Iraq - surely not again!!

Thorlifter said:

100% completely agree!

Click to expand...

Well said. Problem is, a large number of the western population take all their information and views on the world from what is presented to them on the box, as opposed to trying to understand other perspectives. So the majority think we need to distrust muslims in general, or a particular belief system of another form or another. So very many people are so incredibly misinformed and misguided into believing things from one side.

Very sad, but I think there will be one massive conflict in the ME very soon. Hundreds are dying weekly, but I think it will errupt out of control. I hope this doesn't prove to be the case.

Ironic it is that we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of WW1, the conflict that created Iraq and Syria out of the collapsed Turkish Empire. None of these nation-state creations worked out well .... few have been able to finesse the civilized velvet divorce that the former Czech SSR accomplished. Iraq was cobbled together by the 'Peace Makers' at Versailles and held together by opportunistic tyrants -- most notably Saddam. I visited the country just before the start of the Iran-Iraq war and it was an impressive, forward looking country --- on the surface. I enjoyed my visit.

For the most part, the locals I have interacted with here in Saudi have been very nice and helpful. Have I received a few "who the F are you" looks? Yes. But by and large, it has been enjoyable here so far and I pray it continues. Now the guys at the airport customs treat you like trash, but they treat everybody like trash, especially the Indians (India, not native Americans).

Yeah, I agree about Hussein being ruthless, but what kind of country has his removal produced and at what cost? Jumping on the moral high ground is an easy excuse to go off to war, but the brutal killing of minorities has continued, so any idea of getting rid of him to save them didn't exactly work. Let's also not forget that that was not stipulated at any time by anyone in favour of going to war to the UN as a reason for doing so at the time. The invasion was launched as a result of so-called 'evidence' of WMD and military action was threatened as a result of so-called 'non-compliance' of the Iraqis to the requests of weapons inspectors, whom actually claimed what Colin Powell used as his reasons for the action were false.

Let's not forget to mention the loss of thousands of Allied troops' lives and the impact that has had as a result of the war. Sometimes non-intervention is better than getting involved. The removal of Gaddafi was a civil war and was not universally opposed by the rest of the world, unlike the 2003 invasion of Iraq - remember the UN Security Council voted against the invasion by a majority, but it went ahead anyway and now look what's happened. Those of you who claim that deposing Hussein was the right thing to do, can you please explain why and how the current situation in Iraq is better for the Iraqi people than when Hussein was in power?

nuuumannn said:

Y Those of you who claim that deposing Hussein was the right thing to do, can you please explain why and how the current situation in Iraq is better for the Iraqi people than when Hussein was in power?

Click to expand...

I do not think you can at this stage of the game but do remember their were Iraqis happy to see the SOB hanged also.The general ME region seems to be for the most part unable to govern in a democracy setting like others.The country of Iran at times seems maybe the best candidate and I may be wrong but they seem to have a more educated population with youth.The Iranians have risen once maybe twice to break out from under the shah and then you have the Kurds have done so as well people willing to fight and die but would it go to a democracy or some form of?

nuuumannn said:

can you please explain why and how the current situation in Iraq is better for the Iraqi people than when Hussein was in power?

Click to expand...

The people of Iraq were given an opportunity to put things right and IMO blew it. With that said, I think the US stayed there way too long, troops should have started coming home the day Saddam Hussein was pulled out of his hole.

The best thing the west could do is stay the hell out of the region and let each wack job terrorist faction kill each other.

you ( meaning we ) cant fix it. they have to. at some point the people have to decide there has been too much death....that the intolerance for other ideals is rediculous and move to make it better for themselves. you can rule over them and mask the situation but once the veil and restraints are removed they will start all over again. the only other thing that will pull them together is a shared hatred for someone else....like us! let them duke it out and then deal with the winner.....and i mean dont arm and train any of the factions....that hasnt worked well over there yet.

FLYBOYJ said:

The people of Iraq were given an opportunity to put things right and IMO blew it. With that said, I think the US stayed there way too long, troops should have started coming home the day Saddam Hussein was pulled out of his hole.

The best thing the west could do is stay the hell out of the region and let each wack job terrorist faction kill each other.

Click to expand...

Maggie thatcher said someting similar about the Balkans wars. Close the borders, Sell arms to both sides until they have either killed each other, or, they get tired of killing each other. then keep the borders closed for another 10 years whilst the bitter vets die off and the country becomes truly desperate for change. Everybody goes home happy. we make our money selling the arms. the ethnic groups get their fill of war and death, and we keep our countries as safe as can be. Every body gets what they deserve.

So long as the oil still flows, i couldnt give a toss what they do to each other. We should stay the hell out.

Churchill strikes again - At the end of WWI the British had effectively won the war in the mid-east using large forces from India and adventurers such as T.E. Lawrence. But, with Britain shattered by the loss of manpower and money from the European campaigns the ability and will to simply move in and claim the mid-east was lacking. Furthermore the Balfour Declaration in 1917 supporting Jewish claims for a sovereign state had angered many Arabs and many in the Colonial Office who were pro-Arab. Had the British realized that the rumored oil reserves in the region held the key to world power for the next century they might have acted differently.
Sir Mark Sykes, appointed by Lord Kitchener in 1915 as his personal representative to determine the future of the Mid-East worked tirelessly to establish British control of the region. His plan made sure that local leaders would be on the side of the British matching aspiring leaders to their ethnic regions. Unfortunately Sykes died suddenly in 1919 and Lloyd George could find no one to take on his position. Sadly he turned, in the end to the man who became Colonial Secretary in 1921, Winston Churchill.
Churchill had no time or patience for any of this. He wanted the army demobilized, Arab rebellions put down, Egypt, the Suez Canal, and the route to India remain British, Syria-Lebanon left essentially to the French who refused to give up their colonial influence, and the rest of Arabia which had no particular value, dealt with as quickly as possible.
The British had taken Baghdad in 1917 and set up a British protectorate. The British proved to be highly efficient tax-collectors and strong opposition arose. The Ottoman Turks had divided the region into three provinces along ethnic lines centered on Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra in an attempt to keep the warring Sunni and Shiite populations apart. Baghdad had a sizable Jewish and Assyrian Christian population plus the Kurds who strongly opposed the British. By 1920 they were in full revolt.
Churchill was not the least bit interested in working out what to do with whom: "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes." Led by some young general poison gas was used regularly across the region to put down the revolt.
Wing Commander Harris (notable in later life for the firebombing of Dresden) also noted: "The Arab and Kurds now know what real bombing means. A full sized village can be wiped out within 45 minutes." Even in 1940 Churchill was buying huge stocks of chemical weapons for use in Germany. Churchill stated: "It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or Church"
In March 1921, Churchill held a 10-day conference in Cairo in which he handed over all of Arabia to local strongmen in return for their support of Britain, with no thought given to local population's ethnicity, religion, or desires. Ibn Saud was one such strongman. He was given the heart of Arabia to reinstate the House of Saud. Two Hashemite brothers from Mecca, Faisal and Abdullah were made kings of Iraq and Transjordan. The three former ottoman provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra were thrown into Iraq and the Kurds lured in with promises of self-rule. In order to create borders that could be easily protected for the two new kingdoms, the conference gave a large portion of Saudi Arabia (west of the Euphrates) to Iraq. In return Ibn Saud was given control of Kuwait.
So every time you look at today's Mid-East mess say thank you Winston. Rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iraq remains. Three times Iraq has laid claim to Kuwait, the last time leading to the Gulf War. Churchill's total lack of interest in laying down sensible borders resulted in the predicted conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis which was further complicated by the presence of the Kurds. The British imposition of a total outsider as king plus their failure to establish any proper governmental system led to a series of coups leading to Saddam Hussein and the second Gulf War.

On the subject of WMDs, the media made people beleive that there were rows upon rows of nuclear missiles, all bright and shiny, hidden somewhere when the WMDs that the coalition was looking for, were nerve agents and other chemical compounds for use against civilians and military.

They were found and in great quantities. The Dutch Army even found Sarin laden artillery shells in a military warehouse near Mosul...the same Sarin that was used by "Ollie" against the Khurds. Across Iraq, stockpiles of concentrated insecticides were found in 55 gallon drums. Insecticides are a nerve agent. An example of how a concentrate equates to the eradication of Medflies, you use a mixture of a quarter cup (2 fluid ounces) of Malathion to 100 gallons of water when spraying.

And now, the ISIS group has seized the former Iraqi military chemical facility, Al Muthanna facility, which was Hussein's source of chemical production and storage for the more serious chemical weapons. This complex not only had production facilities, but it also had test and research labs, including one for biological/toxicological lab. The compounds stored at the facility include Sarin, VX, Tabun and Mustard gas. These compounds had been inspected by the UN, accounted for and sealed in bunkers. There were also munitions stored, that were ready to accept the chemicals prior to deployment. I am not sure if any of the compounds or munitions were destroyed, but I have read that the production facilities were rendered inoperable.

This is the kind of stuff those idiots do not need to get their hands on.

As far as WMDs go...they were very real and they were found. These just weren't the big flashy "conventional" WMDs that the media was hyping about.

The best thing the west could do is stay the hell out of the region and let each wack job terrorist faction kill each other.

Click to expand...

I agree. We shouldn't have gone in in the first instance.

Mike, good summary, but you've missed out the Sykes Picot Agreement of 1916 - named after the British and French ministers of Britain and France that proposed the division of the region between the two nations, with Russia as a third party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement

This determined the fate of the region more so than anything Churchill did. From the link above: "The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western–Arab relations. It did negate the promises made to Arabs[39] through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire. Almost 100 years later (2014), the jihadist organization ISIS uses Sykes-Picot as their rallying cry and have conquered Mosul and parts of northern Syria to form an Arab Caliphate along sectarian lines rather than definitions of European diplomats."

Dave, the discovery of a factory with the capability of making mustard gas surely is no pretext for invasion, considering the havoc that was caused. Iraq was a broken nation and prior to the invasion there were many around the world that were talking openly about relaxing the sanctions imposed upon the country, which were effectively strangling it and many, including Dick Cheney argued that the war was better for the Iraqi people than the continuation of the sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

Information here about the search for evidence of WMDs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War

The invasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq.html

Here's a quote from a link describing criticism of the way the war was run, not so much opposition to it: "After the invasion there was a general lawless state in Iraq which is directly attributable to the invasion. This has allowed some Islamic extremists to take roots in the country and attack people of religious minorities which they consider to be infidels."

Here:Criticism of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also worth reading: Opposition to the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These links are good information and offer resonable descriptions of the status quo in the region as well as evidence from the conflicting arguments on both sides. Worth reading - they give a good understanding of the state of play in the country post Desert Storm, which was justified.

nuuumannn said:

I agree. We shouldn't have gone in in the first instance.

Click to expand...

That's where I disagree. Saddam Hussein was an @sshole, he needed to go. He was armed during an era where undermining the communist bear and Iran clouded the possibility of him going rouge. Like the people of Iraq today, he had the opportunity to be a leader within the Islamic world, but unlike people like King Hussein or Sadat, he thought his brutality could be exported towards his neighbors. Like a rabid dog, he needed to be put down. All the idiot needed to do was comply with UN weapons inspectors, he'd probably still be alive today...

As I said earlier, he needed to go but the minute he was pulled from his hole, we should have been packing....

BTW, the opening hours of the invasion he fired several Skud missles. They were on the WMD list. WMDs weren't found to the levels advertised but there were there and without an invasion they would have shown up again...

All the idiot needed to do was comply with UN weapons inspectors, he'd probably still be alive today...

Click to expand...

He did, Joe. I'm sorry, but the resulting mess in no way justifes the pretext for invasion and everything that is happening now is because of it. You are right, Hussein was an a-hole, but so is Assad in Syria, so is Mugabe in Zimbabwe and so are a number of Third World dictators needlessly butchering their own people, but that doesn't mean we should jump in with our sense of morality, even though it is something we feel we ought to do. The US government was warned that what's happening now would happen back in 2003, but chose to ignore it.

Democracy in Iraq doubtful, State Dept. report says / Social, economic obstacles work against transformation - SFGate

nuuumannn said:

He did, Joe. I'm sorry, but the resulting mess in no way justifes the pretext for invasion and everything that is happening now is because of it. You are right, Hussein was an a-hole, but so is Assad in Syria, so is Mugabe in Zimbabwe and so are a number of Third World dictators needlessly butchering their own people, but that doesn't mean we should jump in with our sense of morality, even though it is something we feel we ought to do. The US government was warned that what's happening now would happen back in 2003, but chose to ignore it.

Democracy in Iraq doubtful, State Dept. report says / Social, economic obstacles work against transformation - SFGate

Click to expand...

We were warned, but again it was one of many scenarios painted at the time. But Bush and his administration weren't the only ones who wanted something done about Hussein. I highlight some players here...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." — Madeline Albright, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." — Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

He was more of a threat IMO than the dictators mentioned. Although detached from Al Qaeda, the world didn't need this guy with large oil reserves (and money) to be around at the same time...

But in your piece you posted - more the reason why the coalition should have left the minute Hussein was found.

we were in a mess of trouble if we had to rely on someone like Saddam to give us regional security in this part of the world. My opinion....he was a problem that needed to be dealt with. We should have finished the job in 91 but didnt. But we did go back and get rid of him in 03. So that allowed sectarian violence to erupt, but in my opinion Iraq was broken already and if Husseins removal means an eruption of violence, then so be it.

There was nothing good about that bastard, except that he died. unnaturally.....

You know, I don't disagree with you guys on how much of an a-hole Hussein was, but the regional and international threat he posed by 2003 was greatly exaggerated by the US government; Desert Storm and subsequent sanctions made sure of that. Joe, I could quote at least a dozen counters to your quotes about the threat Iraq actually posed and the WMDs, including from Hans Blix, who was used as evidence by the UN regarding the inspection of nuclear facilities, but I won't. It's clear we can only agree to disagree on this.

Iraq was broken already and if Husseins removal means an eruption of violence, then so be it.

Click to expand...

Funny, Madeline Albright was heavily censured for saying exactly the same thing and was even forced to back track once pressure was put on her that her view was particularly callous and unjustified. Even Colin Powell, who presented the case for war to the UN in 2003 was forced to produce a retraction after the fact, claiming that the intel he had based his claim on was inaccurate and falsified to produce more of a case for war. Countries who were against the invasion, particularly those close to the US had considerable pressure applied to them to support the US - in the end, few of them did and what was known as the Coalition of the Willing was nicknamed the "Coalition of the Coerced" by Mexican diplomats.

The simple fact remains that the invasion produced a destabilisation of the region on an enormous scale and elevated Iran, a thorn in the side of the west post 1979 to a position of influence that it didn't have before and sure enough, not long afterwards, Iran began its sabre rattling. What is going on there is truly tragic and since 2003 and arguably earlier with the sanctions imposed on the country, a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions has been created, which is only going to get worse. Add that to the suffering in Syria and we have a real mess in the Middle East; destabilising the entire region and creating a desperate population and a breeding ground for organisations like Al Qaeda and ISIS to sweep through and cause even more chaos, not just regionally, but potentially internationally and it astounds me to think that we here, all with a sound knowledge of military history can somehow think this is okay and better because Saddam is no longer in power in Iraq.

I know it sounds simplistic, but I have a real problem spilling American blood to prop - up governments or societies that don't share the same values, regardless of whether it's the next best thing.

The internet is littered with articles about the consequences of the 2003 invasion and the truth is difficult to ignore. We can disguise it by standing on our moral soap box all we like, but the disaster over there is very real. The humanitarian crisis is truly tragic.

Iraq's Humanitarian Crisis

"Iraq experienced years of turmoil under Saddam Hussein resulting in economic mismanagement, a war with Iran and UN-imposed sanctions. After four years of US occupation, Iraq suffers from extreme unemployment and poverty, with over 4 million internally and externally displaced refugees. The country's infrastructure is in ruins and US reconstruction plans have been mired in fraud, mismanagement and incompetence. Commentators expect the country to suffer from the effects the war for years to come."

From here: Economic Consequences

And here, from Sky News: Iraq: Damaging Consequences Of the Invasion

ITV in the UK covers criticism of Tony Blair for claiming the trouble in Iraq stemmed from Syria: Boris Johnson calls Tony Blair 'mad' over Iraq claims - ITV News

Al Jazeera; "It seems there is no limit to an interventionist's capacity for self-delusion over the Middle East. As Iraqis are caught in an escalating crisis of utter terror, turmoil and devastation unleashed as a direct consequence of the US-led invasion of 2003, some neo-cons and unabashed British Blairites are now suggesting that more US-led military action might help."

Iraq and the Western military meddlers - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

The New York Times piece mentions the impact of the invasion on Iran and its growing influence: "The Iraq war has had a broad destabilizing effect across much of the Middle East. Many observers of the region say the biggest winner so far of the war is Iran, which is ruled by Shiite Persians and has close ties to Iraq's Shiite leaders. Emboldened by Shiite ascendancy and by the diversion of American power and resources into Iraq, Iran has pressed its agenda across the region, which in turn has alarmed Sunni Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia. Another disturbing regional effect with far-reaching consequences is the exodus of Iraqi refugees to neighboring countries. About 2 million have fled to Syria and Jordan alone."

Overview: The Iraq War - New York Times

The Washington Post blames the invasion directly: "It opened a Pandora's box of sectarianism. Saddam Hussein was a nasty, murderous tyrant who brutalized much of his country and was guilty of war crimes. But Iraq under the rule of his nominally secular Ba'ath party was not the sectarian charnel house that it became in the years following Hussein's overthrow and eventual execution. The Iraqi politicians who found traction in U.S.-occupied Iraq did little to build an inclusive, pluralist politics. Nor did they have much incentive. Traumatized by decades of authoritarianism and indulged by foreign partners, they sought to consolidate their own political fiefdoms to the detriment of the fragile Iraqi state."

Iraq?s crisis: Don?t forget the 2003 U.S. invasion - The Washington Post

The rerst of the world seems to disagree with those of you who condone the 2003 invasion and overthrow of Hussein.

I dont think people in the west can get their heads around some facts of the middle east.
Religion and politics are frequently the same.
The countries involved were created by outside powers (mainly UK and France).
Being Sunni or Shia is much more important than your nationality.
Your religious leader is your leader voting in a national election is therefore a nonsense.
By the time the west has found out what is happening and decided to act the situation has changed so a screw up is guaranteed.

parsifal said:

we were in a mess of trouble if we had to rely on someone like Saddam to give us regional security in this part of the world. My opinion....he was a problem that needed to be dealt with. We should have finished the job in 91 but didnt. But we did go back and get rid of him in 03. So that allowed sectarian violence to erupt, but in my opinion Iraq was broken already and if Husseins removal means an eruption of violence, then so be it.

There was nothing good about that bastard, except that he died. unnaturally.....

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more...

nuuumannn said:

You know, I don't disagree with you guys on how much of an a-hole Hussein was, but the regional and international threat he posed by 2003 was greatly exaggerated by the US government; Desert Storm and subsequent sanctions made sure of that. Joe, I could quote at least a dozen counters to your quotes about the threat Iraq actually posed and the WMDs, including from Hans Blix, who was used as evidence by the UN regarding the inspection of nuclear facilities, but I won't. It's clear we can only agree to disagree on this.

Click to expand...

And we could go back and forth on quotes and counter quotes on Saddam's actual threat to the region and how powerful he really was, bottom line no one REALLY knew what the final outcome was going to be, even though some have called today's situation spot on. In hindsight taking him out created a mess, in foresight 2003, leaving him there was just as bad.

I defer back to my original statement - the Iraqi people had a great opportunity and pissed it away thanks to century old hatreds and rivalries. At least we know now for sure that any western interference in the region is a total waste of time and we should just let them kill each other until they could figure it out.