The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
As some of you know I have mixed feelings on the Iraq War. A lot of people do. But here's an idea: Lets stop discussing it in FYM.
Forever.
Forever.
US military action likely caused birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq
- Thread starter Muldfeld
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Some of us understand nuance more than others.
Some realize not everything is black and white...
Some of us understand nuance more than others.
Some realize not everything is black and white...
Some of us understand reality and basic facts. The only way that Saddam's regime could be removed was through a US led military invasion of the country. Because of the way that Saddam ruled the country, the police state that he set up over decades through the murder of thousands, campaign of terror, as well as playing off the various tribes and ethnic groups against one another, the size of the military, the size of the Republican Guard and the special Republican Guard, successful internal opposition against the regime was impossible. No other foreign nation had the means or the will to take on Saddam independent of having the US military with it.
So opposing the only way Saddam's regime could be removed in 2003 meant you supported letting Saddam remain in power no matter how much you may have wished it would just suddenly disappear.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
You promote the ignorance coupled with hubris that drove the initial war strategy and resulted in so much unnecessary death. People could agree with the premise that Saddam had to be removed with military force whilst having serious misgivings about how the former administration handled it. You seem incapable of acknowledging that and take pains to defend a political gang which cost many Iraqi and coalition lives.
The only ignorance here is your own as I have often acknowledged that mistakes were made by the coalition in the early days after Saddam was removed and the nation building process began along with fighting the insurgency. The strategy to remove Saddam was sound, the problems were with the post-removal occupation phase. Despite this, the Bush administration learned from its mistakes and did produce a strategy that helped to successfully manage the conflict in 2007. The majority that opposed that strategy were essentially for the immediate removal of all US forces by early 2008 which would have been a disaster for Iraq, and would set up the United States for a return to the country later on under far worse conditions, a far worse mistake than any of the Bush administrations in the early days of the occupation phase. But your ignoring what was being talked about above which is not the occupation and rebuilding phase of the war, but the decision to remove Saddam in the first place.
What few if anyone here seems willing to do is to caculate the cost and consequences of letting Saddam remain in power in 2003, especially considering that the sanctions and weapons embargo against Iraq had just recently collapsed allowing Saddam to freely begin rebuilding conventional and unconventional military capabilities. What would the cost be to the Iraqi people in light of what the Iraqi people had suffered during Saddam's first 24 years or rule? What would be the cost to the region, considering what Saddam had done to the region in his previous 24 years in power? What would the cost be for the rest of the international community? What new weapons or dangers would a military coalition face when and if sometime in the future a military invasion was finally ordered?
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
there's no evidence of this
There is overwhelming evidence! Saddam's illegal oil sales grew from just a few hundred million in 2000, to over 3 Billion dollars in 2002. Syria openly stopped all of its UN monitering activities along its entire border with Iraq during this time period. Syria also began letting Saddam sell oil through the pipeline again. Jordan was letting UN humanitarian supplies meant for the Iraqi people be sold by Saddam within the country. Both Turkey and surprisingly even Iran loosened UN restrictions and monitering activities as seen by the sudden increase in truck traffic across both borders. France, Russia and China openly violated the flight ban with Iraq which was part of the sanctions. China openly began improving Iraqi military communications network as well as Iraqi Air Defenses. There had been mounting pressure from several corners of the international community to formally end most if not all of the sanctions and when this was not done, Saddam and like minded countries moved around it and turned the whole sanctions and weapons embargo regime into just a piece of paper.
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
i was hoping for a few more paragraphs and a few more sources
"Syrian-Iraqi Trade Reached $2 Billion in 2001," Middle East News Agency, May 27, 2002
"Iraq Caught Smuggling Oil, UN Official Says," The Washington Post, October 26, 2001
Michael Slackman, "Oil Barrels Fuel Baghdad's Clout in the Region" Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2002
Gary C. Gambill, "Iraq Returns to the Regional Stage," Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 9 (October 5, 2000)
Nicholas Berry, "China , Fiber-Optics and Iraq," Center for Defense Information, February 26, 2001
Freedman and Stecklow, "How Iraq Reaps Illegal Oil Profits," p. A1
"Dancing On Sanctions Grave," Middle East Economic Digest, December 8, 2000
"Delhi Company Fuelled Iraq's Weapons System," Daily IRNA, June 6, 2002
Susan Blaustein and John Fawcett, "Sources of Revenue for Saddam & Sons, Inc.," Coalition for International Justice, draft manuscript, June 28, 2002, pp. 24-45
"The Oil 'Top-Off': Another Way Iraq Cheats UN," The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2002
"Iraq Accused of Smuggling Illegal Oil," Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2001
"Illegal Oil Surcharges Earn Baghdad Extra $300 Million," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, May 10, 2002
"Iraq Earned $6 Billion Illegally," Associated Press, May 29, 2002
"Turkey: Iraqi Diesal Trade Seen as Too Valuable to Stop," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, August 4, 2000
"Indian Arrested for Allegedly Exporting Arms Material to Iraq," Associated Press, June 6, 2002
"US Shifts Attack on Iraq Trade; Border States Seen as Key to Enforcing Sanctions," The Washington Post, March 26, 2001
"The Baghdad Dilemma," Middle East Economic Digest January 18, 2002
The Economist Intelligence Unit, "EIU Country Report: Iraq," March 2002
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
can i get some content?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
hmmm.
well, i've thought about it some more, and i'm still not convinced.
try harder.
well, i've thought about it some more, and i'm still not convinced.
try harder.
hmmm.
well, maybe you can try to convince us of your position, which is that letting Saddam's regime remain in power in 2003 would have been better for the Iraqi people, safer and more secure for the region especially Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia, would have been beneficial to the United States and its Allies in protecting the regions vast energy reserves, and would have helped in preventing the proliferation of WMD and other modern weapons.
Please explain why Saddam's regime was a good thing for everyone and a source of stability for the region and how its a "tragedy" that his regime is no longer there.
Tell us why you prefer Saddam to current Iraq leaders like Allawi or Maliki.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
it's this whole either/or dichotomy you've presented.
it just doesn't hold water.
but keep at it. maybe you'll convince someone someday.
it just doesn't hold water.
but keep at it. maybe you'll convince someone someday.
kramwest1
has a
How about...
I think the region was stable enough at the time (as much as it had ever been), had enough international scrutiny to keep Saddam in check, and Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States.
And, furthermore, the "vast energy reserves" that apparently needed protecting could have stayed in Iraq, and we could have spent $1,000,000,000,000 on domestic oil production, regional oil production or even alternative energy. Heck, we could have bought every household in America a small, neighborhood electric vehicle for that price.
Oops. Did I say "spent" on the Iraq War. I meant BORROWED AND HAVE NOT PAID FOR YET.
it's this whole either/or dichotomy you've presented.
it just doesn't hold water.
but keep at it. maybe you'll convince someone someday.
Its your position. "The United States should not have invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power". You either supported the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003, or you didn't.
Since you didn't support his removal, you should be able to explain why you think leaving Saddam in power would be beneficial to the region and the world.
Why are you unwilling to discuss the cost and consequences of not removing Saddam in 2003?
I remind that the majority of the US military based on the annual military times poll continue to support the removal of Saddam from power in 2003.
The majority of the American public supported Saddam's removal and re-elected the President who removed Saddam 18 months later by the first popular majority in a US election since 1988. A majority of the American public continued to support the decision to remove Saddam in 2003 until mid-2005. Still, even today, 40% of the United States public believes that removing Saddam in 2003 was the right thing to do, and all indications are that this number will move back into a majority in the coming years matching the consistent level of support found in the US military.
Stability in the region was dependent on the ability to contain Saddam primarily through the sanctions and weapons embargo. As the above sources indicate, the sanctions were in very poor shape. Saddam was also in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions which did not in any way suggest stability. China, Russia, and France, permanent members of the UN Security Council were actually violating restrictions that were put on Iraq. The stability and the security of the region depended on the enforcement of those resolutions and that did not fully happen until Saddam was removed.
Given the importance the region any threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, is a threat to the United States given the impact these countries can have on the global economy through their natural resources.
The issue was not Iraq's oil sector which was underdeveloped at the time, but protecting the large energy reserves in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE which the global economy is dependent on.
The United States does not have enough oil, even if it were to increase production, to off set the disruption caused by a crises in the Persian Gulf involving the cut off of energy flowing from the region. Alternative energy is more expensive and to this day is still years or decades away from being able to replace the planets dependence on Persian Gulf energy.
Still only a fraction of what the United States has spent and borrowed on other things this past decade and a tiny fraction of what the countries total annual GDP and what congress spends on an annual basis.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
hmmm, public opinion and speculation seem to be really bad rationales for supporting an operation that caused the death of hundreds of thousands.
still not buying it.
still not buying it.
kramwest1
has a
I don't waste my time thinking about how bad Hussein would/could have been if he had stayed in power.
I do think about the soldiers sent off to Iraq for a grudge and a lie.
I do think about the kids that have to say goodbye to their parents when they leave.
I do think about the wounded soldiers who aren't getting all the help they need, but will be needing it for decades and decades.
I do think about mortgaging our future with the debt incurred by a war based on lies.
I do think about all of the chickenhawks that were so eager to send young people to do something that they choose not to.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Strongbow, wouldn't you agree that it's pointless for Kramwest to keep arguing with you?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i still don't buy it Sean, do you?
(and, please, see if you can respond for once without the vicious personal attacks that you're so famous for, lest i have to take out my ruler and rap your delinquent knuckles)
I simply mentioned the military opinion and public opinion polling because you seem to believe that there is only one person that thinks Saddam should have been removed in 2003.
But please, can you explain for us why you think letting Saddam remain in power in 2003 would have been better for US security, regional security and the Iraqi people?
Why do you think Saddam would be a better leader for Iraq than Malaki or Allawi?
Every President that decides on a particular course of action, especially when it comes to military intervention, must weigh the benefits with the cost and consequences of taking that action or not taking that action. Obama's national security team just went through a similar process in its decision to surge troops in Afghanistan.
But when it comes to Saddam, it would seem you think there was some greater benefit to leaving him in power, greater than the cost and consequences of leaving him in power.
So why not start off by explaining why you think letting Saddam remain in power in 2003 would be beneficial for the region, Iraqi people and US and international security.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
There are all kinds of bad people in power in many countries.
Leaving Saddam in place is exactly what they did in 1991. And from 91 to 2003 he was no real threat to anyone.
There were quite a few bad dictators in Eastern Europe in the 80s. None of those countries were invaded by the West and liberated. They all managed to struggle and grow and make their own changes. Some are still working on it now. they will solve it in their own way and own time.
The Bush Admin should have spent all of the resources and time and energy getting Afghanistan and Pakistan done right.
Iraq was a War profiteer's wet dream come true, over and over and over again.
Leaving Saddam in place is exactly what they did in 1991. And from 91 to 2003 he was no real threat to anyone.
There were quite a few bad dictators in Eastern Europe in the 80s. None of those countries were invaded by the West and liberated. They all managed to struggle and grow and make their own changes. Some are still working on it now. they will solve it in their own way and own time.
The Bush Admin should have spent all of the resources and time and energy getting Afghanistan and Pakistan done right.
Iraq was a War profiteer's wet dream come true, over and over and over again.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i know, right?
seems like we made a mountain out of a mole hill.
still not convinced. even less so, now, after all these posts. there doesn't seem to be anything particularly compelling. in fact, they read pretty desperate, like someone can't admit to being wrong.
but, who knows, right?
keep on trying.
seems like we made a mountain out of a mole hill.
still not convinced. even less so, now, after all these posts. there doesn't seem to be anything particularly compelling. in fact, they read pretty desperate, like someone can't admit to being wrong.
but, who knows, right?
keep on trying.
I don't waste my time thinking about how bad Hussein would/could have been if he had stayed in power.
Well, any responsible leader must assess the risk, cost, consequences as well as benefits of any course of action. The world would have been a lot better off if there had been more of this type of scrutiny and assesment of Hitler in the 1930s.
What are the implications for the region and the world with the collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo needed to have a chance of containing Saddam?
With the collapse of containment, what other policy options are there for the United States in dealing with Saddam?
How would this change the military balance in the region as well as Saddam's assessment of what he could do?
If the United States and its allies didn't act against Saddam in 2003, what would be the cost of acting against Saddam 2 years, 4 years, 6 years later, given that Saddam would be relatively free to rebuild his conventional and unconventional military capabilities?
How many more US military personal would die in a war years later because Saddam was allowed to remain in power despite the collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo?
What sense does it make to try and remove Saddam years later when the cost of any war would be far greater as well as the cost of reconstruction?
How many citizens and military personal of countries in the region would suffer and die because Saddam was allowed to remain in power?
What are the risk to global energy supply and the global economy of letting Saddam remain in power in 2003?
How many Iraqi people and children would suffer and die because Saddam was allowed to remain in power?
Let me remind that Saddam is a leader that invaded and attacked four neighboring countries unprovoked, used Weapons of Mass Destruction more times than any other leader since World War I, threatened much of the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage that would have thrown the global economy into a great depression, launched ballistic missiles against Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Kuwait, was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, failed and resisted the international community in verifiably disarming of all WMD, hid WMD and WMD related programs throughout the 1990s and up until his removal from power. These and other actions that Saddam engaged in during his 24 years in power led to the deaths of over 1 million people and massive environmental demage in the Persian Gulf.
So anyone assessing, whether or not to remove Saddam in 2003 MUST consider these historical facts in deciding what the cost and consequences of letting Saddam remain in power would be.
While intervention does have cost and consequences, not intervening also has cost and consequences.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I think it will be the prevailing attitude historically
Iraq war wasn't worth the cost - CNN.com
all this going on about removing Saddam from power, no one ever thought that would be difficult, heck they had the guy in 1991
the question was always the long game? what does that leave?
no one, not even the naysayers were predicting such a ruined country with no services and an exodus of the best and brightest
very likely we have set up a fractured state like Lebanon, where regional players will wage proxy battles.
Iraq war wasn't worth the cost - CNN.com
all this going on about removing Saddam from power, no one ever thought that would be difficult, heck they had the guy in 1991
the question was always the long game? what does that leave?
no one, not even the naysayers were predicting such a ruined country with no services and an exodus of the best and brightest
very likely we have set up a fractured state like Lebanon, where regional players will wage proxy battles.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
you have asked this several times
so I will address it directly.
if the sanctions came off, and you seem to want to make the argument they would
Saddam may or may not have rearmed
again, I will go with your premise that he would have
next he may or may not have attacked another country
the simple answer is he probably would not have done anything real bad,
because he would have the memory of the ass-kicking he got in 1991.
but if you want to say he would,
again lickidy-split he would be taken down and out in a matter of weeks by overwhelming force,
just like he was in 2003 for no real reason.
Let me remind you that Saddam is a leader that invaded and attacked four neighboring countries unprovoked, used Weapons of Mass Destruction more times than any other leader since World War I, threatened much of the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage that would have thrown the global economy into a great depression, launched ballistic missiles against Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Kuwait, was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, failed and resisted the international community in verifiably disarming of all WMD, hid WMD and WMD related programs throughout the 1990s and up until his removal from power. These and other actions that Saddam engaged in during his 24 years in power led to the deaths of over 1 million people and massive environmental demage in the Persian Gulf.
How many of your other so called "bad" people had a history even remotely like that, with particular emphasis of INVADING and ANNEXING other countries and threatening global energy supply and the global economy? Name one!
Yes, and I supported that policy like many others did because most people did not believe Saddam would still be in power by 1996 and that in the meantime an effective sanctions and weapons embargo could contain him.
YouTube - President Clinton orders attack on Iraq
The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and far all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of in-action. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. SADDAM WILL STRIKE AGAIN at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people, and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them.
President Bill Clinton
December 16, 1998
Correction, by 2003, the sanctions as they were intended only existed on paper.
What evidence from Saddam's history suggest he would not re-arm?
Remember, Saddam viewed the 1991 Gulf War as a VICTORY! In addition, new weapon systems both conventional and unconventional would change the caculus of what in HIS view was realistic. Mistakes Saddam made in 1991 would unlikely to be repeated.
In addition, Saddam is in very close proximity to area's of the world where he could use his resources and wealth to cause massive damage. Peacetime restrictions on the number of US forces that could be actively based in the region made dealing with this problem even more difficult.
This ignores the fact that Saddam would be armed with new conventional and unconventional weapons that could dramatically change the cost and consequences of war with Saddam.
The whole purpose of containment was to prevent the events of August 1990 from ever happening again. It was not designed as a system to respond after another Saddam invasion of a neighbor or the destruction of oil fields etc. It was about PREVENTION and with the collapse of containment, the only effective way to prevent Saddam from getting new capabilities and making war on the region was to remove him.
The prevailing attitude among the US military is that it was NOT a mistake to remove Saddam from power based on the annual military times polls since 2003.
A new gallup poll just released today shows an increase in the number of Americans saying that removing SADDAM was NOT a mistake.
As of July 2010, 44% of Americans say it was NOT a mistake to remove Saddam, up from 39% in July 2009, and the highest percentage figure seen on this question in 4 or 5 years.
As I have predicted earlier, more and more Americans will start to move back to seeing the removal of Saddam as the right choice and the new polling data, surprisingly is already showing this.
Ironically, while the number of Americans that feel invading Iraq was the right course of action is increasing, the number of Americans that feel invading Afghanistan was the right course of action is decreasing.
Today, Iraq's monthly murder rate is often lower than montly murder rates in the United States and has been consistently lower than the murder rates seen in Mexico and Russia.
Iraq today has a standard of living equal to that Morocco based on education and life expectancy statistics from the United Nations and estimates of annual GDP from the CIA.
The only thing that seems desperate and strange is refusing to explain why one thinks leaving Saddam in power in 2003 would be best for US security, the region, the world, and the Iraqi people.
Why would it be better to have Saddam as the leader of Iraq rather than Maliki or Allawi?
Similar threads
