....Without US assistance, Saddam was useless.

 

[maineman]

Just so we can put aside the race bating canard.... you DID say:

Are you suggesting we leave dictators in power to rape and murder those they choose?

but then later stated that you would NOT have gone into Uganda to remove a dictator who was raping and murdering those he chose.

Regarding the no-fly zones... I would have unilaterally stopped them and pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia, but, we both know that those troops were there for more reasons than merely supporting the no-fly zones.

The Iraq war was costly, it was stupid, it lost us the support of a large part of the world that had been at least passively supportive of our post 9/11 efforts up to that point. It caused us to lose sight of the real enemy and forever flushed away untold time, treasure, blood, and goodwill.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just so we can put aside the race bating canard.... you DID say:

Yes... I was asking you a question. YOU then tried to pretend the race of the country was a factor. YOU were indeed race baiting.

but then later stated that you would NOT have gone into Uganda to remove a dictator who was raping and murdering those he chose.

and I also stated that the only reason I would have gone into Iraq is because I felt that was the better option than sticking indefinitely to the no fly zone. The only times I have advocated going into a country without a presence already there is in situations where wholesale genocide is occurring, such as Rwanda, The Sudan, the Congo. But again... you try to twist and turn my QUESTION to you into a race issue.

Regarding the no-fly zones... I would have unilaterally stopped them and pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia, but, we both know that those troops were there for more reasons than merely supporting the no-fly zones.

Fair enough... thanks for finally answering... please tell us what else they were there for.

The Iraq war was costly, it was stupid, it lost us the support of a large part of the world that had been at least passively supportive of our post 9/11 efforts up to that point. It caused us to lose sight of the real enemy and forever flushed away untold time, treasure, blood, and goodwill.

Really? Who did we actually lose support from?

 

[maineman]

your question certainly implied that you would NOT sit idly by and let dictators rape their citizens...

so your position is that you were only for it in Iraq because we just happened to already be in the neighborhood?

"Actually" lose support from? that is not really the best question to ask. Governments may still support us or may have never supported us, but there is no doubt that we had the goodwill of a large part of the people on this planet in the immediate wake of 9/11. According to my friends still in the area, this even went so far as to include many moderate arabs - especially those in the mediterranean littoral area. Our ADD-like abrupt drop in interest in OBL and AQ and our shift to Iraq began to start an exodus of people away from that group. Abu Ghraib and Fallujah turned the exodus into a stampede. Again... there is some rather unimpeachable anecdotal evidence from Saudi royalty that stated that Dubya didn't even know the fucking difference between a sunni and a shiite, yet he attempted to shove the tenets of OUR founding fathers down the throats of Iraqis at gunpoint. Could there be any doubt that, with such a tone deaf, hamfisted foreign policy our efforts in Iraq in the wake of the fall of Saddam were destined for extremely limited success, if not outright failure.

SF... you may recall my arguments with Dixie about this early on.... I predicted that, as soon as we pulled our armed forces out of Iraq, that sunnis and shiites would get on with the business of slaughtering one another and that is pretty much exactly what happened. The country is a mess, and our idiotic invasion caused that mess, imho.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

your question certainly implied that you would NOT sit idly by and let dictators rape their citizens...

Again, it was a question to provoke a response from you. YOU attempted then to divert into a race baiting exercise.

so your position is that you were only for it in Iraq because we just happened to already be in the neighborhood?

Because we were in a position where we could not withdraw from the no fly zone without losing face in the region and we could not maintain the no fly zone indefinitely. So yes, it was the inevitable decision we were going to come to. I don't think we should have gone in WHEN we did and we most certainly should have been more organized than what Rumsfeld and Co were. But I do think it was inevitable that we go in and remove Saddam.

"Actually" lose support from? that is not really the best question to ask.

Well then perhaps you should have stated your position better then. You said we lost support, I asked from whom. So next time phrase what you mean in a more suitable manner.

SF... you may recall my arguments with Dixie about this early on.... I predicted that, as soon as we pulled our armed forces out of Iraq, that sunnis and shiites would get on with the business of slaughtering one another and that is pretty much exactly what happened. The country is a mess, and our idiotic invasion caused that mess, imho.

The country was a mess prior to our invasion, it continues with us gone. You yourself stated that the never ending battle between Sunni, Shite and Kurd was going to continue no matter what. Now you turn around and pretend we caused the mess? The Iraqi people had a choice... which is far more than they ever had under Saddam.

 

[maineman]

Because we were in a position where we could not withdraw from the no fly zone without losing face in the region and we could not maintain the no fly zone indefinitely. So yes, it was the inevitable decision we were going to come to. I don't think we should have gone in WHEN we did and we most certainly should have been more organized than what Rumsfeld and Co were. But I do think it was inevitable that we go in and remove Saddam.

so... because we don't have troops stationed next door, you're perfectly happy with letting dictators rape their citizens. Got it.

And nobody in the region would have felt we "lost face" if we had said, "enough of this silly no-fly foolishness... we'll provide military assistance to the kurds and to the shiites in the south if they ask for it, in accordance with the spirit of the ILA, but we aren't going to put our air assets at risk for the silliness any longer" And just because we had troops in the region did NOT make invading Iraq with a half a million troops the only logical alternative, imo.

Well then perhaps you should have stated your position better then. You said we lost support, I asked from whom. So next time phrase what you mean in a more suitable manner.

bullshit. I answered your fucking question.

The country was a mess prior to our invasion, it continues with us gone. You yourself stated that the never ending battle between Sunni, Shite and Kurd was going to continue no matter what. Now you turn around and pretend we caused the mess? The Iraqi people had a choice... which is far more than they ever had under Saddam.

the difference being that, under the autocratic rule of Saddam, the sectarian slaughter was all but eliminated AND... as I have said, the benefits to American foreign policy interests vis a vis the Islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11, WE would have been better off with Saddam keeping a lid on the sectarian violence, the Islamic extremists attempting to use Iraq for their purposes, AND the now unchecked Iranian regional hegemony PLUS it would have saved us 40K dead and wounded and a trillion dollars.

And you act as if the Iraqi people ever even chose to be Iraqi people, instead of members of the various sects that they have ALWAYS claimed primary allegiance to.

 

[NOVA]

why did we spend all that time and waste all those lives trying to bring Jeffersonian democracy to the banks of the Euphrates? The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire CREATED Iraq. The Iraqi people had no role in the creation of their own country. Why did Dubya think they'd jump at the chance to adopt our form of government?

the fact that the partitioning of the Ottoman empire never entered your mind is proof that you really have no idea as to the antecedents of the conflict there. Why am I not surprised?

The religious fanatics there whose sole purpose on earth is to kill each other for centuries is irrelevant to the Iraq war in this current millennium,
......the partitioning of Ottoman empire is long past, over and done...and the fact that the history of the Ott. Emp. never entered my mind is only proof that I didn't view this "debate" as a debate about the long past history of the entire region....(strawman failure)

Why did Dubya think they'd jump at the chance to adopt our form of government?....I don't think he did....though that was most likely his best case hope....I think he did
think they would 'jump at a chance' to adopt, at least, a marginally better form of government than they endured before, some stability, a little humanity...certainly some of their neighbors have....

It just didn't happen, ....even rudimentary civil rights and respect for women or life in general just doesn't seem to be in their makeup....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

so... because we don't have troops stationed next door, you're perfectly happy with letting dictators rape their citizens. Got it.

I believe that is indeed YOUR position.

And nobody in the region would have felt we "lost face" if we had said, "enough of this silly no-fly foolishness... we'll provide military assistance to the kurds and to the shiites in the south if they ask for it, in accordance with the spirit of the ILA, but we aren't going to put our air assets at risk for the silliness any longer" And just because we had troops in the region did NOT make invading Iraq with a half a million troops the only logical alternative, imo.

LMAO... yeah... our air assets were not at risk. Right, you would have simply pulled the troops out of the no fly zone and we would have indeed lost credibility in the region.

bullshit. I answered your fucking question.

after running from it as long as you could... even then you tried to squirm out of answering it.

the difference being that, under the autocratic rule of Saddam, the sectarian slaughter was all but eliminated AND... as I have said, the benefits to American foreign policy interests vis a vis the Islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11, WE would have been better off with Saddam keeping a lid on the sectarian violence, the Islamic extremists attempting to use Iraq for their purposes, AND the now unchecked Iranian regional hegemony PLUS it would have saved us 40K dead and wounded and a trillion dollars.

yeah, the slaughter was eliminated except for those that Saddam and his cronies wanted to slaughter.

And you act as if the Iraqi people ever even chose to be Iraqi people, instead of members of the various sects that they have ALWAYS claimed primary allegiance to.

Dear Maine... I have never stated any such thing. I stated they were free to make a choice. Something they never had under Saddam. But again you want to pretend this is all about something that took place long before they were born. I understand the sectarian differences. You want those nasty brown people to stay under the boot of a dictator to keep them in line. I get that is your position. You have stated it many times.

 

[anatta]

No. Iraq is a state in the middle of a sectarian civil war due to the power vacuum that his removal caused.

succint, and true.
al-Malaki isn't helping things with his marginalization of the Sunnis (gee -wonder why they are looking to al-qaeda for protection??)

And part of this clusterf*ck is no doubt spill over from Syria. Still we broke a state, we fractured it like Humpty Dumpty;
and all the US forces couldn't put it together again.

Iran is the clear winner. Yankee Doodle.

 

[maineman]

I believe that is indeed YOUR position.

no. yours. you are on record as not having wanted to intervene in Uganda. not me.

LMAO... yeah... our air assets were not at risk. Right, you would have simply pulled the troops out of the no fly zone and we would have indeed lost credibility in the region.

that's your opinion. I lived and worked over there for two years and maintain close contact with many folks - muslim, jew and christian - in the area and I have a different opinion. Imagine that.

after running from it as long as you could... even then you tried to squirm out of answering it.

bullshit. I answered it the first time you asked it. We DID lose support... from lots and lots of real people on the arab street.... people who were sympathetic and tacitly supportive of our actions against AQ in Afghanistan but were NOT supportive of our invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq - who had fuck all to do with the attacks on our homeland.

yeah, the slaughter was eliminated except for those that Saddam and his cronies wanted to slaughter.

if we had wanted to get all weepy and self righteous, we ought not to have supported his use of chemical weapons against the Iranians... his "slaughter" of Iraqi civilians was all but abated in the decade since the gassing of the kurds, and, again... in the wake of 9/11, we had more important targets on our screen than some tinpot dictator in Iraq. It was a stupid war. period. You can try and justify it and rationalize it after the fact all you like, but you'll never change MY mind on that subject. We were better off with Saddam IN power in Iraq, doing what he did that we benefitted from, than we were by pissing off the entire arab world by kicking him out.

Dear Maine... I have never stated any such thing. I stated they were free to make a choice. Something they never had under Saddam. But again you want to pretend this is all about something that took place long before they were born. I understand the sectarian differences. You want those nasty brown people to stay under the boot of a dictator to keep them in line. I get that is your position. You have stated it many times.

I want the western world to realize that we fucked up mightily by even creating the stupid country of Iraq, drawing lines around sworn enemies and then being all fucking AMAZED when they acted like sworn enemies instead of like peaceful democracy loving residents of New Jersey versus New York. If they want to get out from under the boot of a dictator that their own political apparatus put in place, then let them do it. It will NEVER be worth a single drop of American blood or one thin dime of American treasure to keep trying to un-fuck a situation that is totally fucked up and has been since Iraq's very inception.

 

[/MSG/]

no doubt you would have said the same thing when al-Bakr led Iraq.

Most likely, and I'd say this as well; it's not any of our god damned business. American troops for American soil, American money for American citizens. Fuck everyone else.

 

[anatta]

And when he died of natural causes what would have been different? It'd be the same thing, except no American input.

not necessarily. He could have groomed another 'strong man', or another power struggle would cement a new dictator.
Or quite possibly, your idea is correct in that the sectarian rift we are seeing play out would inevitably happen there too.

Either way it would be Iraq choosing it's own destiny, not imposed by the US neocons.

 

[/MSG/]

not necessarily. He could have groomed another 'strong man', or another power struggle would cement a new dictator.
Or quite possibly, your idea is correct in that the sectarian rift we are seeing play out would inevitably happen there too.

Either way it would be Iraq choosing it's own destiny, not imposed by the US neocons.

It'd be sectarian, like every other succession that's occurred in the region for the past 4,000 years.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

no. yours. you are on record as not having wanted to intervene in Uganda. not me.

And you are on record as not wanting to do so in Iraq... so yes, it is indeed your position. But since you brought it up... do you believe we should invade Uganda then? Clearly you are saying that you never want to invade other countries, so surely it is your position. Is your hatred of black people the same as it is for brown people?

that's your opinion. I lived and worked over there for two years and maintain close contact with many folks - muslim, jew and christian - in the area and I have a different opinion. Imagine that.

Sure you do... do you often tell those brown people what you think of them?

bullshit. I answered it the first time you asked it. We DID lose support... from lots and lots of real people on the arab street.... people who were sympathetic and tacitly supportive of our actions against AQ in Afghanistan but were NOT supportive of our invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq - who had fuck all to do with the attacks on our homeland.

No, you did not. You do realize we can all see your previous responses still?

if we had wanted to get all weepy and self righteous, we ought not to have supported his use of chemical weapons against the Iranians... his "slaughter" of Iraqi civilians was all but abated in the decade since the gassing of the kurds, and, again... in the wake of 9/11, we had more important targets on our screen than some tinpot dictator in Iraq. It was a stupid war. period. You can try and justify it and rationalize it after the fact all you like, but you'll never change MY mind on that subject. We were better off with Saddam IN power in Iraq, doing what he did that we benefitted from, than we were by pissing off the entire arab world by kicking him out.

Always trying to divert onto something else to avoid your hatred for those poor suffering Iraqis under Saddam. Let me guess, your friends in the region were Baath party members?

I want the western world to realize that we fucked up mightily by even creating the stupid country of Iraq, drawing lines around sworn enemies and then being all fucking AMAZED when they acted like sworn enemies instead of like peaceful democracy loving residents of New Jersey versus New York.

LMAO... that is true of almost all of the countries that the west created. Why do you care just about Iraq? Why do you keep acting like people are arguing today that the division after WWI was a good thing? Has ANYONE stated anything like that? Oh yeah... no... they have not. But in your fantasy world I suppose we can somehow go back in time and change those events so that it won't have happened.

If they want to get out from under the boot of a dictator that their own political apparatus put in place, then let them do it. It will NEVER be worth a single drop of American blood or one thin dime of American treasure to keep trying to un-fuck a situation that is totally fucked up and has been since Iraq's very inception.

So you do admit you want dictators to stay in power and rape and murder their people. Thanks for finally owning up to that.

 

[anatta]

a simple question for you:

do you believe that the people of the artificially constructed "country" of Iraq have a greater stake in establishing and promoting a Jeffersonian multicultural democracy than they do in their own self identities as sunnis, shiites and kurds?

you are ignoring Iraq nationalism.
Unlike Afganistan it is a real force, the partion was what..100 years ago?? (almost).

Biden wanted a "soft partition", which would have preserved the international border, but allowed zones ( or some such )
( sort of like the walls that went up - without the actual walls in Baghdad).

Biden deserves credit for that idea. Might have allowed internal migration, and at least reduced the carnage

 

[anatta]

It'd be sectarian, like every other succession that's occurred in the region for the past 4,000 years.

I would guess so.
The way things are going on over there now. But at least it would not be written in to the history books as a result of the overthrow of Saddam by the US.

 

[maineman]

you are ignoring Iraq nationalism.
Unlike Afganistan it is a real force, the partion was what..100 years ago?? (almost).

Biden wanted a "soft partition", which would have preserved the international border, but allowed zones ( or some such )
( sort of like the walls that went up - without the actual walls in Baghdad).

Biden deserves credit for that idea. Might have allowed internal migration, and at least reduced the carnage

I am not "ignoring" Iraqi nationalism, I am discounting it when compared to the people's allegiance to sect. The hatred that sunnis have for shiites - and vice versa - is far greater than the love they might have for the ethereal concept of Iraq as a country.