Do you think it was right To Oust Saddam?

Do you think it was right to oust Saddam!

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 58.9%
  • No

    Votes: 44 41.1%

  • Total voters
    107
It was absolutely the right thing to do and should have been done long ago.

For those who call it illegal you need to read the terms under which Saddam was supposed to operate, such as the no-fly zone. He continuous shot at coalition planes enforcing it, which resulted in President Clinton ordering operation DESERT FOX in '98, which was a campaign to destroy his AA weaponry. It still didn't stop him.

It is the duty of modern democracies to not allow evil men to murder millions, but I guess many would rather be safe and spout their views. Until you visiting places like Iraq used to be and have seen the evil the people have to live through you can't really understand if you've spent your whole life in a Western democracy. Its on a whole different level from trying to explain life in the ghetto to someone who's never left the suburbs.
 
But AA what would I know, I'm just a scared cowboy with a BS-V and Combat Action Ribbion, not to mention CiB if I were Army :lol:
 
Hey Bronx are you heading back for a second tour ???
 
Bronx Warlord said:
I recall in november that was something many on this board said would not and could not happen. These things take time, luck and a little faith. Give it a chance, and it may just work.

Sorry Bronx Iam a realist.
The Question most Americans are asking is "Was it worth it removing Saddam ?"

Sadly I see The Coalition in Iraq in four years in almost the same stage as it is now. Fighting the same attritional warfare which has been the hallmark of Iraq. U.S is fighting the right war for all the wong reasons. I see all the tragic mistakes repeating themselves, From unrealistic goals, corrupt and inept government, Wishful thinking to unobtainable myopic delusion.

While I do hope somehow it will all work out. The Bush administration has made far to many mistakes, mistake which will be paid for in lives.

As one Marine said.
" Its not the number of lives lost, It that our sacrifices arent moving us forward. "
 
Yeah I'll be back over there more than likely.

As for your statement, things are completely idffrent now then they were six months ago, and most likely will be in another six months. The biggest example is Iraqis are now in greater numbers doing the jobs we had to do for them. They have a young goverment, rebuilting and budding army as well as a good chance to really cement these changes and grow apon them, and they are but it's not going to happen quickly. It took Japan and Germany how long to get back on there feet?
 
Japan took about ten years. U.S. troops were all over them the whole time, and the U.S. occupation was NOT friendly, either. Not shedding any tears myself.

The Iraqis already have a functional police force that's working its way to maintaining security without U.S. assistance. It's not there yet, but it's getting there. Their crowning achievement was unquestionably when somebody in the new Iraqi government made the statement that they should try to include women and minorities (even Sunnis) in the new government--and it was a Shiite saying that. That was class.
 
I think, the last Iraq war was wrong. Saddam certainly did not have any legitimacy, but I fail to see, why the US wanted the war in 2003. Was Saddam in that year more a tyrant than 100 other dictators? Yes, I know about Saddam's crimes but the US should have intervened when he actually committed them and not years later. I would have supported such a war, although I wouldn't have been in favor of sending German troops (I generally don't want German troops deployed outside of Europe). I also believe that most Europeans would have supported such a war.*

So, why did the US invade in 2003? Many Europeans, including me, actually believed that Saddam had WMD, but that was not reason enough for an invasion. Because having WMD doesn't mean being a threat. It was clear after 1991, that any use of WMDs would lead to the annihilation of Saddam's regime. Also, unlike Afghanistan, there was no link to Al Quaida.

Now, Iraq is a nice place for terrorists. And I think that the last Iraq campaign actually made the situation for Westeners less secure. Not to mention the Iraqi civilians that now die on a daily base. It's not clear how long foreign troops will have to stay there and how much it will cost. But one thing is clear: the US can't withdraw now.

We already have one occupied country that we can't get under control: Afghanistan. We still only have control over Kabul and some other cities. Was it really necessary to create another difficult situation?

In 2003, there were worse places in the world (it's hard to say, but that's a fact) and there would have been moral reasons to intervene there. But randomly pick a dictatorship somewhere in the world?

I certainly don't have any sympathy for Saddam. It's not a bad thing he isn't in power anymore.


*
Spoiler :
It would have been pretty much like the Kosovo war. Though, the German situation is different. There are many people that claim that this war was illegal under German law. They actually do have some very good points.
 
i think the question to ask is why did the US even care what was going on in iraq? i'm sure no-one here believes it was out of the goodness of their hearts. saddam was obviously no threat to anyone but his own people - the only people who don't believe that are the suckers duped by the propaganda. saddam at the time was not making a ruckus, nor indeed had he done much on the international scene for some time. certainly not at the level of north korea at the time. so why iraq?

i understand that several people here think it should have been done - for different reasons than the US stated - but what were the US's reasons for doing it? it's what i said at the time, and what i still ask now.

Simon Darkshade said:
Yes, it was right, wondrous, and a good first step in cleaning out the cupboard. The argument that an Iraq under Saddam was at least stable is a very strange one - it was stable for a distinct reason.
As for destabilising the region, yes it has - Iraq has voted in a free election; Libya has shuffled inwards from the cold; Lebanon has bloomed; Syria are watching their actions; Egypt is moving in the right directions; there were fairly positive elections in the Palestinian Territories; Iran is digging its own grave; it removes one half of the threat to Israel from the east which justifies holding the heights of Judea and Samaria; terrorists are moving into a convenient killing ground; and Saudi Arabia having murmurings about democratisation (although that just could be food poisoning). It has destabilised the status quo. Compared with the previous stability of the Middle East, the current breaking of eggs is superlative.
uh-huh. and now you have to try to convince me, and anyone else with at least half a brain, that these events are somehow linked. I always appreciate your posts, but it isn't your normal style to try to justify yourself with such wishy-washy explanations.
 
They are most definitely linked, and in a manner far from wishy washy.
Firstly, the Iraqi elections and the removal of the Iraqi threat to Israel go without saying as being linked.
Libya took the step of giving up its program as a result of what happened to the Hussein regime, that much has been admitted and derived. Another Nintendo character.
Syria and Iran - Now they have the Great Satan right next door, which does several things. It complicates their defence planning; makes them watch their steps and actions, given precedent; it encourages dissident hope in those countries of the example of a dictator thrown down; and it means they either play ball nicely, or they can cop it quickly. Syria seems to be treading down the former path, which brings us on to our next point of linkage.
Lebanon. A catalytic assassination sparks off a hitherto very rare display (in ME terms) of people power. The notion of initiating change from below in a mass display. Combined with diplomatic elbows from the US and others, Syria quits Lebanon, wanting to earn some carrot points. The resonance of images and ideas reverberated all around the Middle East as a result of the overthrow of Saddam, and most especially the election.
In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the ball kept rolling, with actions taken towards freeing up of elections. Small steps, but steps none the less.

In the Conquered Territories, there was a catalytic event, the death of the unmourned Arafish. This resulted in much improved freedom in the election, and a truce. The role here is more subtle, but also of note. The removal of Saddam ended any hopes among all but the most reality divorced Palestinian Arabs that Israel could be defeated and overthrown by force. With the death of the Iraqi regime, so died the last vestiges of the illusory hope of the pan-Arab Nasserite crusade to drive the Jews into the sea.
Only Iran remains a security threat, with a tentative Saudi Arabia not wanting to screw up under the spotlight, and Assad wanting to keep his hands in clear sight to a much greater degree. Iran, however, is not Arab, and has its own agenda which does not run exactly the same as many of the Palestinian terrorist factions.

An important notion to consider is that of syncronicity. One will grant that many things may have occured without US involvement in Iraq - the assassination of Hariri, and the old manyouk in the tea towel kicking the bucket. But the events that have come to pass combine these catalytic occurences with the fact of the US victory in Iraq, and the subsequent capture of Hussein and the successful elections, and give us much different results.

Without the precedents that went before it, it is unlikely that the Lebanese would have taken to the streets with such success; that Syria would have reversed it's policy of a few dozen years and walked. Events do not occur in isolation.

The power of imagery, oft derided (and in some cases, with good measure) as spin, cannot be underestimated. Images of freedom flashed across the increasingly connected Arab world (the Arab street that is always supposed to rise up and deal us a mighty blow for daring to take various actions). The ease of the fall of Iraq and the capture of Saddam gobsmacked many, many, many denizens. Not a sea change, but the winds of change are blowing up a bit.

Events do not occur in isolation, nor to an unresponsive audience. Free elections in Poland in the 1980s led the domino collapse of the Soviet Empire, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the subsequent end of the Soviet Union itself. There was a huge amount of uncertainty and instability, albeit in a different situation and context, but it was good and right, and is smiled upon by history.

It is not the end, nor the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning.

A further point as to why the destabilisation and overthrow of the regime was right is the difference between the geopolitics of the September 10 world and the post September 11 world. The policy and positioning of the hegemon was irrevocably and diametrically changed. The way to beat an ism to to removes its ists. In order to do that, the strategy is to change the ME - democratize, liberalize and shape in an image and reality that is not amicable to medieval Islamofascist terror. People look for a link in the wrong places; in the specific and individual rather than the global and thematic.
 
@kronic: because no adminsistration was able to go through with it before

@bobgote: I certianly believe it was out of the goodness of their/our hearts; we certainly haven't gained anything from it
 
A'AbarachAmadan said:
It was absolutely the right thing to do and should have been done long ago.

For those who call it illegal you need to read the terms under which Saddam was supposed to operate, such as the no-fly zone. He continuous shot at coalition planes enforcing it, which resulted in President Clinton ordering operation DESERT FOX in '98, which was a campaign to destroy his AA weaponry. It still didn't stop him.

None of the UN Resolutions authorised the removal of the Saddam regime nor was he an immediate threat to any of the coalition nations that's actually why a new Resolution was sought before the war.

Certainly the legal people at the Foreign Office in the UK maintained that the invasion and removal of the Iraqi Government did not have the veneer of legality it required. In fact I have yet to see a single concrete argument why it was legal because everyone seems to refer back to UN Resolutions which simply don't apply.
 
Hotpoint said:
...nor was he an immediate threat to any of the coalition nations...

I'd argue he was a threat to the most important member of the coalition, the Iraqis; who are now a better member of the coalition than som other nations, providing leadership, people, and intellignece. Saddamm was definitly a threat to them, and they are certainly part of the coalition forces that are trying to quell the insurgents
 
Americans do not seem to understand the principle perfected many centuries ago by the Romans. To solidify your power, create so-called "enemies", and then build up your armies to protect you from "them".

The House of Bush summarised in a single sentance (stolen from a leftie site):

Just because the Supreme Court set a poison precedent and appointed Bush, who brought in his crowd of neocon yahoos that no one discussed during the 2000 campaign because we 'Muricans vote for the man and not the mob of frothing dogs that come in his wake, just because the twin bill of unreasonably massive tax cuts were combined with economic depth-charge that was the Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal that was umbilically connected to the White House, just because the economy (not to mention our whole psyche) absorbed another blow when four commercial airplanes somehow managed to pierce the most impenetrable air defense system in the history of the universe, fooling the entire intelligence community as well if you believe what you hear on Fox despite a blizzard of warnings and a raft of information from the previous administration, just because a bunch of anthrax got mailed to Democrats by the Ashcroft wing of the Republican Party in what were obvious assassination attempts and yet nothing but nothing has been done about it, just because the 9/11 attack was immediately and I mean the day after immediately grasped as an excuse to invade Iraq, just because virtually everyone in the administration lied with their bare faces hanging out about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, terrorism ties in Iraq, so break out the plastic sheeting and duct tape because we're all gonna die, just because they did this in no small part to win the 2002 midterms by any means necessary, just because 1,502 American soldiers have been killed looking for the 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons (which is 1,000,00 lbs.) of sarin and mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, arial drones to spray the aforementioned stuff, and let's not forget the uranium from Niger for use in Iraq's robust nukular program, all of which was described to the letter by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, all of which remains on the White House website on a page titled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein,' just because the medical journal Lancet estimates that as many as 198,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed as well in the war to get at this stuff, just because none of the stuff was there, and by the way nonee of the stuff was there, and did I mention that none of the stuff was there, just because the idea that Hussein was allied with bin Laden was laughable because Osama has wanted Saddam's head on his battle standard for decades, just because the true source of world terrorism, which is Wahabbist extremism in Saudi Arabia, goes completely unaddressed because the Houses of Bush and Saud have been partnered for decades, just because so much of 9/11 and this 'War on Terra' has to do with business arrangements going awry between these two Houses, just because a deep-cover CIA agent who was working to track any person or nation or group that would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists got her cover and her network blown by Administration officials who wanted to shut her husband and any other potential whistleblowers the hell up, just because the front company she was working out of called Brewster Jennings and Associates was likewise blown, thus torpedoing other agents and their networks, just because absolutely all of this went virtually unreported by the mainstream media until it was too late, if it was reported at all, just because dangerous spies like Ahmad Chalabi used Judy Miller and the New York Times to disseminate the lie that Iraq was riddled with weapons, thus opening the floodgates for the rest of the media to repeat the lie because once the Times says it, it must be true, just because this lack of reporting combined with an astounding level of cheerleading from the aforementioned media combined with some good old-fashioned vote fraud in places like Ohio, Florida and New Mexico gave the aforementioned group of yahoos four more years and a congressional majority in both houses of congress, just because this means the Iraq war will continue and Iran will probably be next and draconian legislation further restricting our rights will get passed along with things like the Bankruptcy bill and media reform of any kind will be nowhere on the menu, just because a lot of the Justices on the Supreme Court are sure to step down or die soon and Bush will be able to recraft that high court for the next 20 years, just because the Christian Reconstructionists are becoming mainstream with their goal of having every American singing "Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me" in a droning monochromatic hypnotized voice all day every day...

...doesn't mean anyone should be worried or anything. Get a grip.

</snip>
-------------------

My personal take on Iraq is that it has been deliberately used as a focus for the American people to keep Bush in power and help his financial concerns (and the concerns of his friends).

A side effect is the polarisation of Religion, especially the ignorance now shown towards Muslims by Christians. (Note it's nearly always US Christians who tell you that the evil Muslims must be stopped - often 'forgetting' to clarify they mean violent fundamentalists). Another side effect is the general levels of fear Bush and friends have managed to instill in to the American populace, and to a lesser extent the same applies here with Blair and his pathetic 'anti-terror' laws.

An interesting consequence of this war has been the openess with which the media has worked with the US Government. It is sickening to see the misrepresentation of facts as provided by ABC, CNN, FOX et al. They not only present the governmental viewpoint, but present it as unquestionable fact. They talk about Al Jezerra as though it were run by fundalmentalists because they show the effects of war (i.e. show dead bodies). Only in the west are we so removed from our actions that we can invade a country with such a sense of rightousness and be sickened by the death it causes.

But lets get the "facts" straight about the middle east that most americans will deny, because they can't face any truth too close to shattering their illusions of insecurity:

* Osama was trained by the CIA and given substancial financial support
* Osama's extended family were conveniently allowed out when the airspace had apparently been shut down over the whole USA
* Saddam was an assassin supported by the CIA before he became president - Saddam’s first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.
* Saddam failed in his attempt, but was laid by in Beruit until they decided to install him as dictator (via co-ordination with Egyptian secret service)
* Saddam was equipped by the west in his war on Iran (actually mostly US - don't pretend it was mostly French and UK).
* The US provided military assistance in the war against Iran (blinding Iran's radar for 3 days)
* Saddam was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US (historically it used to be part of Iraq, they felt it was theirs), so...
* Saddam was set up for Gulf War 1, and hence also GW2
* Oil also has it's part to play. No matter what you think the motivations were, you can't deny that maintaining control over oil is essential to US hegemony:
Oil is not just another commodity. Major industries, armies, transportation and society overall cannot run without it. Most of the world’s oil (and the cheapest to produce) is in the Middle East. The power that controls that oil has a major advantage over rival bosses. Oil is also a major source of profits and economic power.

Currently anyone buying crude oil must pay OPEC or any oil producer in dollars. Therefore, such buyers must accumulate dollars to pay for their oil. To do that they must exchange their own currency for dollars or demand dollars for what they themselves produce. Thus, the dollar dominates world trade; it is the world’s reserve currency.

Several decades ago, the U.S. became a debtor country. It is now the world’s biggest debtor nation, owing $2.7 trillion. It then prints more dollars which are bought by currency traders to build dollar reserves. The U.S. uses these funds to pay off the $2 billion a day required to satisfy the debt. In a sense, U.S. bosses are getting a "free ride" through its exclusive control over printing dollars. Since this is the currency in which oil is traded — petrodollars — the U.S. has an edge over its rivals both in economic terms as well as having a stranglehold over the distribution of oil.

The world economic crisis exposed by the dot.com collapse made others bosses wary of playing second fiddle to the U.S. forever. The law of inter-imperialist rivalry (each group of bosses must fight for maximum profits at the expense of rival bosses) impelled the European Union to create the Euro to challenge the dollar. The value of the euro has surpassed the value of the dollar by 17%. Three years ago Iraq began demanding Euros instead of dollars for its oil exports. Iran is contemplating a similar move. As countries are forced to accumulate euros instead of dollars, the value of the euro will rise and the dollar will fall even further. This could conceivably induce the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) — Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. — to ask for euros for their oil. Oil-buying countries would have to stock euros in their central banks to buy their oil. The more euros are used to purchase oil — the world’s most important and expensive commodity — the less would oil be traded in dollars. The value of the dollar would drop even further. U.S. corporations and consumers would have to shell out more dollars to purchase goods. This could severely affect the U.S. economy.

All this is one reason why U.S. bosses have seized Iraq and its oil fields, second largest reserves worldwide. Not only would its military muscle control Iraq and force its oil (controlled by ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, etc.) to be paid for with dollars instead of euros, but it would solidify U.S. control in the Mid-East region, the world’s largest source of oil. It would also help U.S rulers maintain the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.


And slightly OT but somewhat related (i.e. in the general War On Terror). For another take on Al Quaida check out this BBC documentary that challenges that there is any Al Quaida network at all:

The Power of Nightmares

It's worth noting before you dismiss this last link out of hand as the work of a lone nut-job, that the producer is highly respected for writing documentaries, and it won a BAFTA (brittish TV award), and is being re-edited in to a film format for Cannes.

To anyone who has not seen the series, you can d/l it with bittorrent, etc - it's VERY popular and there are lots of seeds for it (am sure it is everywhere in every format by now!).

If you ever read the comments at the BBC you will know what they are like - I suggest you check the 2 pages of comments about this program, because nearly every single one is from a person who talks of a "veil of ignorance being lifted" (pun kinda intended).
 
Bin Laden was not trained by the CIA; even then, he was virulently anti-Western to the point of madness. CIA and other Western support was carried out through the middlemen of the Pakistani ISI, and Bin Laden's faction of the mujahideen was not one of those who were closely associated with covert Western aid. Some direct evidence of the substantial financial support he received would be cheery. But he was not one of those trained in Scotland.

The US supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, and Saddam was certainly not mostly equipped by the US, as both examination of equipment and various statistics (GAO et al) demonstrate. Iran was seen as the greater enemy of the US in the early 1980s...I wonder what they must have based this on...

Saddam installed himself as dictator gradually, building up power as vice president, and then consolidating it with one particular parliamentary session. He was a screw up as an assassin, and it falls into the trap of his own mythology to give him added credit or shadowy backers. And it is not so shocking that in the throes of the Cold War, certain leaders were deposed by the superpowers; such is the nature of the Great Game.

Middle East oil is not essential to the US to the extent characterized; if they wanted to secure their supplies, then convenient coups in Nigeria and Venezuela take place, Alaska is drilled, and oil extracted from various shale deposits in North America. If there is such a desperation, then these use less blood, treasure and effort.

As a side note, I see that either the Lancet has doubled its guess, or the original source got caught up in their froth. Either way, I'm glad they are happy in their world.
 
ybbor said:
I'd argue he was a threat to the most important member of the coalition, the Iraqis; who are now a better member of the coalition than som other nations, providing leadership, people, and intellignece. Saddamm was definitly a threat to them, and they are certainly part of the coalition forces that are trying to quell the insurgents

The point at hand is the dubious legality of the invasion, and whether you like him or not the fact remains that the Saddam regime was the internationally recognised government of a sovereign state. Just because a government is extremely unpleasant does not make it legal for a foreign power to overthrow them, whether it might be moral is another matter.

The UN Charter allows for the use of military force by a member country in either it's defence or if otherwise authorised by the security council. Invading and deposing the government of a state which is not a threat, and doing so without a clear mandate from the UN to do so, is clearly not a legal act.
 
HamaticBabylon said:
Do you think the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, and if the U.S had the chance to do it all over again would they invade knowing full well what it would be like?

Now that's not fair!

Your poll questions was not the same as your opening message question.

I'm very ambivalent about this whole Iraq affair. On the one hand, had it been done right from the beginning, Bush #1 should've taken Saddam out back in 1991, but instead decided to turn around within sight of Baghdad. I remember those times and I knew that Saddam was going to continue being a problem for years to come, and that he'd have to be taken out eventually. So when this war came around, I wasn't surprised in the least. On the other hand, the whole nonsense about poor intelligence leading to the invasion is ridiculous. The fact that the CIA can't figure out that there are terrorists walking the nation and ready to strike should come as no surprise that they can't tell a nuke from a sand dune in Iraq.

I don't believe that Bush #2 went to war over made-up reasons, although I think he was eager for it because of his father, and he probably tried to find reasons. So, overall, I'd say it was a mistake made in good faith.

Once again, I reiterate that Bush #1 was a hapless and stupid president, and started all this. During his administration, the economy sank like a stone while he watched, and even when called upon for war, he couldn't wage it properly. Just to make sure he messed up enough, in the last months of his term, after he had already been voted out of office, he decided to send America on a last adventure in Somalia. For what reason, I don't know, but it resulted in the "Black Hawk Down" incident, which Clinton had to pick up the pieces of.
 
Hotpoint said:
The point at hand is the dubious legality of the invasion, and whether you like him or not the fact remains that the Saddam regime was the internationally recognised government of a sovereign state. Just because a government is extremely unpleasant does not make it legal for a foreign power to overthrow them, whether it might be moral is another matter.

The UN Charter allows for the use of military force by a member country in either it's defence or if otherwise authorised by the security council. Invading and deposing the government of a state which is not a threat, and doing so without a clear mandate from the UN to do so, is clearly not a legal act.

i don't care if it was legal. It was 'legal' to own slaves for decades, it was 'legal' to not allow someone to vote. it's 'legal' to discriminate on the basis of race (afrimative action), etc. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's not right.
 
In my honest opinion I was never concerned enough about Iraq to risk American lives, money and cedibility on it. I seriously doubt this war is based on genuine caring about the Iraqi people. The same people who make that claim often advocate bombing the Iraqi people into submission. If we found ourself in a position where we need to protect the Iraqi people from themselves then we probably have better more rewarding things we could be doing. I find the argument about needing to oust a dictator strange since we do and always have supported various non-democratic regimes and there are far worse dictators on the planet that need to be dealt with. Sadam just happened to be weak and a convinient target. Now a pre-emptive strike on North Korea and Sudan might be a bit more convicing though more costly but now are credibility is a bit on the low side.
 
ybbor said:
i don't care if it was legal. It was 'legal' to own slaves for decades, it was 'legal' to not allow someone to vote. it's 'legal' to discriminate on the basis of race (afrimative action), etc. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's not right.

The problem with that argument is who determines what is "right"? Those who held slaves thought they were in the right to do so and actually used the Bible to justify their argument (lots of verses in there which support a pro-slavery position).

In any case a lot more people thought the invasion was wrong than right, including the majority of people in most of the countries that actually deployed troops there. That's the problem with subjective definitions of right and wrong, people differ on what they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom