Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
were Iraqis better off under Saddam?
were Iraqis better off under Saddam?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by GrumpyPom. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That war was so illegal that it's unbelievable. I think that anyone who paid any attention to any facts as to why it happened probably generally accepted that his removal would lead to a political vacuum that America and Britain have no chance of filling. The rise of a worldwide muslim state starts with the american withdrawal from Iraq.
Ask the Iraqis who had relatives buried in mass graves, or the Kurds who were gassed... men, women and children or listen to the stories of Sadam's 'boys' enjoyably grinding up people in plastic shredding machines.
Look, there's a good chance that a democracy will emerge in Iraq and this will be an amazing sea change in that part of the world. Will it be exactly what we'd have in country.... not likely, but it will be worlds apart from what they suffered in th eprevious regime...
Tell me once more how the war was illegal... I always get a chuckle out of the twists and turns required to arrive at that conclusion...
Look, there's a good chance that a democracy will emerge in Iraq and this will be an amazing sea change in that part of the world. Will it be exactly what we'd have in country.... not likely, but it will be worlds apart from what they suffered in th eprevious regime...
Tell me once more how the war was illegal... I always get a chuckle out of the twists and turns required to arrive at that conclusion...
http://www.timesonlin...rs/article7004974.ece
The above link will take you to a letter to The Times on 28th January 2010 from Philip Allott, Professor Emeritus of International Public Law, Trinity College, University of Cambridge. You will see that the whole concept of an 'illegal war' is a nonsense.
Nobody asked for the UN's 'permission' to go into Bosnia in the 1990s and nobody claimed that the coalition which did so had acted 'illegally'. Genocide was going on in Iraq, too, remember.
Please note who actually WROTE the letter; I suspect he knows rather more about it than the Daily Mail, Flobadob or whoever!
I'm with you, C!
The above link will take you to a letter to The Times on 28th January 2010 from Philip Allott, Professor Emeritus of International Public Law, Trinity College, University of Cambridge. You will see that the whole concept of an 'illegal war' is a nonsense.
Nobody asked for the UN's 'permission' to go into Bosnia in the 1990s and nobody claimed that the coalition which did so had acted 'illegally'. Genocide was going on in Iraq, too, remember.
Please note who actually WROTE the letter; I suspect he knows rather more about it than the Daily Mail, Flobadob or whoever!
I'm with you, C!
No, the Iraqi people were not better off.
The former Yugoslavia is a good example. It, like Iraq was ruled by a dictator. The country itself was like Iraq in that it was an invention by bureaucrats and consisted of different nationalities, creeds and ethnicities who didn't really like each other. Both countries were held together by brutal force and violence by a Government that was feared by the population at large.
When the Yugoslav Government eventually fell, there was no fear to keep the rival groups from attacking each other, and civil war broke out. There was all to fight for, and many thousands, including civilians died. From the chaos, new democratic nations emerged.
That is what is happenig in Iraq. Saddam and his henchmen are gone, all the groups that dislike each other are engaging in a civil war. The complication in Iraq, as apposed to Yugoslavia, is that there are outside forces at work, namely an invading army of occupation who want one result, and an opposing army of 'insurgents' who want another result. Hopefully, our aim is for a result similar to Yugoslavia, with democracy emerging, and la legitimate country or countries emerging. If we allow al qaeda to win, we are in unknown territory and we coiled end up with a more problematic country than we started off with, and our whole effort will have been in vain.
The former Yugoslavia is a good example. It, like Iraq was ruled by a dictator. The country itself was like Iraq in that it was an invention by bureaucrats and consisted of different nationalities, creeds and ethnicities who didn't really like each other. Both countries were held together by brutal force and violence by a Government that was feared by the population at large.
When the Yugoslav Government eventually fell, there was no fear to keep the rival groups from attacking each other, and civil war broke out. There was all to fight for, and many thousands, including civilians died. From the chaos, new democratic nations emerged.
That is what is happenig in Iraq. Saddam and his henchmen are gone, all the groups that dislike each other are engaging in a civil war. The complication in Iraq, as apposed to Yugoslavia, is that there are outside forces at work, namely an invading army of occupation who want one result, and an opposing army of 'insurgents' who want another result. Hopefully, our aim is for a result similar to Yugoslavia, with democracy emerging, and la legitimate country or countries emerging. If we allow al qaeda to win, we are in unknown territory and we coiled end up with a more problematic country than we started off with, and our whole effort will have been in vain.
Did you read that letter Qizmonster? or did you deliberately misrepresent it?
He does not say that the concept of an illegal war is nonsense - does he?
He says that the concept of international law being treated live civil or criminal law is nonsense.
I'm sure everyone would agree with that.
Laws of war are part of international laws and relate to treaty obligations which states have undertaken.
Now many better legal minds than I have been ecercised on whether or not this war was legal not least the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith who has admitted to changing his mind on the matter.
Personally I tend to think there is reason to believe that definately Bush and possibly Blair had been looking for excuse to try to oust Sadam for some time
If that is so and if the UK was taken to war on false pretenses and parliament was mislead as to the threat that the UK was facing then this would have been a war of aggression.
There's no contorted logic Clanad - the contortions that amuse me are from Americans trying to tie Iraq to 911.
It's very, very simple - was Iraq or was Iraq not genuinely believed to be an immediate threat to the west at the time
He does not say that the concept of an illegal war is nonsense - does he?
He says that the concept of international law being treated live civil or criminal law is nonsense.
I'm sure everyone would agree with that.
Laws of war are part of international laws and relate to treaty obligations which states have undertaken.
Now many better legal minds than I have been ecercised on whether or not this war was legal not least the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith who has admitted to changing his mind on the matter.
Personally I tend to think there is reason to believe that definately Bush and possibly Blair had been looking for excuse to try to oust Sadam for some time
If that is so and if the UK was taken to war on false pretenses and parliament was mislead as to the threat that the UK was facing then this would have been a war of aggression.
There's no contorted logic Clanad - the contortions that amuse me are from Americans trying to tie Iraq to 911.
It's very, very simple - was Iraq or was Iraq not genuinely believed to be an immediate threat to the west at the time
I certainly read it; I wonder whether YOU did, Jake-the-peg.
Quote from it: 'It is UNREASONABLE (my caps) to suppose that the legality of particular wars can be determined by the fact that an official representing a particular government in the Security Council does or does not raise his or her hand in favour of the adoption of a particular resolution, whatever may be the reasons of self-interest or public interest of that government.'
Given that 'reason' and 'sense' are listed as synonyms in most thesauri, I can see no great difference between saying something is 'unreasonable' and saying it is 'nonsense'. Can you?
The entire Security Council Resolution matter is a nonsense, too, as the same quoted sentence above makes abundantly clear.
Quote from it: 'It is UNREASONABLE (my caps) to suppose that the legality of particular wars can be determined by the fact that an official representing a particular government in the Security Council does or does not raise his or her hand in favour of the adoption of a particular resolution, whatever may be the reasons of self-interest or public interest of that government.'
Given that 'reason' and 'sense' are listed as synonyms in most thesauri, I can see no great difference between saying something is 'unreasonable' and saying it is 'nonsense'. Can you?
The entire Security Council Resolution matter is a nonsense, too, as the same quoted sentence above makes abundantly clear.
Clanard // there's a good chance that a democracy will emerge in Iraq and this will be an amazing sea change in that part of the world//
Not so amazing really. Democracy did emerge in Iran after WWII. It was destroyed by the CIA at the behest of Winston Churchill after they ended half a century of theft of their oil resources by the Brits.
Not so amazing really. Democracy did emerge in Iran after WWII. It was destroyed by the CIA at the behest of Winston Churchill after they ended half a century of theft of their oil resources by the Brits.
-- answer removed --
Iraq had democracy in the 50s. It failed, chaos reigned and a strong man emerged from the army to establish order. He was backed by the west and armed by US and UK.
Relatively very few iraqis actually suffered harm under Saddam.
Most enjoyed a peaceful comfortable life in a modernising country.
He suppressed religious fanatics and insurgents and kept out al quaeda.
Since US and UK intervention over 100,000 iraqis have died and many others suffered kidnap or the destruction of their livelihoods and standard of living.
An ex govt minister in iraq said yesterday that unless the chaos and lawlessness is stopped before US withdrawl it is only a matter of time until the iraqi people turn to the army to provide the stability of another 'strong man'.
So another Saddam will take over. Apart from giving the CIA and The Pentagon something to do, what was the point?
.
.
Relatively very few iraqis actually suffered harm under Saddam.
Most enjoyed a peaceful comfortable life in a modernising country.
He suppressed religious fanatics and insurgents and kept out al quaeda.
Since US and UK intervention over 100,000 iraqis have died and many others suffered kidnap or the destruction of their livelihoods and standard of living.
An ex govt minister in iraq said yesterday that unless the chaos and lawlessness is stopped before US withdrawl it is only a matter of time until the iraqi people turn to the army to provide the stability of another 'strong man'.
So another Saddam will take over. Apart from giving the CIA and The Pentagon something to do, what was the point?
.
.
I guess it depends on one's deffinition of "Relatively few..." and there's no arguing with "he controlled the coutry very well" unless you were one of the countless human beings laying in an unmarked mass grave in the desert...An in depth biography of Sadam includes this:
Saddam Hussein
Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.
Saddam Hussein
Full name Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti. AKA 'Great Uncle', AKA 'Lion of Babylon', AKA 'Lion of Iraq', AKA 'Beast of Baghdad'. Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'.
Country: Iraq.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News7 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.