4 years on

The death of Saddam Hussein is one thing that has been achieved, but according to a report I was reading recently, this could have happened in the original 1991 attack when a small group of SAS soldiers was despatched to 'take him out' and could have achieved their objective easily but were told not to proceed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

One, there is one less dictator on the planet. This has to be a good thing.

---

Yes, it does have to be good.

However, aren't we now just looking at another dictator in a posh suit in the shape of Bush? He's simply gotten rid of a nasty bit of work and put himself pretty much in his place. Has the killing slowed down this past four years?

It's going to take a lot longer than four years to convince me this war was for the good of all people, not just a few.

4 years on and i still wish our troops all the luck in the world regardless of whether they should be there or not.

I recall this study causing some controversy a few months ago...

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnew...iraq_2006.html

"...deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003, ..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazell B

However, aren't we now just looking at another dictator in a posh suit in the shape of Bush? He's simply gotten rid of a nasty bit of work and put himself pretty much in his place. Has the killing slowed down this past four years?

---

No we are not. The US President is democratically elected and has a maximum term of 8 years. A dictator holds power by force and is ruler for life. Look at Castro in Cuba. He's been in power for decades and now that he is nearing the end of his life he simply hands power over to his brother. The people of Cuba have absolutely no say in the matter.

The same was true of Iraq. The only way Saddam was leaving power was in a pine box. He would either be taken out (as was the case) or he would die an old dictator leaving power to his sons.

You can't even begin to compare the leaders of true democracies to dictators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

The US President is democratically elected...

---

That's open to debate given the problems of the voting system the first time Dubya got voted in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

The negatives are obvious, as you clearly point out.

There are a couple of positives, however small they may seem in comparison.

One, there is one less dictator on the planet. This has to be a good thing. Ofcourse, tens-of-thousands of people dying to achieve this goal leaves it a somewhat hollow victory.

Two, I'm sure the Kuwaiti's are pretty happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. He invaded them once and I'm sure they were pretty nervous about it happening again.

Wars are terrible things. Unfortunately, we humans are stunningly good and making them happen. Curse of the species I suppose. It would be nice to think that we could learn from the past. Doesn't happen too often, however.

I think there's a pretty good chance that the last two humans on earth would try to kill each other. Maybe the last one standing will finally understand the futility of it all.

---

Tbh, the invasion of Kuwait is very much a small and insignificant story in my opinion. There is alot that most people don't know about the story up until Kuwait's invasion. The two countries had a long history of disagreements and tense relations before the invasion occured, and i'm not even convinced Saddaam wanted to invade Kuwait. My understanding is that Iraq just wanted some concessions, and for Kuwait to end it's slant drilling. Not to mention Kuwait was taking well over their OPEC oil quota. Kuwait was pissing alot of countries off.

Iraq has been divided in all it's history (you can blame the Brits for that), so maybe a dictator was necessary to keep it together. In fact, that's the reason George senior didn't go after Hussein. Obviously not very good communication within that family, because George W certainly didn't take his advice.

I'm not a political animal and even less of an authority on US foreign policy so I could be way off beam here but I've always been of the opinion that this little adventure bears all the hallmarks of "unfinished business" whereupon George Jr has been hellbent on completing the task that his old man baulked at in 1991 regardless of just cause or legitimacy.

Irrespective of motive the stark facts are that the entire episode has resulted in one of the most tragic episodes in the turbulent history of the Middle East.

Once again it's the hapless civilian population that bears the brunt of mindless, futile aggression and whenever I see the almost daily news reports of further atrocities with the accompanying footage of the broken bodies of women and small children it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach to be honest with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schultz

Iraq has been divided in all it's history (you can blame the Brits for that), so maybe a dictator was necessary to keep it together.

---

Yes, it's similar to the former Yugoslavia. Communism and Tito held it together, once they were gone, the whole thing collapsed. Saddam might have been somewhat biased towards the Sunni because of family ties, but he was religiously moderate compared to many of those trying to gain power now.

Share holders in Halliburton would be very happy 4 years on. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the $500,000,000,000 went into their pockets!!!!