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.
Fact of the matter is we can't force changes on a country if they themselves don't want it, or aren't willing to fight for it. It is one thing to offer help and support to those who want to get rid of an oppressive government, it is another thing entirely to try to force it upon them and put 140,000 troops on the ground. We went in with no plan on what to do in the aftermath, we had no plan on how to contain the sectarian violence, which was only being held at bay because of Saddam.
Saddam was a ruthless dictator, and a heinous individual, but the cost of going in there (in terms of lives, cost and instability it created in the region) simply wasn't worth it.
We also need to get rid of the policy platform of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
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.
That said, i still believe that ANY country is ready for democracy, but only if the people themselves demand it.
Same can be said for communism or socialism or whatever.
The key words are that they have to be want it.
Not just what the United States wants.
Iraq may or may not be better....but the world certainly would. Bush Sr was smart enough to know that removing Saddam would strengthen Iran. Saddam talked a big game, but was no real threat to us. Jr's decision to forcibly topple his regime has created a power vacuum that Sunni and Shiite extremists can't resist.
Saddam was clearly a prick. In what capacity did you serve in Iraq and what unit(s) were you with?
The question posed was "is Iraq and the world better off w/o Saddam". I think that's a clearcut yes. Now, did I ever claim to serve in Iraq?
I also never commentted on rather it was worth the loss of American lives in order to free the country of this brutal animal. I tend to think not. He killed 1 million Iraqis and countless Iranians and Kwatis (sp). Not our problem-and not worth the lives of American servicemen to stop the attrocities.
Saddam killed over a million of his own citizens, many with poison gas. He also started multiple wars with neighboring countries, and also used poison gas on their people (Iran). So yes, the world is better off without him. Kind of like asking is the world better off without Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Granted Saddams slaughter didn't compare with theirs, but in a country the size of Iraq the scale was similar.
With Saddam and sons out of the way, the people of Iraq had the opportunity to bring the country into the current century and provide a bright future for their people. Or they can follow a bunch of religious nutjobs and take the country back to the 13th century. Seems like they have chosen the second course.
We screwed up. Once Saddam was dead, we should have gotten out immediately and let the people of Iraq run their country. Trying to hand them peace, prosperity and democracy while expecting them to do nothing to contribute was a mistake.
Saddam killing his own people is not a reason to invade. Lot's of nations are led by brutal dictators.
We supported his incursion into Iran, so we can't use that as an excuse. His invasion of Kuwait was repelled by us, so that's no excuse to invade Iraq either.
The people of Iraq NEVER had the opportunity to create a bright future for themselves. Our invasion made that all but impossible. We set the table for sure failure because in the Arab World, the catalyst for change has to be organic and not from Western outsiders that are cozy with Israel.
And yeah, we screwed up (the Captain Obvious statement of the year), but you can't just leave after you destroy the place. Again for the millionth time, Powell warned that breaking it meant we'd have to own it. Bush knew this and still decided to invade.
Iraq's failure post invasion isn't their fault, it's OUR fault.
I have no problem with the idea of the war... the execution has been flawed, the goal has been unclear - and now with the Islam/Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer in charge here, the green light has been given to them to advance in the middle east/north Africa.
Such a shame, because I believe the Iraqi people really wanted freedom and democratic elections - and now they are heading backwards in bondage.
Did you go fight in the war? If you have no problem with the war in Iraq, did you ask the Iraqi people if they have a problem with a foreign nation invading and occupying and shooting up their country? I bet they had a huge problem with the idea, for reasons that have been apparent since 2003.
This detached American arrogance, completely oblivious to the consequences of military action or the deaths and misery it causes, was shared by the President and his handlers who started this debacle in the first place.
Saddam killing his own people is not a reason to invade. Lot's of nations are led by brutal dictators.
We supported his incursion into Iran, so we can't use that as an excuse. His invasion of Kuwait was repelled by us, so that's no excuse to invade Iraq either.
The people of Iraq NEVER had the opportunity to create a bright future for themselves. Our invasion made that all but impossible. We set the table for sure failure because in the Arab World, the catalyst for change has to be organic and not from Western outsiders that are cozy with Israel.
And yeah, we screwed up (the Captain Obvious statement of the year), but you can't just leave after you destroy the place. Again for the millionth time, Powell warned that breaking it meant we'd have to own it. Bush knew this and still decided to invade.
Iraq's failure post invasion isn't their fault, it's OUR fault.
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.
Saddam wanted the same as this group did but he had a real army. He didn't have all those chemical weapons or try to create that super cannon for nothing. Its like choosing between Hitler and Stalin really. I find it strange now many do not care about anyone but themselves now days.
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.
