North Korea - matches in the powder keg

[GothicGothicness]

Sure it would have -- but it would have left Iraq itself in exactly the same mess as it is now. Iraq was the most developed of the Arab countries, with the best-educated people, the biggest middle class, and the best infrastructure. That's all gone; it's turned into one big dusty theater of war and training camp for terrorists, with everyone who can having already left. That's an enormous tragedy, and an unnecessary one.

I think your view of Iraq under Saddam is slightly glorified? We had a constant stream of Iraqi escaping to Sweden under his reign, telling tales of torture, people being gassed to death, the sportsman to fail Saddam dissapearing, kurds being unfairly treated. The list goes on. If bush Sr had removed Saddam it might have stabilised into something better by now. As far as the al-qaida camps go, they had been there for many years during Saddam's reign to freely train terrorists? or is that more missinformation?

As far as the disaster that it became I cannot say it was a good solution. But to end the reign of Saddam was more or less necesarry, Saddam was old, but he also had sons known for their cruelty? isn't their a high possiblity one of them would take over? and follow in his footsteps.

No my opinion remains that you should not leave the person to start a war or two in charge, this opinion also applies for Bush Jr.

 

[KazikluBey]

As far as the al-qaida camps go, they had been there for many years during Saddam's reign to freely train terrorists? or is that more missinformation?

Yes. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a strictly secular state. The rumor that Iraq sponsored Al-Qaida was created during the build-up before the USA invasion of Iraq, and has been debunked.

 

[GothicGothicness]

I hate media, I am sure I had read with picture proof that there had been many terrorist training camps in IRAQ even 4 years before the US invasion.

I guess that is what I get from reading things like the weekly standard. I am sure I read it in other places too, when was it debunkend and by who?

 

[Prime Junta]

I think your view of Iraq under Saddam is slightly glorified? We had a constant stream of Iraqi escaping to Sweden under his reign, telling tales of torture, people being gassed to death, the sportsman to fail Saddam dissapearing, kurds being unfairly treated. The list goes on.

That's all true: that's why he deserved to hang.

But the other side of it is true too: Saddam's Iraq *did* have the biggest middle class, the best primary and secondary education in the Arab world, the best gender equality in the Arab world, the best physical infrastructure in the Arab world, and so on.

If bush Sr had removed Saddam it might have stabilised into something better by now.

Why would it have worked better under Bush Sr. than under Bush Jr.?

As far as the al-qaida camps go, they had been there for many years during Saddam's reign to freely train terrorists? or is that more missinformation?

Misinformation. There was an Al-Qaeda affiliated training camp in Iraq post-1991 -- *but it was not in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam.* It was in the mountains of Eastern Kurdistan, where Saddam has no access. (The Kurds, of course, were American allies.)

In fact, Saddam was particularly brutal at oppressing Al Qaeda-style Islamic integrists; just like Hafez al-Assad, he saw them as a potential threat to his regime.

As far as the disaster that it became I cannot say it was a good solution. But to end the reign of Saddam was more or less necesarry, Saddam was old, but he also had sons known for their cruelty? isn't their a high possiblity one of them would take over? and follow in his footsteps.

Certainly. Any number of things could have happened after he died.

No my opinion remains that you should not leave the person to start a war or two in charge, this opinion also applies for Bush Jr.

Even if by doing so you risk the death, mutilation, dispossession, or exile of hundreds of thousands, even millions of people, and the destruction of an entire country? Sorry, GG -- I can't agree with that.

 

[Zaleukos]

I hate media, I am sure I had read with picture proof that there had been many terrorist training camps in IRAQ even 4 years before the US invasion.

I guess that is what I get from reading things like the weekly standard. I am sure I read it in other places too, when was it debunkend and by who?

Ideologically Saddam belonged to the secular Arab nationalist tradition (the same ideology as Nasser, Assad etc represent) from the 50s onwards, which is in often violent competition with islamism.

Saddam's rather minor ties to terrorism were to secular and arab nationalist terrorists, not to Al Qaeda. IIRC he paid pensions to the families of suicide bombers in the palestinian territories and had the old 70s terrorist leader Abu Nidal stay in Baghdad. The latter died just before the Iraq war, officially committing suicide but possibly assassinated in a desperate effort to appease Bush jr. So while Saddam certainly was an evil bastard his terrorist supporter record is far weaker than that of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan...

 

[GothicGothicness]

I understand that you could not agree PJ. But there simply has to be a point where you end the reign of persons like Saddam.

It is just very hard to do it in the right way, and it will lead to much suffering and deaths, just like it would to keep them in power.

But these strong powers with a few people controlling the country scares me to no end. If you look at China which is very near to my heart you could understand why. Imagine a Saddam type cooming in power in China or another Mao. China gouverment has the most money in the world now, the China people has no power over the gouverment. China is strenghening its military. I think Iraq under Saddam would keep doing the same. Russia is in a risk zone.

Should we keep them at bay with trade restrictions, but that also affect their economy and make people starve? and if they have oil there'll always be someone willing to buy, they'll build more and more powerfull until they feel strong enough for another war or other attacks? I do not believe that Saddam ever had any peacefull goals he was just pissed at the US for ruining his plans to capture all of the middle east, and become immensly powerful.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I don't know of any evidence of the US Putting him in Power, but for quite some time during the gulf war (Iran-Iraq) they supported keeping him in power (in the usual "our bastard" kind of way that always gets the US in trouble). The photograph of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld from that period are quite deliciously ironic, considering what happened later. The support was mostly in the intelligence field, but included weapon sales and weapon technology, IIRC.

 

[Prime Junta]

But these strong powers with a few people controlling the country scares me to no end. If you look at China which is very near to my heart you could understand why. Imagine a Saddam type cooming in power in China or another Mao. China gouverment has the most money in the world now, the China people has no power over the gouverment. China is strenghening its military. I think Iraq under Saddam would keep doing the same.

Except that post-1991, Iraq *didn't* do the same. I'm not saying Saddam didn't try, but the ease with which his military went down in the American invasion says he failed completely. In 2003, Iraq was not in a position to threaten anyone, even Kuwait.

And if a Saddam came into power in China, there's precious little anyone *could* do about it -- without risking global thermonuclear war, anyway.

Basically, everything you say makes sense if you were God -- that is, if you could just snap your fingers and make these Bad People go away, and then magically stop Bad Things from happening as a result. But you're not God, and neither is George Bush, Junior or Senior. "Don't do harm" is a much better principle of politics than "do good," because "do good" will very, very often lead to unintended consequences that do enormous amounts of harm.

Russia is in a risk zone.

No, it isn't.

Should we keep them at bay with trade restrictions, but that also affect their economy and make people starve? and if they have oil there'll always be someone willing to buy, they'll build more and more powerfull until they feel strong enough for another war or other attacks? I do not believe that Saddam ever had any peacefull goals he was just pissed at the US for ruining his plans to capture all of the middle east, and become immensly powerful.

Of course he was. But that's not the issue -- the issue is, was he in a position to do anything about it? And the answer to that is a resounding "no." Saddam was contained. The cost of the containment was big, especially to completely innocent Iraqis bearing the brunt of the sanctions, but it was far smaller than the alternative -- deposing him by force.

We've had similar discussions before, GG, about Tibet and such. From where I'm at, you have a great deal of trouble recognizing the limits of your power, and considering the unintended consequences of what you want to do. The fact that you're active in politics makes me a bit worried about this: if you were in charge of a big country, your policies, well-intentioned as they are, would plunge the world into global war in no time flat.

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't know of any evidence of the US Putting him in Power, but for quite some time during the gulf war (Iran-Iraq) they supported keeping him in power (in the usual "our bastard" kind of way that always gets the US in trouble). The photograph of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld from that period are quite deliciously ironic, considering what happened later. The support was mostly in the intelligence field, but included weapon sales and weapon technology, IIRC.

True. There's an apocryphal story of a BBC reporter interviewing a British politician about Iraq, pre-Gulf War:

"Sir, how can you be so certain that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?"
"Well... receipts, mostly."

 

[GothicGothicness]

if you were in charge of a big country, your policies, well-intentioned as they are, would plunge the world into global war in no time flat.

You grealty underestimate me in that case. I think I would do rather well and peaceful as a leader of a big country. An opinion is one thing, to realise when it is not a realistic thing to do is another. I still think Bush Sr's desposal of Sadam would have been better than Bush Jr's one. The difference we could have from now in my opinion is either Iraq was stabilized or the same as it is now.

As far as the Tibet issue goes I never suggested trying to take Tibet from China by force, what I had said was they should have their freedom, just like Taiwan should have if the people wants to. There could be ways to convince China they already gave a substancial amount of freedom to HK, Taiwan and Macau.

Aside from that yeah maybe you would think it could start a massive war but I would have stopped the heavens freedom army in africa and the RFF. It is beyoned me why US could attack IRAQ / AFG but ignore what they did in Africa? because there are no riches in Africa ?

 

[Prime Junta]

You grealty underestimate me in that case. I think I would do rather well and peaceful as a leader of a big country. An opinion is one thing, to realise when it is not a realistic thing to do is another.

So, if you were George Bush Sr. and it was 1991, would you have occupied Iraq and deposed Saddam, even if you were reasonably certain that the results would be what happened after Bush Jr.'s invasion?

 

[dteowner]

I'm rather conflicted about this discussion, but I'll throw in a little anyway.

While Bush Sr would have had more international support for wiping out Saddam due to his agression in Kuwait (which PJ historically likes to minimize), it's hard to tell if the Iraqi people would have done better with it than they have under Dubya. Making the transition easier is that you wouldn't have an extra decade of Baath oppression deepening the dislike between the various sects. That means that (theoretically) you'd have less religiously motivated silliness to deal with, making the dearth of leadership from the Saddam ouster less contentious. On the negative side, you don't have an extra decade of Baath oppression making Saddam's rule less appealing to the masses. It was far easier for Dubya to play the liberator role than it would have been for Bush Sr. So we traded the advantage of not fighting a unified people during the invasion for the disadvantage of dealing with entrenched opportunists after the fact.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm rather conflicted about this discussion, but I'll throw in a little anyway.

While Bush Sr would have had more international support for wiping out Saddam due to his agression in Kuwait (which PJ historically likes to minimize),

Huh? How and when do I "like to minimize" his aggression on Kuwait?

 

[dteowner]

You have regularly and repeated said that Saddam was a powerless pissant that just did his best to get along with the UN in spite of constant US plotting, and yet that same powerless pissant had enough juice to carry out an unproked invasion of his neighbor.

 

[Prime Junta]

You have regularly and repeated said that Saddam was a powerless pissant that just did his best to get along with the UN in spite of constant US plotting, and yet that same powerless pissant had enough juice to carry out an unproked invasion of his neighbor.

You're a liar, dte.

Yes, I've said that Saddam was a powerless pissant. *After* his defeat and subsequent containment in 1991, that is. I have never claimed that he was powerless or harmless before that. Nor have I claimed that he "just did his best to get along with the UN in spite of constant US plotting."

Hell, this has come up before here: you've made the same baseless and scurrilous claim about me, I've explicitly set you straight about it, yet here you go again. That means it's more than just an innocent misunderstanding -- it makes it an intentional lie, and you... a liar.

So, dte -- prove it. Find an example of my claiming that pre-1991, Saddam was harmless, or that he "just did his best to get along with the UN in spite of constant US plotting." Or else be a man and apologize. Everything I've said on the topic is available right here on this site. Have at it.

But then, what should I expect from a Republican -- lying about your opponents is what you do. Must be in your culture to be hypocritical liars.

 

[dteowner]

You're in luck, because the original Iraq War thread has been pruned, but I'll take up that gauntlet and see what I can find. Better get to deleting posts, mister.

 

[Prime Junta]

You're in luck, because the original Iraq War thread has been pruned, but I'll take up that gauntlet and see what I can find. Better get to deleting posts, mister.

That's projection, little liar. Just because *you* would resort to deleting posts in this situation doesn't mean *I* would. I'll be quite interested to see what you can come up with.

 

[dteowner]

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=32162&postcount=13

Unrelated to this particular discussion, but certainly calls into question the consistency of a certain worthy. Still digging.

 

[dteowner]

Came up with a few hints, but nothing solid enough for this argument in the posts available to view today. I hereby withdraw the accusation with requisite apologies.

edit- I'll even change my avatar for a bit out of shame.

 

[Corwin]

Cute avatar Dte, cute avatar!!