Just to let it all kick off I might pooint out that "we" (US and UK) kept The Great Dictator in power as he seemed to keep Iran and Syria under what is laughingly called "control" as well as making a tonne of money out of selling him weapons. We seem to have a long tradition of fighting people we trained and armed to help us fight people we trained and armed. Funny that.
No, surely not supporting Saddam in the first place was the right idea?
Not supplying his regime with weapons, technology and even satellite reconnaisance when he was gassing the Kurds was the right idea.
Not encouraging the invasion of Kuwait was the right idea.
Not supporting other dictators still, many of whom make Saddam look like a pussycat, is the right idea.
Not lying about WMDs was the right idea.
Not lying about links to Al Quaeda was the right idea.
Not invading a sovereign country in an unprovoked attack was the right idea.
Not vetoing plans to bring Osama bin laden to the World Court (twice -- Clinton in 1997 and Bush in 2001) was the right idea.
ok?
Tell me, was 'getting Saddam' worth killing 100's of 1000s of civilians? (that's those who died as a direct result of military action, not counting those who have died through lack of drinking water, food, housing etc caused by indiscriminate bombing.)
I'm not sure if I'd ever call a war a "good idea". I did consider getting rid of Saddam a good idea, but do not know what the real reason for going to war actually was, in the minds of the people who started it. Given that they tried to mislead people as to the reasons of the war, saying that it was because Saddam had WMA and was a danger to us, and trying to link the war to 911, I think that was a very bad "idea" for a war. And I definitely think it was handled badly. Not to say that I could have handled it better, but then I am not a military person nor a strategist nor a leader, and I do not want to be in charge of handling wars.
You left out the, "Would the UK be better off if we'd left Iraq to the Americans on the grounds that we had enough commitment already in Afganistan?', question though.
The legal and the common sense version. If one army crosses the border of another country using extreme force, and the armed force of that country is only able to put up a token resistence before it is overwhelmed, that's an invasion.
Any possible 'good' that could spring from it is besides the point when we were quite openly lied to by Blair to get us in there in the first place. That overshadows everything.
[X] Very carefully, taking as long as it takes not to leave an insanely huge power vacuum, and with a promise to assist with infrastructure etc.
Anybody with two eyes could see that the US/UK had zip, zero, nil, nada justification for entering Iraq. Entering Iraq pre-emptively has got to be the biggest threat to global goodwill ever, partly because of precedent and partly because it gives a massively stronger incentive for any so-called ¨rogue state¨ to arm themselves with nuclear weapons in order to avoid their own pre-emption.
If anyone answered anything other than "i have no idea" for the first 2 questions, you must be either psychics or full of crap.
How can anyone know what will happen?
I answered bad idea, badly handled for number 4, but only if you consider thousands of people dying and the destablizing of the middle east a bad thing.
I don't think it takes psychic ability or any great awareness to see that the probability is that the situation in Iraq is rapidly worsening and thus almost certain to continue to worsen before it improves. Any change is going to cause new problems before it results in new solutions, thats inevitable. There will be power struggles, the usual confusions of handover etc.
Basically we don't know if it would get worse or better. They are there to reduce oil output and increase oil prices - once that gambit proves too risky for the financial benefit then they'll pull out and not a single day before.
Longer term yes, it is hard to say, but as explained there are many perfectly clear and obvious reasons why the immediateconsequence of immediate withdrawal could only possibly be a short term worsening of the situation.
Re: Oil, the whole war was about Oil, as was the invasion of Afghanistan.
Have you noticed that Opium/Heroin production is hugely increased in both countries since invasion too?
The Americans know that if they pull out now, the Saudi Arabians, frantic over the sunni/shia ethnic cleansing, will promptly move in and then the entire area region will explode. While staying is obviously not working, the situation if they were to pull out now would be devastating. This is a consequence that should have been forseen and this is the reason they should never have invaded, quite apart from the initial human cost. The cruelty of invasion would almost have been forgivable if they hadn't been so stupid.
Do you honestly believe that military analysts weren't very clear on the damage that would be caused by the invasion? The plan worked brilliantly because they want an unstable region that requires a US presence.
The super corporations that fund and run the US government will make a killing from all the strife. Once the americans have slow bled out the oil they will leave it in ruins and sell arms to both sides. Iran is the next target. It's not about ethnic conflict, it's about money, it's always about money.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Not supplying his regime with weapons, technology and even satellite reconnaisance when he was gassing the Kurds was the right idea.
Not encouraging the invasion of Kuwait was the right idea.
Not supporting other dictators still, many of whom make Saddam look like a pussycat, is the right idea.
Not lying about WMDs was the right idea.
Not lying about links to Al Quaeda was the right idea.
Not invading a sovereign country in an unprovoked attack was the right idea.
Not vetoing plans to bring Osama bin laden to the World Court (twice -- Clinton in 1997 and Bush in 2001) was the right idea.
ok?
Tell me, was 'getting Saddam' worth killing 100's of 1000s of civilians? (that's those who died as a direct result of military action, not counting those who have died through lack of drinking water, food, housing etc caused by indiscriminate bombing.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
[X] Very carefully, taking as long as it takes not to leave an insanely huge power vacuum, and with a promise to assist with infrastructure etc.
Anybody with two eyes could see that the US/UK had zip, zero, nil, nada justification for entering Iraq. Entering Iraq pre-emptively has got to be the biggest threat to global goodwill ever, partly because of precedent and partly because it gives a massively stronger incentive for any so-called ¨rogue state¨ to arm themselves with nuclear weapons in order to avoid their own pre-emption.
no subject
no subject
How can anyone know what will happen?
I answered bad idea, badly handled for number 4, but only if you consider thousands of people dying and the destablizing of the middle east a bad thing.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Re: Oil, the whole war was about Oil, as was the invasion of Afghanistan.
Have you noticed that Opium/Heroin production is hugely increased in both countries since invasion too?
no subject
no subject
The super corporations that fund and run the US government will make a killing from all the strife. Once the americans have slow bled out the oil they will leave it in ruins and sell arms to both sides. Iran is the next target. It's not about ethnic conflict, it's about money, it's always about money.