It was OK in Iraq before the Coalition went in

[54/102 CEF]

Two nameless sould tried to debate me on the idea that the Coalition screwed up a stable situation in Iraq.

Of course I told them they should look up Crimes of Saddam on Google and ask themselves if what they find is close to a stable society.

Just wondering if anyone else has run across this fringe argument.

 

[Zartan]

I've encountered it before, but from an Iraqi professor. While he agrees that Saddam was a bad man and is better off gone, he argued that racial and religious conflict was largely unprecendented in Iraq. With the exception of the Kurds, Shiis and Sunnis and Marsh Arabs and Assyrians and the like had all gotten along fine for centuries until now - united by a very strong Iraqi nationalism that superceded race and religion (unlike in Lebanon, say). He believed the whole conflict to be engineered by the Americans to destroy the Iraqi nation. Personally I'm not so sure about the last bit, but he had an interesting perspective and looked at things far differently than anyone I've heard before.

 

[1feral1]

Some may argue that Germany was fine pre Sep 1939 too.

There is always the nutcases out there, who would agree to such stupidity. The Saddam regime was a cancer, regardless of their treatment of their own citizens, the regime was sooner or later going to be a direct threat to us anyways.

Sure, Iraq is a bit of a mess now, but overall, its better than what it was. Unstable as it is, they have freedom now, and the instability now, is because of that taste of freedom.

Its a long uphill climb for Iraq, but with determination, and assistance, and over time, it will be much better than it is now.

Thats my view anyways

 

[PJOsborne]

I've encountered this argument as well, some times with the other person using "Canada" instead of "the coalition" in the argument... : Usually their argument involved some reference to Bush and US Imperialism and the quest for oil...

I don't know enough about Iraq, Pre-Invasion to speculate one way or the other, but I would imagine that the regime kept a tight hand on civillian unrest and sectarian violence. I think it was only natural after Saddam's departure that things boiled up. Maybe a parallel can be drawn on some level to the former Yugoslavia? I know that under Tito things were fairly orderly but once he died, all the trouble boiled over.

 

[wannabe SF member]

Yeah, I always hear the  "better off before " argument. But of course, I never hear people talking about the thousands of iraqis who mysteriously dissappeared never to be heard from again during Saddam Hussein's regime.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I always ask people how they would deal with Iraq had the invasion not happened. Rarely do I get an answer beyond “it’s not our problem”

Ask them this:
Russia, France and China were all owed billions and billions of dollars, all had an interest in keeping Saddam in power and gaining access to the oil reserves.

Sanctions were falling apart and the UN had been corrupted by the Oil for food scheme which Saddam used to control the population.

Hans Blix by his own reports was not having much success, Saddam only worked with the UN because of the large army on his doorstep, Why would Saddam allow the UN to interfere if that army left?

The US/UK were spending billions to maintain the no-fly zones, to protect the Iraqis from their own leader, how was this sustainable?

The UN did not find Saddam’s Nuke program, it was exposed by his brother inlaw, the UN did find Saddams long range offensive rocket program in late 2002, if the threat of invasion is gone and sanctions collapsed how would they ensure that Saddam did not restart his WMD program?

Saddam was responsible for 2 of the greatest environmental disaster in the region, what would they do to prevent a third?

Saddam has attacked at least 4 other countries in the region inflicting more than 1.2 million deaths, once the oil begins to flow to China what would stop him from rearming?

Saddam had 2 sons to succeed him and a loyal contingent based on his tribe, his reign would last likely as least as long as North Korea’s. One of Saddam sons used to feed people in tree chippers alive, would they want this person in charge of a Nuke armed country?

The list of questions continues….. 

 

[Pikache]

Arguably, Iraq and other multi ethnic nations like Yugoslavia used fear, violence and repression to create 'stability'
That 'stability' is artificial in nature and ethnic violence is going to happen whenever the repressive regime collapsed

 

[Yrys]

Two nameless sould tried to debate me on the idea that the Coalition screwed up a stable situation in Iraq.

It was stable under Saddam Hussein. It doesn't mean it was OK or that it is the Coalition that screwed-up.
I'm no SME, but it seems to me that dictators make country stable as they eliminate anything that could disturb that stability, which help keep them in power. They applied pressure to the country, so nothing move, foremuch themselves in power at the top.

It's like a pressure cooker created by the dictator. Outside, everything seems the same. Inside, things are brewing up and the relief valve doesn't exist. Then something happens, like a knife cutting a caoutchou ring keeping the cooker seal (insurection from inside or invasion from outside) that change the walls of the pressure cooker. Speed of change will influence reaction of the food inside. Vegetables, meat and catera have been forced to mix in "unatural way" for them, so they do anything and everything to take the upper hand of the menu. BOOM! The knife didn't make or created the cooker, or the reaction.

Explosion experts or cooks could add to the analogy.

And yes, I'm hungry.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Saddam had his relief valve, it was called: Fear!

The ME was a rotton apple cart, all Bush did really was to kick it over, nobody is 100% sure where all the apples will stop rolling. That makes people nervous, but I far as I am concerned, way better than a nuke armed Iraq and Iran go after each other.