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.
He defends letting him remain in power in Iraq. [/B]
Some of us understand nuance more than others.
Some realize not everything is black and white...
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.
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.
there's no evidence of this
i was hoping for a few more paragraphs and a few more sources
hmmm.
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.
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.
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.
Oops. Did I say "spent" on the Iraq War. I meant BORROWED AND HAVE NOT PAID FOR YET.
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.
Strongbow, wouldn't you agree that it's pointless for Kramwest to keep arguing with you?
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.
I don't waste my time thinking about how bad Hussein would/could have been if he had stayed in power.
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?
There are all kinds of bad people in power in many countries.
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.
Leaving Saddam in place is exactly what they did in 1991.
And from 91 to 2003 he was no real threat to anyone.
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
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.
I think it will be the prevailing attitude historically
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.
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.