Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Should Saddam Have Stayed in Power?

Ultimate Peach





Posts: 3106
(3106 all sites)
Registered: 5/16/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/25/2011 at 10:03 AM
Goldstein asks a question that would have labeled him a "unpatrotic conservative" eight years ago, nevertheless it's still a very good question. And a similiar question should be asked whenever any President decides to involve the American military in helping removing another country leader and their government. No doubt, both Saddam and Gaddafi were evil tyrants who got what what they deserved. But one must wonder, what government will eventually take it's place? Is it going to be any better, or is it just exchanging one tyrant for another ? Certainly in many ways, Iraq is worse off than it was eight years ago and not likely to get better in the forseeable future. Indeed, many expect a full scale "civil war" to emerge with the withdrawal of American forces, with the likelyhood of Iran "stepping in" to support it's Shiite allies in the Iraqi government. And if that happen, one wonders what the U.S. respond would be and how it would resonate throughout the Arab world? Can't imagine it being anything that any of us looks forward to.

One wonders if a similiar fate awaits Libya, and the other Arab states seeking the United States "help" in changing their governments? There is an old saying "Sometimes it's best to stay with the poison you know, than the poison you don't know". Truth be told, the United States knows far to little about the mindsets of the Islamics who are behind these "revolutions" and what type of "government" they truly want. IMHO, a western style "liberal democracy" is somewhat of a "pipe dream" for the neo-conservatives in the U.S. government who still very much hold a very strong grip on what U.S. foreign policy is going to be, especially in the Middle East. The United States could be finding itself supporting people who's real agenda is not in the best interest of the United States. Remember just because various groups use buzzwords like "freedom" and "democracy" doesn't really mean that what they're really for.

quote:
Should Saddam Have Stayed in Power?
By Aaron Goldstein on 10.25.11 @ 6:09AM

If we had it to do over, what would the answer be?

I have given a great deal of thought to the War in Iraq since President Obama announced that all American troops would be withdrawn at the end of this year after he failed to obtain an extension to the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement signed by former President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. I found myself asking a question I thought I would never pose.

Should Saddam Hussein have stayed in power?

The reason I never thought I would ever have entertained such a question is quite simple. Saddam Hussein was one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century who fancied himself an Arabian Joseph Stalin. Writing in the New York Times in January 2003, less than two months before the start of the War in Iraq, John F. Burns noted:

Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: "If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem."

Burns estimated that nearly a million Iraqis had died under Saddam's rule. Others put the figure closer to two million. Whatever the number, life in Saddam's Iraq was, as Hobbes so famously put it, "nasty, brutish and short." It should never be forgotten that Saddam launched chemical weapon attacks against men, women, and children in the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq in March 1988 killing an estimated 5,000 people. Lest we also forget Saddam's campaign against Kurds, Shiites, and Marsh Arabs in retaliation for their uprising following the 1991 Gulf War. It is estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 civilians were killed by Saddam's forces. To add insult to injury, Saddam also embarked on a campaign to drain the wetlands the Marsh Arabs relied on for their livelihood. As recently as this past spring, mass graves from the Saddam era were being uncovered. A benevolent dictator he was not.

If not for U.S. and Coalition forces, Saddam Hussein would be alive, well and living in the palace of his choice with his reign of terror proceeding apace. Yet as American forces prepare to leave in just over two month's time, Iraq is not a friend, much less an ally of the United States. The Iraqi government regards the United States with little gratitude and much contempt.

Those who opposed the War in Iraq from the outset would make the case that the source of this contempt is the considerable number Iraqi civilian casualties. The anti-Iraq War website Iraq Body Count estimates between 103,000 and 113,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the War in Iraq. Yet by all appearances a majority of Iraqi civilians killed were deliberately killed by forces hostile to U.S. and Coalition troops. Not that such details matter to the Iraqis.

Now there is an argument to be made that a Commander-in-Chief more nimble than Barack Obama could have persuaded Iraq to extend the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement. But any such extension would have been at best short term and fragile and likely only served to delay the inevitable.

As evil as Saddam Hussein was, our removal of him not only strengthened Iran but with its nuclear ambitions might very well unleash an evil even Saddam could not put into action. Even as our troops helped bring about Shiite majority rule, the Shiites proved far more loyal to Iran. Perhaps former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was right when in April 2006 he said, "Most of the Shiites are loyal to Iran, and not the countries they are living in." It is difficult to look upon post-Saddam Iraq as an independent, sovereign democratic country when it is doing Iran's bidding as was the case when it sent $10 billion in aid to Syria this past August to assist Bashar Assad in killing off Syrian dissidents and protesters. As Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch asked back in July 2009, "Was this what we have been fighting for in Iraq all these years? An Iranian Shiite client state in Baghdad?"

It is also difficult to look upon post-Saddam Iraq as a democratic country when you consider the treatment of Iraq's Christians. This isn't to say that life for Iraq's Christians was peaches and cream under Saddam -- far from it. Yet life is not appreciably better for Iraqi Christians since Saddam was deposed nearly nine years ago. An estimated 200,000 Christians have fled Iraq due to anti-Christian violence by Islamic extremists and account for half of its refugees.

Nevertheless, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, we must wonder if George W. Bush would have proceeded with the use of force against Saddam Hussein if he knew then what we know now. However, such knowledge probably would not have made his choice any easier than that of Harry Truman when he was faced with the decision of whether or not to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Regardless of what decision President Bush made, innocent people were going to be killed. The only questions would be how many lives and how many of those would be American.

The only silver lining I see is the emergence of a new generation of leaders in Iraq who resent Iran's influence and demand that Iraq be the master of its own house. Of course, a new generation of such leaders might take a at least a generation to make themselves known and if they were to make themselves known the Iraqi leadership beholden to Iran wouldn't just roll over and play dead. There could be a power struggle which might very well result in a civil war. Yet that is the only hope I see for democracy to succeed in Iraq. But those are very long odds.



 
Replies:

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7049
(7049 all sites)
Registered: 6/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/25/2011 at 12:41 PM



Sorry thought you wrote Shazam!

 

____________________
Hey Yankees, you can take your crappy trophy's and shove them right up your asses!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/25/2011 at 01:27 PM
I used to be angry that Bush I didn't take him out during the first gulf war but as time went by I realized that a contained Saddam was better for the region in general than an uncontrolled government. Unfortunately, Bush II didn't see it the same way.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/25/2011 at 02:24 PM
My simple answer is yes unless we could have gotten him without starting a very costly and senseless war.

 

____________________
Pete

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10202
(10201 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/25/2011 at 05:04 PM
quote:
My simple answer is yes unless we could have gotten him without starting a very costly and senseless war.
I agree, but halliburton, blackwater and dick cheney would not have made a sh!tload of money on the blood of american/coalition soldiers.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19469
(19483 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/25/2011 at 08:04 PM
Saddam also tortured kids and families and anyone he chose - and I mean gouging out eyes, not as in making Khallid doing rhe same thing our soecial forces do in boot camp. Saddam also put those who murdered civilians in the Middle east on his payroll. Most importantly, that first post-saddam election where 12 million people voted and their purple fingers in the air DEFINITELY inspired this new drive for democracy in the Arab world. Of course, this Saddam Human Shield Brigade didn't exactly make themselves known when the war was in full swing, but I knew you were there all along.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11157
(11157 all sites)
Registered: 9/17/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/25/2011 at 08:14 PM
quote:
Of course, this Saddam Human Shield Brigade didn't exactly make themselves known when the war was in full swing, but I knew you were there all along.


Wouldn't a 75 cent bullet in his head been a little bit simpler?

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/25/2011 at 09:04 PM
I didn't see DfC picking up any guns to go fight for those 12 million voters.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2011 at 06:54 PM
His daughter will be releasing a book, would be interesting to hear what she has to say.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/16/172100.html

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2011 at 09:01 PM
quote:
I used to be angry that Bush I didn't take him out during the first gulf war but as time went by I realized that a contained Saddam was better for the region in general than an uncontrolled government. Unfortunately, Bush II didn't see it the same way.


I am 100% in agreement - initially I thought Bush 1 was an incredible wimp until I eventually realized how incredibly stupid his son was.....

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/27/2011 at 09:04 PM
quote:
Saddam also tortured kids and families and anyone he chose - and I mean gouging out eyes, not as in making Khallid doing rhe same thing our soecial forces do in boot camp. Saddam also put those who murdered civilians in the Middle east on his payroll. Most importantly, that first post-saddam election where 12 million people voted and their purple fingers in the air DEFINITELY inspired this new drive for democracy in the Arab world. Of course, this Saddam Human Shield Brigade didn't exactly make themselves known when the war was in full swing, but I knew you were there all along.


So have countless other dictators since the dawn of history. Do we invade EVERY dictatorship that has violated the human rights of its people? Or just the ones whose dictator threatened the President's Daddy?

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/28/2011 at 06:48 AM
The US has supported numerous dictators who tortured their own people over the years why was Saddam singled out? He served a very valuable role, he had to pretend he had weapons of mass destruction to keep Iran in check.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6495
(6494 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/28/2011 at 08:06 AM
quote:
quote:
Saddam also tortured kids and families and anyone he chose - and I mean gouging out eyes, not as in making Khallid doing rhe same thing our soecial forces do in boot camp. Saddam also put those who murdered civilians in the Middle east on his payroll. Most importantly, that first post-saddam election where 12 million people voted and their purple fingers in the air DEFINITELY inspired this new drive for democracy in the Arab world. Of course, this Saddam Human Shield Brigade didn't exactly make themselves known when the war was in full swing, but I knew you were there all along.


So have countless other dictators since the dawn of history. Do we invade EVERY dictatorship that has violated the human rights of its people? Or just the ones whose dictator threatened the President's Daddy?




Or controlled some of the largest oil reserves in the Middle East? Which is also the reason some have suggested for the French and British involvement in the recent Libyan uprising.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3170
(3169 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/28/2011 at 11:51 AM
I heard the next article from this brain-trust is titled

"Should the Trojans have refused their gift horse"

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/28/2011 at 05:47 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Saddam also tortured kids and families and anyone he chose - and I mean gouging out eyes, not as in making Khallid doing rhe same thing our soecial forces do in boot camp. Saddam also put those who murdered civilians in the Middle east on his payroll. Most importantly, that first post-saddam election where 12 million people voted and their purple fingers in the air DEFINITELY inspired this new drive for democracy in the Arab world. Of course, this Saddam Human Shield Brigade didn't exactly make themselves known when the war was in full swing, but I knew you were there all along.


So have countless other dictators since the dawn of history. Do we invade EVERY dictatorship that has violated the human rights of its people? Or just the ones whose dictator threatened the President's Daddy?




Or controlled some of the largest oil reserves in the Middle East? Which is also the reason some have suggested for the French and British involvement in the recent Libyan uprising.


I've always thought it was all about the oil, given Bush and Cheyney's inextricable ties to the industry.

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19749
(20215 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/28/2011 at 06:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMAONc7GeIc

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/28/2011 at 07:02 PM
In 2001 the United States provided 50 percent of its own energy needs in the form of crude oil, natural gas and coal. Today that number has increased to 71 percent. The Chinese are getting more oil from Iraq than the U.S.. Not trying to debunk the argument that the war was over oil just providing some variables to consider. Global demand for energy will increase at about a rate of twenty percent over the next twenty years and without an increase in oil production China could become unstable and then what. So the question begs is it "no blood for oil?" Or "how much blood for oil?" Japan didn't just wake up and say let's attack the greatest industrial power in the world. They wanted the oil supply lines to be turned back on because they were becoming a mechanized and industrial society. There are many that hold the opinion that the Ghawar oil fields in Saudi Arabia are dying and that Iraqi oil needed to be reinvigorated or even great catastrophic wars may ensue. As for Saddam needing to go. As someone who spent nine months in Iraq and witnessed a lot of the effects that his rule had on the population I would say yes. Another thing to consider is that Hussein was losing his grip on Iraq and that instability was what AQI was hoping for as were the Iranians. A problem that I see right now is that AQM (Al-Qaeda Maghreb) is gaining strength and momentum in Tunisia, Libya and Algeria. The Muslim Brotherhood have made huge gains in Egypt and could very well turn that country into an Islamic Republic. The Saudi Royal family spend billions in security to maintain their grip on power and they are being threatened by not only Wahhabi militants in their own country but by Iranian backed extremist to the south in Yemen. So as General Petraeus “We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.”

So how does it end

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11157
(11157 all sites)
Registered: 9/17/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/28/2011 at 09:38 PM
quote:
In 2001 the United States provided 50 percent of its own energy needs in the form of crude oil, natural gas and coal. Today that number has increased to 71 percent. The Chinese are getting more oil from Iraq than the U.S.. Not trying to debunk the argument that the war was over oil just providing some variables to consider. Global demand for energy will increase at about a rate of twenty percent over the next twenty years and without an increase in oil production China could become unstable and then what. So the question begs is it "no blood for oil?" Or "how much blood for oil?" Japan didn't just wake up and say let's attack the greatest industrial power in the world. They wanted the oil supply lines to be turned back on because they were becoming a mechanized and industrial society. There are many that hold the opinion that the Ghawar oil fields in Saudi Arabia are dying and that Iraqi oil needed to be reinvigorated or even great catastrophic wars may ensue. As for Saddam needing to go. As someone who spent nine months in Iraq and witnessed a lot of the effects that his rule had on the population I would say yes. Another thing to consider is that Hussein was losing his grip on Iraq and that instability was what AQI was hoping for as were the Iranians. A problem that I see right now is that AQM (Al-Qaeda Maghreb) is gaining strength and momentum in Tunisia, Libya and Algeria. The Muslim Brotherhood have made huge gains in Egypt and could very well turn that country into an Islamic Republic. The Saudi Royal family spend billions in security to maintain their grip on power and they are being threatened by not only Wahhabi militants in their own country but by Iranian backed extremist to the south in Yemen. So as General Petraeus “We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.”

So how does it end


A full all-out effort to GREATLY reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign oil over the next 20 years would be a good start.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11157
(11157 all sites)
Registered: 9/17/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/28/2011 at 09:43 PM
quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMAONc7GeIc




That was very interesting. I don't think I've seen that clip before this. But have heard many times from Wesley Clark and others speak and write of similar accounts about the Iraq war.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/29/2011 at 09:34 AM
I think it was Peter Galbraiths book he stated Bush didn't realize there were Shiites and Sunnis he thought they were just all Muslims.

[Edited on 10/29/2011 by Peachypetewi]

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19469
(19483 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/29/2011 at 02:26 PM
quote:
The US has supported numerous dictators who tortured their own people over the years why was Saddam singled out? He served a very valuable role, he had to pretend he had weapons of mass destruction to keep Iran in check.


AH, so the Saddam Human Shield Brigade do exist. Bull. Saddam deserved what he got. He was a lowlife on all ends. He bluffed, we called him on it, his head was severed when he was hung, the end! I love it when liberals have ZERO problem with folks in other countries not having freedom, and having no problem with them living under a dictator. Kind of like the embrace of Castro in communist Cuba then the American liberals get on a plane and get to do what the Cuban people cannot and that is leave at will. It reminds me of what the Egyptian protesters were saying, as Tom Friedman relayed on the Charlie Rose Show when it was broadcasting from Egypt. He just came up from the Square and reiterated how the protesters not only were disappointed in Obama being nothing but a prompter reader, but they also chafed at the LIBERAL notion that "those people" are not capable of any form of democracy. You can watch it yourself on the Chrlie Rose website. Of course, now that Obama helped to topple Gadhafi and assassinated Alwaki and Bin laden, and all rightly so and I credit him for giving the go-ahead on those killings (based on Bush's interrogation methods in Bin laden's case as Obama's CIA chief Panetta confirmed), the Left is gung ho for killing all of a sudden.....except for the lowlife saddam, of course, who paid every suicide killer of civilians $25,000 throughout the Middle East and more. Please. And, lest we forget - all I heard was how we were taking over Iraq' oil fields and stealing their oil - did it happen???? NO! Then again, these are the same liberal geniuses that predicted Bush would not give up power but would cancel the elections by calling a national emergency, etc..forum!! Modern day Liberalism is nothing short of a mental disorder.


[Edited on 10/29/2011 by DerekFromCincinnati]

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 69120
(69481 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/29/2011 at 03:03 PM
They must be the same geniuses that said Obama would take away everybody's guns....oh wait...that wasn't the liberals.....

Can you make even one post that doesn't try to insult liberals? Once again, you think anybody that leans a little left must fit your definition of a 'brain dead liberal' and has to have supported everything you think they did......you're a one trick pony.... and wrong.

Pathetic.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/29/2011 at 07:54 PM
quote:
They must be the same geniuses that said Obama would take away everybody's guns....oh wait...that wasn't the liberals.....

Can you make even one post that doesn't try to insult liberals? Once again, you think anybody that leans a little left must fit your definition of a 'brain dead liberal' and has to have supported everything you think they did......you're a one trick pony.... and wrong.

Pathetic.


What Sang said!

 

____________________
Pete

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11157
(11157 all sites)
Registered: 9/17/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/30/2011 at 07:38 PM
quote:
They must be the same geniuses that said Obama would take away everybody's guns....oh wait...that wasn't the liberals.....

Can you make even one post that doesn't try to insult liberals? Once again, you think anybody that leans a little left must fit your definition of a 'brain dead liberal' and has to have supported everything you think they did......you're a one trick pony.... and wrong.

Pathetic.


DFC is a confused individual.... imho

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/30/2011 at 08:24 PM
quote:
quote:
They must be the same geniuses that said Obama would take away everybody's guns....oh wait...that wasn't the liberals.....

Can you make even one post that doesn't try to insult liberals? Once again, you think anybody that leans a little left must fit your definition of a 'brain dead liberal' and has to have supported everything you think they did......you're a one trick pony.... and wrong.

Pathetic.


DFC is a confused individual.... imho


He's a pretty unremarkable dude, not real sure why anyone cares what he thinks.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com