Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed, before a country can adopt a representative democracy that supports and protect basic human rights and freedoms, the culture and society of those people must first respect and support those things.
So you are correct, you cannot just overthrow a government and assume that the people will automatically adopt a mutual respect for basic human rights and freedom and install a government to reflect this. I think Bush must have believed that this was possible in Iraq, and it just might have been, if we gave them the time to develop those ideas.
I don't know if they went in there thinking that everything would be peachy afterward, or simply didn't think about it or perhaps not care (in Cheney's case especially)
How long do we give them? We were there for almost 10 years, the vast majority of which was after we overthrew the Saddam regime and were policing a sectarian Civil War. How much longer were we to give them? We shouldn't have gone in period, but we did, however basically 10 years was more than enough (in fact it was too much). We can't sit there and police a Civil War basically forever with the hope of one day they will get it together. Enough was enough.
And hows that working out for most of the people in those countries, especially in those where the warring factions are fueled by religious fervor?
When you think about it a lot of the wars, conflicts and terrible things in the past 90 or so years can be traced back to how badly the British and French handled winning WWI.
I voted yes because of the way things turned out. I didn't feel that way at the time because it was clear he was evil, anti-American, and sponsored terrorism against the west. However as a ruthless dictator, he kept all the Islamic nut jobs in check, including other countries that sponsor terrorism like Iran and Syria.
Then again, I also now believe Obama made a mistake taking Gaddafi out for similar reasons. Yes these maniacal killers abuse their own people, and he was no friend to America (unlike Mubarak who Obama threw under the bus).
So I believe we should contain these tyrants without trying to fundamentally change their societies. Whether it sounds bad or not to say, most of these Muslim countries are not ready for democracy, and it only leads to the radicals taking power, as has happened three times in a row.
Promoting free elections in the Arab World is a dumb idea in the first place. If you want a nation to become democratic, it has to happen organically. They have to want it. You can't want it for them more than they want it for themselves. Free elections in the Middle East haven't exactly had the results that the U.S. hoped for.
That said, i still believe that ANY country is ready for democracy, but only if the people themselves demand it.
That is one of the wisest things I've ever heard you say on here. I remember thinking this back when the elections were being held, and people had their little inked fingerprint...while there was a turn out, it did seem that we wanted it more than they did, and I was the lone wolf when I spoke up and said, "it's not going to work". Not that I'm wise on these things, it just seemed they didn't want it as badly as we did, and just as you said, if someone doesn't want something, or doesn't want it as badly as you want them to have it, it's not going to happen. That's not just in war torn nations or about democracy, that's true in anything.
Your poll title and your thread title are asking unrelated questions.
"Would Iraq and the rest of the world be better if Saddam Hussein still rules Iraq?"
No.
"Should the US have invaded Iraq?"
No.
Even though I voted yes in the poll, I would vote yes for an invasion if it were limited in scope to find WMD's, not deposing Hussein. Then again, I am not sure you could have one without the other, or visa versa.
Despite liberal talking points, Iraq did have WMD's at one time, and there was no reason to believe they didn't. Many in the intelligence community believe he moved his stockpiles out of the country when the invasion was impending. Whether that is true or not who knows, but it seems likely since we know he had them at one time, yet could not find a trace of them after the invasion.
Oh balls. The people of Iraq have been handed an opportunity for a future without a brutal dictator or a religous nutcase as the national leader. One who could lead them to a future with prosperity and peace. Instead they have picked a path of brutality and murder, largely over two competing versions of their little religious superstition. We gave them the opportunity, they picked the path they are on.
Did the women of Iraq also have a voice in the choice of "...the path they are on."? Just curious...
Even though I voted yes in the poll, I would vote yes for an invasion if it were limited in scope to find WMD's, not deposing Hussein. Then again, I am not sure you could have one without the other, or visa versa.
Despite liberal talking points, Iraq did have WMD's at one time, and there was no reason to believe they didn't. Many in the intelligence community believe he moved his stockpiles out of the country when the invasion was impending. Whether that is true or not who knows, but it seems likely since we know he had them at one time, yet could not find a trace of them after the invasion.
I don't think many liberals were arguing that he didn't have it at one time, hell we gave him some during the 1980's. The issue was if he got rid of the ones he had, and if he was creating new ones, which was something being pushed hard by the administration (remember the whole aluminum tubes fiasco)
Even though I voted yes in the poll, I would vote yes for an invasion if it were limited in scope to find WMD's, not deposing Hussein. Then again, I am not sure you could have one without the other, or visa versa.
Despite liberal talking points, Iraq did have WMD's at one time, and there was no reason to believe they didn't. Many in the intelligence community believe he moved his stockpiles out of the country when the invasion was impending. Whether that is true or not who knows, but it seems likely since we know he had them at one time, yet could not find a trace of them after the invasion.
Iraq having WMD's was of no consequence to us even if they did have them.
And there were lots of reasons to believe that they didn't have them. You guys have gotta stop acting as if there weren't people who called bull**** on those claims at the time.
I mean, we based most of our case on anecdotes by people with an axe to grind.
Take Curveball....the source we based our claims on more than anyone else.
He was a German asset, and the Germans didn't even allow us to interview him directly. And the kicker is this: the Germans told us NOT TO BELIEVE HIM BECAUSE HE WAS UNSTABLE, UNRELIABLE, AND A PROVEN LIAR!!
So the whole idea of WMD was specious on its face, and wise people knew it.
Your poll title and your thread title are asking unrelated questions.
"Would Iraq and the rest of the world be better if Saddam Hussein still rules Iraq?"
No.
"Should the US have invaded Iraq?"
No.
Actually I'll respond from this point. So for the first question the answer is correct as being "No". We need to stop looking at the internal Iraq and the reason the US gave for removing him from power. We have to look at what he effected globally outside of Iraq. Basically all the funding for worldwide Terrorism came from him. After 9/11 Terrorism grew across the planet and once he was caught and executed global Terrorism dropped dramatically. Hence the answer to the second question is "Yes". As at the time there was no way to stop the funding transfers and it would have taken too long to explain to the world the covert manners used to follow the money. Just look at global Terrorism during and after 2007 it has basically dropped to pre-9/11 levels.
First, we have to consider the possibility that Saddam would have died of natural causes by now - had he lived he would currently be 77. I'd just like to throw that out there.
Second, I think it is likely that Iraq would have been affected by the Arab Spring and probably have turned out similar to Egypt, but blended with a Syria-style outcome due to the ethnoreligious divisions. There might have been a civil war after Saddam was deposed, but it's hard to imagine a scenario where there could have been more fatalities and more destruction of infrastructure over a longer period of time at a greater cost to the United States than what actually happened, so if the U.S. had not intervened it's very likely Iraq and the U.S. would be better off today.
Consider that even the death rate and destruction in Syria, terrible though it may be, still hasn't approached the level seen in Iraq since 2003 (or especially since 1991). Also consider that Iraq is still an undemocratic corrupt dysfunctional state that routinely violates the freedoms of its own people - at least they had functioning infrastructure before the U.S. came in, but now they have neither freedom nor infrastructure. The result under Saddam would have been about the same, except a million people wouldn't have been killed, a country wouldn't have been destroyed, and trillions of dollars the U.S. had to borrow with interest have wouldn't have been spent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
