Anyone lamenting the departure/loss of Saddam Hussein?
Take all the other stuff off the table (WMD, U.N. this, Rumsfeld that, your stance on war, military, Hollywood, Dixie Chicks, bin Laden, etc.) and just pare it down to that one specific thing:
Is Saddam being out of the picture a negative in any way? Is there a situation or scenario where leaving him there would've been a good thing? I ask this only because it seems to get shuffled out of the picture a bit when talk about the other stuff above enters in.
This isn't a sideways poke or a "troublemaking" thread at all. I'm genuinely curious and asking that specific question.
Is Saddam being out of the picture a negative in any way? Is there a situation or scenario where leaving him there would've been a good thing? I ask this only because it seems to get shuffled out of the picture a bit when talk about the other stuff above enters in.
This isn't a sideways poke or a "troublemaking" thread at all. I'm genuinely curious and asking that specific question.
Comments
Whether that is something the USA wants to do is something entirely different.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I think everyone, even in the mid-east, is happy to see him go. I was just a question in a lot of people's minds of the lesser of two or more evils: Hussein vs. the USA, Hussein vs. free Kurds, Hussein vs. the Shia magority, etc. I think people were afraid of changing the status quo given the potential consequences of his toppling.
The status quo sucked. Nay, the word "sucked" does not even begin to plumb the depths of just how truly depraved was the status quo...
who else does the public despise as much as saddam? sure there are other dictators, and certainly they have committed grave attrocities but i dont know them by name and certainly neither do the majority of people out there. so i am going to miss old saddam, and the myth of kurdistan and the safety in knowing that there is only one boogey man out there and i know his number and name...
here's to hoping that the next dictator doesnt have too many consonants in his name, sheesh...
bruce
Originally posted by Timo
How could anyone wish for him to still be in power?
Well...
I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I've wondered.
Originally posted by pscates
Is Saddam being out of the picture a negative in any way?
The same was asked of the Taliban when we ousted them. In their absence a new set of problems have arisen. Are they better or worse? I think probably worse in the short term but will ultimately (if we don't pull support) will end up much better.
A similar scenario is possible in Iraq. In the absence of a strong central government some chaos will ensue (and I'm not just talking about looting.) There could be a civil war because of this, although it wouldn't happen while we're there. And ultimately if it does we would probably go back to stop it to protect the oil.
- do you miss Attila ?
- do you miss Hitler ?
- do you miss Staline, polpot, pinochet ...?
Pscates, do not take us for idiots, your question have a sense, i will traduce it : why do you complain for this war, everyone is happy that Saddam have been removed from power.
Sliding off topic a bit...
And how about Osama? Why haven't we snagged him? He has about 22 offspring too. What about them?
Also, we (well, the Yemen authorities) lost the captured head and associates of the Cole bombing. Seems the bathroom window in the maximum security prison was left open and they escaped...
There must be a Terrorist Club Med in Syria or Lybia...
Misunderstood.
"They say that I'm a bad guy; they may be right, they may be right ...
But it's not as if I don't try, I just **** up, try as I might!"
I don't know what happened to you recently pscates ...
Originally posted by bunge:
The same was asked of the Taliban when we ousted them. In their absence a new set of problems have arisen. Are they better or worse? I think probably worse in the short term but will ultimately (if we don't pull support) will end up much better.
Good assessment.
Originally posted by Harald:
Saddam, what a lovely guy.
Misunderstood.
Sounds like an old nature show, "The Great wWhite Shark: Our Misunderstood Friend."
As you no doubt know, I'm quite capable of asking a question - or making a statement - directly and bluntly, so you misread this one.
Harald, see above. Nothing has "happened to me".
Knowing what he was and things he did just didn't seem to be a reason for so many. I was confused because in other cases and scenarios we've done things on those grounds and people all seemed to agree with it a bit more.
So I asked: why Hussein? Is there something about him that shielded him a bit or made some comfortable in letting him continue on his way?
So, no weird motive, Powerdoc. And, no, I don't take anyone for "idiots".
Harald, as for you post...I don't even know what you're talking about. I never implied that Saddam WASN'T bad or a problem. When I'm being sarcastic or silly, you'll know it...it's obvious. I also never said others necessarily think that, but it does lead me ask the questions above.
This is classic leftist thinking with regard to the Iraq policy, beautifully outlined in Noam Chomsky's 2000 lecture on the hypocrisy of the US human rights policy, mainly our support of foreign despots, particular focus on Hussein.
(This is the same 2000 lecture where the venerable Noam predicts a drastic oil crisis in the "not-too-distant future".)
For a decade or longer the savagery of Hussein was used as a weapon against the US policy, but now that the US administration brings that savagery up they downplay the significance.
Not only are we supposed to ignore that to buy the leftist-intelligentsia anti-war line, but we're also supposed to ignore that the logic has done a complete 180. Where for a decade they lectured us about how we were keeping Saddam in power to protect our oil interests our only goal now was to oust Saddam protect our oil interests.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, indeed.
There's also the famous quote "When the oil price rises above $30 a barrel, Saddam Hussein will be treated like Mother Teresa." from William Aikens (former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia) which has turned out to be a total farce.
--
A short year ago ousting Saddam was never going to happen because we wanted to maintain "stability" and protect our oil interests.
Now we're ousting Saddam to maintain stability and protect our oil interests.
Doncha think?
Might there be something you're missing here?
------
Why on earth would anyone lament the departure of Saddam Hussein if you remove every single factor that complicates the issue?
(sobbing quietly now) I...I miss him so much it hurts. Trying to hold myself together, but it's SO difficult!
[which one of you moderating bastards blocked image links to Crack's smilies? HUH?! Now how am I supposed to finish the joke?]
With THIS
I don't think so. Not somber enough.
THIS?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Why on earth would anyone lament the departure of Saddam Hussein if you remove every single factor that complicates the issue?
Because that, my good man, is what I do
Awww, moogs...I ain't no "fancy pants". And I'm barely a Republican!
(And if some of its leadership doesn't grow a pair and begin to take on the Dems in the same cutthroat, take-no-prisoners and forceful manner the Dems do the GOP, I'm NOT going to be a Republican much longer...weakness and timidity really irk me, especially when they've got SO much ammo. Uh, figuratively speaking, of course)
Originally posted by groverat
The argument for years...
This folks, is called the 'set up'. It's the birth of a beautiful straw man argument. This poster will graciously tell us what the opposition thinks (set up) and then, even more graciously, go into detail about how terrible of a position it is that the opposition takes (knock it down.)
That's a text book straw man.
Never mind no one here is or has done anything that exists in this poster's 'set up', because reality has no place in the straw man argument.
Originally posted by bunge
This folks, is called the 'set up'. It's the birth of a beautiful straw man argument. This poster will graciously tell us what the opposition thinks (set up) and then, even more graciously, go into detail about how terrible of a position it is that the opposition takes (knock it down.)
the knock down
Originally posted by bunge
Never mind no one here is or has done anything that exists in this poster's 'set up', because reality has no place in the straw man argument.
That's a text book straw man.
Originally posted by bunge
That's a text book straw man.
This being the third of bunge's post that I've read with no rebuttal other than a straw man, I hereby declare the straw man to be bunge's own personal straw man.
(edited to make more sense)
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Why on earth would anyone lament the departure of Saddam Hussein if you remove every single factor that complicates the issue?
Sometimes (nay, often) asking simple if perhaps academic questions like this can make the apparently difficult refreshingly clear. The world is a complex place, it's not necessarily complicated.
PS: The law should have dealt with Saddam Hussein a long time ago. As far as I'm concerned, this was about 30 years overdue. I think the way the law was enforced was pathetic on all sides. Justice, however, has been served at least. I'm not totaly happy about how everything went down, but I go back to that first paragraph, and I'm feeling OK.