What have we done to Iraq??

[L Mac-a-docious]

BTW great post Droopy Eye...sounds alot like Vietnam(at the risk of sounding cliched.

 

[Ethereal]

You could say that Saddam's dictatorship held a nation in fear and prevented a civil war, something that may be coming to Iraq shortly. The Sunni, Shite and Kurds want their own nation.

You raise the question of him preventing a civil war by way of supressing different cultures through fear, yet you make no mention of his methods. I understand the value of preventing a civil war of this magnitude, one which may or may not seem likely without Saddam in office, but the manner in which he acheived this goal is arguably more costly then a war itself.

But we did invade, and that cannot be overlooked...how many have we killed compared to Saddam? You can count the Kurds, but the US essentially orchestrated their slaughter...not to mention the fact, that 2-0-Sixx has beaten in to our heads, that before 90, Iraq had an infrastructure, which is nonexistent today.

Again, it's easy to look back and put it on a scale. You missed my point, though. You see, as of this point in time we are in agreeance, that this war was a mistake. But rather then debate whether or not our invasion was more damaging, I ask you to argue whether or not we should have invaded with knowledge of Saddam's ruthless tyrany. I understand your point of view, that is, we did invade, and it proved worse than if we had not done so (though I will mention that is arguable as well). However, if we can reverse time for right now, and we look at this mans dictatorship, and without knowledge of what would happen if we did invade, how do you argue against such an idea?

The numbers 2-0-Sixx is pounding into our heads is just that, numbers from what we hope to be a reliable source. I do not look at them and believe them as easy as you do, for that is the very reason you label people sheep. If fact, I don't believe any of the numbers he posted, but I do take them into consideration.

2-0-Sixx, how is it that you posted all those statistics, yet make no mention of the civilians who died under his command? You wonder why it seems I defend Bush, it is for these very reasons. I have no choice but to questions that. If you are without bias, wouldn't you have posted both the good and bad aspects of Iraqi life before the U.S. stepped in?

 

[TOKZTLI]

Good point Nitro, but I wouldn't argue that the cost in human life of a civil war is more efficient than the cost of human life in a dictatorship. I hope I dont convey the sentiment that I believe Saddam was a "good and compassionate" dictator, I understand he was a ruthless iron willed leader. However, this is no excuse to invade Iraq, arrest him and destabilize the whole region in a power struggle. The soldiers we have on the ground are beginning to feel what centuries of invaders have felt in the Persian land. However, since the US has appointed itself the police power of the world and chooses which dictators to invade and depose and which ones to make demands (i.e. North Korea) and which to go about their business of state-sponsored oppression (i.e, China) and which to slide back into a centralized dictatorship (i.e., Russia aka USSR), we the people have the duty to dissent and express our concerns and fears of the direction of our country.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Autocracies, police states, and dictatorships are nothing new in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world. We are going in to impose Western ideals when we have little to no understanding of politics in Iraq.

As I've pointed out a few times on this board, often people in the Middle Eastern countries with *dictatorships* or *autocracies* fare better in terms of freedom than countries with "democracy" and "consultation of the people" in government. Often the dictators in repressive countries are socially more liberal than their constituents. I do not doubt that an Osama bin Laden type can and may be elected in Iraq.

We have this major problem of looking at things one dimensionally. Freedom = Democracy = Good.
But the words for Freedom and Democracy don't even exist in Arabic languages the way they do in ours.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

We tend to think of Democracy in western and eurocentric terms...in other words, democracy is the highest achievement a country can reach in terms of political freedom. Politics in the Middle East, however, undergoes a radical paradigm shift that causes up to be down and down up. Citizens in Iraq have little ideas about the implementation of democracy, and historically in the Middle Eastern regions democracy has largely been a curiosity.



Often Middle Eastern countries with the areas of largest personal freedom come have what we would call liberal autocracies. Countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan in some ways (ironically) operated under a larger assumption of consideration of opinions of groups or bodies. Saddam Hussein was directly responsible to the Shi'a clerics with his government policies; the Taleban as a ruling agency often took input from large groups of tribal leaders, and Egypt has a pseudo-accountable government that often listens to dissent in powerful media and ruling groups. Yet, freedoms in these societies remained possibly he worst in the Middle East. Places like Tunis, even (surprisingly) Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Kuwait rank on a higher scale of personal freedom. Yet these are countries that do not consult anyone in official rulings...monarchies and small oligarchies dominate life to a huge extent.



Often, these rulers are more liberal and permissive than their subjects. In Pakistan, for example, extreme anti-American and pro-Al Qaeda parties dominate up to 35% of "government seats", and it is estimated that their support in public opinion may reach 50 percent. With the vote split three ways, the next election could put the nuclear bomb in the hands of extreme pan-Arabist fanatics. Democracy could elect an Osama bin Laden.

..

 

[Ethereal]

Good point Nitro, but I wouldn't argue that the cost in human life of a civil war is more efficient than the cost of human life in a dictatorship. I hope I dont convey the sentiment that I believe Saddam was a "good and compassionate" dictator, I understand he was a ruthless iron willed leader. However, this is no excuse to invade Iraq, arrest him and destabilize the whole region in a power struggle.

Indeed, a civilian death under an evil dictatorship is no greater than a civilian death at a time of war. So would we agree that either way the people of Iraq will remain in their own repugnance? I do not say this in trying to convince you that all of Iraq rejected Saddam. I am aware that, possibly the majority of Iraq did not care to see him run out of office (although being under 20+ years of dictatorship might serve as a cause for this). Now on one hand you have civilians who are opressed under Saddam, and yes, even tortured and killed, but in much smaller numbers and at a much slower pace; on the other, you have the opportunity to gamble by wiping out the dictatorship (this includes all of his prodecessors), and hoping that in time, it will prove to be worthy of the civilian casualties it will cost. So how do we evaluate the good and the bad? Is it simply through the numbers? Are we to say that 10,000 dead during a sudden war, lasting just a few years, is greater than a routine, 1,000 dead every 5-10 years? (Note: he has been accused of doing these numbers over night) To be honest I can't rightly argue it either way, but to sit and do nothing, how would that define us as humans?

You said the ruling of Iraq is no reason to "invade" the country. While I will agree - under the assumption that by saying that, you mean without the United Nations - I still beleive that something must have been done to at least destabalize his methods of instilling fear into his people. I used to concur with my fellow GOM members that a special forces unit dropped into Iraq with the sole purpose of dealing with Saddam, would have proved much less disastrous. But the more I think about it, the more I believe that such a plan would go awry. Isn't it much greater than just Saddam Hussein? I don't beleive a dictator just sits in his high chair and commands each and every life in his country. He has a body of government, be it official or not, who endorse his beliefs and carry them out accordingly. So what if we did assassinate Saddam, Uday, and Qusay, without invading the country with our military - don't you think another would rise in his place?

Should we all be extreme nationalists and hope/pray for the best?

By nationalism I mean in the sense that each country places 100% of their focus (aside from import/export) on their own country.

The soldiers we have on the ground are beginning to feel what centuries of invaders have felt in the Persian land. However, since the US has appointed itself the police power of the world and chooses which dictators to invade and depose and which ones to make demands (i.e. North Korea) and which to go about their business of state-sponsored oppression (i.e, China) and which to slide back into a centralized dictatorship (i.e., Russia aka USSR), we the people have the duty to dissent and express our concerns and fears of the direction of our country.

Everything you said is true. But do you think it is so unreasonable for a country to "fix" those problems that it is capable of, and refrain from any attempts on those who will do it great harm and possible defeat it? I do not like America spreading it's own culture into other countries who are opressed, but I am behind efforts to grant more control over to the people, especially by providing them with the opportunity to elect their own leader. I think dictatorships are bad, in any sense of the word. Let someone get elcted over and over (by the people) and I would be content.

So TOKZTLI; What would you have hoped for with Iraq? Would you propose that we just let them be and hope for the better?

 

[L Mac-a-docious]

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War