RLV

I don't know. It would be up to them to decide wether they would rather be bombed and massacred and have a foreign occupation army ruling them, rather than keeping Saddam in place. As far as I know, they were not asked, so what the Iraqi people felt is a moot point. We can only judge if *we* feel that the invasion was justified.

I'd like to point out that the worst excesses of Saddam's regime took place quite a few years ago (*). During the Kurdish uprising and the war with Iran, up to the repression of the post-Gulf war uprising. Afaik, the mass graves found are from these times. Since then the repression was equally brutal but aimed only to the political dissidents, much less in number.
Mind you, Saddam's regime was evil, no doubt. And the torture of even just one political dissident is a horrible crime, no doubt. I'm not trying to defend Saddam's morality (I don't think anybody means to). But in terms of population suffering, the Iraq the US just invaded was not such a terrible place to live in. Bad, indeed, but probably not the worse dictatorship around, neither the worst place on Earth.

My opinion: when it became clear than leaving him in power was a worse option *for the Iraqi people* than invading. Id est, when leaving him in power would have meant a worse suffering than the thousands of deaths, thousands of wounded and mutilated, property damage, anarchy and chaos they are suffering now, and the uncertainty about their future. To mention only the bad things that have already happened, not those that might still befall them.

In my opinion, this was not the case. Saddam's regime was not inflicting or likely to inflict on its people a worse damage that they
have suffered and are still suffering.

But, of course, the welfare of the Iraqi people was never a consideration for the planners of the attack. I suppose you realize that. This discussion only is meaningful according to your OP: what would we have done?

As I explained, it's not a general principle; you've got to judge case by case.
Just as well, I suppose you are not advocating for a policy of "we should just change things, and hope it gets better rather than risk making it worse." To put an extreme example, nuking Bagdad would have been a greater change than the invasion. I don't think you are advocating that this would have been a good thing, or that there were chances than it would bring a change for the good that overcame the negative effects.

Well, it might not have been such a bad thing.

Seriously, you've got to judge case by case. In some circumstances, it could have been better than the US had not been founded. I don't intend to discuss the circumstances that gave way to the US independence. But you must understand that you cannot just say: "hey, I like the way things are now, so everything that happened to bring this situation on was good". You should realize that the current US is a result of, among many other things, WWII. Maybe (again, only an example, not a serious proposal for alternate history) without WWII the US would not be a superpower, but/and the world would be a better place and the sufferings of WWII would never have taken place.

This is just an hypotetical example, let's not stray too much from the OP.

Only for the sake of precision, most countries were not founded with any of these intentions in mind. Generally they were the long-term result of a land grab by somebody with an army or supported by somebody with an army large enough.

No. There are times when an external intervention would be justified. And there are times when it would not.
I supported the Gulf war to liberate Kuwait and I would have supported an invasion of Iraq immediately after it, when it became clear that Saddam was massacring the Iraqi people. Then the added damage to Iraqi lives and property would have been relatively small and the damage prevented (all these mass graves now are being found) would have been much greater.

In 2003, afaik, the situation was the opposite.

What I'm trying to fight is the philosophy seemingly spoused by you, of forcibly changing any bad thing, just hoping that it will turn out for the better. Any change has a cost. In this case, it is a terrible cost. So, the chances that the change are for the better should be very favourable. You should be almost certain that things will be clearly better after the change. Otherwise, you are just killing thousands of people (etc., etc.) for a bet that might leave the survivors even worse than they were. Such a bet is way too costly, imho.


(*)- While the US looked the other way or even supported Saddam.



R.L.V.
~~#~~

auto-da-fe

I agree with your overall view that it has to be a case by case basis, but I still disagree when you say Iraq should have fallen on the side of "lets wait and see". All of the things that you complain about, were happening anyway. The deaths, the destuction, all of it. Pepople were being persecuted for political purposes, or religious purposes, or just simply becuase someone in power did not like them. There was enough cause in Iraq for a liberation of some part, either via an internal revolution, or an external "regime change". Which one was better is still a matter of debate, but I don't think we can debate on wether or not SH should have remained in power. I think this is one example of someone who had to go. Sure there are more out there that should go, some probably worse than him, but that doesn't make him better, just because there are people who are worse.

brighid

You are correct, but then we must question the pre-emptive strike policy then used. Then the question must come down to why THIS regime if their are worse out there (when using this principle as justification for attack)?

Megadave, I think you (and most of the American public) are being distracted by the "evil regime" motivate. No one, not even those of us questioning this war in Iraq for a second disagree that Sadaam isn't an evil man. The US, back in the 80's and with a good ol' hand shake from Rummy himself, with full knowlege of how Sadaam arose to power gave SH our full blessing. We also gave him the capability of bombing the Kurds with all the lovely biological agents we supplied Iraq with. It is rather hypocritical of the US to say, "bad Sadaam ... you used the chemical weapons and technology we provided you ..." The problem I have always had is the precident this sort of action sets. It is a TERRIBLE precident and it is one that WILL bite us in the ass at some point in the future. If we can pre-emptively strike a country we see as a threat then other countries (such as North Korea) can feel justified by and act on the same principle. Talk about a bitter ale we will someday have to drink ... one of our own making.

If Sadaam is not the worst out there WHY did we invade Iraq? Why are we doing the things we are doing in Iraq? Why are huge government contracts being given to Dick Cheney's corporate buddies? Why have we taken extraordinary care to protect the Ministry of Oil but failed to insure electricity, running water, food and medical care to the bulk of the Iraqi people? Do these moves seem conducive with a plan to actually liberate a people, have them feel the mercy and compassion of our soldiers, and thereby feel indebted to the liberating American forces (such as the Jews did in Europe) ... perhaps to further the goal of peace and stability in a volitile area where American influence could positively shape a culture that views us with suspicion?

Forget the alleged motivations behind what they say was the purpose and look to their actions to determine what REALLY was the purpose of our invasion in Iraq. I am hard pressed to find an answer that doesn't have oil, power and control written all over it.

Yes Sadaam was/is a bad man, but honestly the same thing can be said about our own president. Do we want the same standards applied to our country as we apply to Iraq?
With such a "Christian" administration you would think the concept of "do onto others" would have come up!

Brighid

auto-da-fe

brighid,

No, I was simply debating the statement made by someone that we should have left Iraq alone. I also have a lot of the same reservations as you (and most others) about the actual means, but I feel the ends were a good thing (even if they did not justify the means).

There are any number of arguements against the war, and in particular, our involvement in it. But I don't think that it can be argued that something didn't need to happen. Anyone who thinks that we should have left SH in power, just in case we now have made it worse, seems to be a little pessimistic. For one, if things truly got out of hand for the Iraqi people, I would think the UN, and other nations would speak up and put pressure on the US to do something different. And, not having electricity would be preferable (at least IMO) to having to hide in your house day after day, just out of fear that you would be killed.

Why Iraq, and not other countries (whom could be said to be "worse"), well, I do not understand enough of international polotics to be able to say that one country is worse (or better) than another, and though I can't say with all certainty that Iraq should have been first, or second, or 30th, I will say that a regime change in Iraq was neccassary. Wether it happened now or 5 years from now can be debated, but I don't think that the need itself can be.

RLV

Not on a scale big enough to justify the damage caused by the attack. I don't know the numbers, but let's say that 100 political opponents were killed every year. Well, with the estimations for civilian deaths so far in the several thousands, plus a similar number of soldiers, the math is quite easy: the invasion has been much more destructive than SH regime would have been for several decades, even if you only count the number of deaths (let alone wounded, destruction, empoverished, chaos...).

We are not debating on wether SH should stay in power. We are agreed: he should not.

The disagreement is over what cost was acceptable for removing SH. I think you would agree that nuking Bagdad would have been too much, wouldn't you?
Would you have let SH in power, if the only way to remove him was nuking Bagdad? I think so.

Then, it's all a question on wether the means used to remove SH are proportionated to the objective achieved. I feel very strongly that they are not. Because of two things:
- They have already caused a lot of damage, and more is to come. Possibly more than leaving SH in power until his natural death.
- It is uncertain wether the means will achieve a benefical objective.

Er... I think that everybody thinks that the end intended (*) are a good thing. It's about wether the means used are too bad. If you think that "they did not justify the means", then you are agreeing with me: the means were too bad for the good they achieved.

Two objections:
- There is the clear possibility of making things worse: civil war, indefinite guerrilla war, a theocray... I don't see much reasons for disregarding any of these possibilities.
- The cost of "doing something" is outrageously high. Mind you, if we were talking about just pushing a button and removing SH, then probably I would agree that it would be worth the risk. But we are talking about killing thousands of people and ruining a country. This is a very serious matter.

I believe that precisely the invasion of Iraq shows that the US pays no attention to any diplomatic pressure coming from the UN or other nations. Don't you agree?

Well, the fact is that before the attack most people in Iraq had electricity and they did not have to hide.
Nowadays they have no electricity and they have more reasons to hide at home because of the state of anarchy that many places in Iraq are.
So, right now, the situation in Iraq is far worse for the ordinary people than before the invasion.

I think that my position could be summarized with an analogy. Do you know the phisicians motto? "First, do not harm".

This doesn't mean that a phisician will always refuse to intervene. On the contrary, sometimes he might even perform very aggressive procedures (for instance, amputating a leg to save a life). But only after evaluating very careful the need for the actuation.

The invasion of Iraq has been a case of amputating a leg to relieve the country of a pain in the foot. There were other ways to cure the pain, and even if no cure was applied, the patient would (probably) have been better off without the amputation.


(*)- Assuming that the ends intended were benefical. I don't think so, and I believe that what's happened and happening proves that the welfare of the Iraqi people is of minimal relevance for the planners of the attack.


R.L.V.
~~#~~

Loren Pechtel

However, 100 is way too low.

RLV

Really? Do you have any hard data about the matter? I haven't heard anybody giving any estimation about this. At most, some guesstimations coming from opponents of the regime, which makes them dubious at best.

Anyway, the number was just an example. Make it 500, and the invasion has already taken a toll more than 20 times this, and it's still counting. Actually, right now, between US soldiers, Iraqi resistance fighters (call them terrorists if you wish, it's the same) and, most of all, Iraqi civilians, the number of victims is going to be worse than this.

Do you really think that Saddam's regime in 2003 (or 1998, for that matter) was worse than that?


R.L.V.
~~#~~

conkermaniac

I've always wondered if Saddam is really as bad as we think he is. Do the majority of the Iraqis think that he is as maniacal as the American media portrays him to be?

I've noticed that with the American views of China. Many Americans seem to think that the Communist government is a brutal dictatorship that all the Chinese people absolutely despise. I suppose that a case could be made for them being brutal -- after all, China executes more people than any other country. If you ask most Chinese people, however, they will probably tell you that despite all the wrongs, they are generally in favor of the CCP and Mao (either that or they don't give a damn about politics at all). I know that the Russian attitude towards Stalin is somewhat similar. I wonder if this is how the Iraqis feel? Sure, we may be seeing anti-Saddam interviews all the time, but how do we know that the media isn't just choosing such people on purpose? Perhaps the majority of Iraqis prefer him as leader -- or at least prefer him to us.

auto-da-fe

There have been some estimates that there are 10,000 bodies in those mass graves that have been found. That doesn't even include the ones we have not found. This* site say:

So we are probably going to find many thousands more. And this is only for the people that were put into the graves, some never made it that far (remember the human shredder). You make it sound as if it wasn't that large of an occurance.


In the American revolutionary war, 4,435** were killed and 6,188 were injured, and no one will dispute wether that was justified or not. My point is, you contention that it was not justified is purely a matter of perception, and for you to make that claim that it wasn't is the equivalent of trying to place your morals on someone else. I would think that about the only people that have the right to state as a fact wether it was justified or not, are the people of Iraq. The last poll I read stated that 65% of the Iraqi locals were in favor of what the US did, and think that the war was justified. That is pretty telling to me.

It is uncertain wether the means will end in a beneficial way, but you can't say with all certainty that the war was unjustified. You don't have the jurisdiction so to speak.

You keep coming back to us "ruining" the country. I have to ask you how nice you thought the country was before? It was not the Garden of Eden you know. Economic sanctions meant that most Iraqis couldn't find work, and if they could, they still couldn't get out of poverty. Starving families were all over the place. Electricity is easy to restore. It isn't exactly a new invention. Despite one or two melodramatic reporters, I haven't heard of any huge human aid emergency. Just yesterday I read some of the plans for a new Iraqi army. To me, this seems like a very important step in getting that country back together again. The Iraqi army is neccassary for policing the cities, which is neccassary for anything else to happen. So they aren't just standing around with their thumbs up there arses.

*Although I will grant you that this report says MOST of them died in '91

**cite

brighid

I do believe that Sadaam is as personally bad as the American media has portrayed him. He rules with an iron fist and has no problem killing opponents on the spot if it suits him. Prior to rising to power in the Ba'ath party he was well known for his ability to torture people. He assassinated his predecessor to ascend to power and he has maintained his political and military power through the same brutal means. He did gas the Kurds an innocent civilian population and he did put down those who were on the sides of the multi-national force of Gulf War I.

I also think he played the media well, but where I disagree with this administration was with regard to his capability to harm us with WMD, or strike the US or it's allies. The pressure to disarm Sadaam was working prior to the invasion and it was obvious by our quick and rather easy take over of Iraq that his military power was insignificant. Iraq could have easily been another Vietnam had Sadaam had any significant ability to harm us militarily. North Korea on the other hand DOES have the man power, weapons capabilities and desire to harm us far worse then a hundred Sadaams.

We invaded Iraq because we could. They knew he could not compete with our superior technology ... although a guerilla war could have and may still do us a lot of damage such as has been done in Chechnya and in Afghanistan against the Russians. Remember ... we were once allies with Osama and the Taliban. As recently as 1999 Unical (Condi's company) courted the Taliban in Texas in order to get rights to the Caspian oil fields.

I feel it was a purely political power grab that will benefit the few and could be justified in the minds of most Americans (as MegaDave's position suggests) to distract the public from the shit hole our economy has become. Wag the Dog baby! It has little or nothing to do with the removal of an evil dictator, or even liberating the Iraqi people. It has been a successful, self-serving move that should be condemned for the attrocity it is. Our honorable men and women in uniform and the innocent Iraqi civilians should not be sacrificed for oil, power or purely political motivate dressed up to be something altruistic. (not that you feel that way ... I am just ranting I suppose... )

B