How can people still justify that the Gulf War was a "mistake"?

[Caolela]

He severely destabilized the region and was a constant threat to global trade since he had the capacity to threaten the flow of oil. ... Removed him as a threat to global trade ...

He wasn't a threat to any of that.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Saddam was boxed in by the northern & southern No-Fly Zones that were set up after the '91-'92 war. He couldn't have done anything if he'd wanted to, since the U.S. and allied military was in Iraq, guarding him every minute. Also, his military was quite weak and had not been rebuilt to any great level of threat since the war.





Thus, there was no legitimate reason whatsoever for the '03 invasion.

[Deleted]

Which is why US oil companies have such a large stake in Iraq's oil fields.

Ah come on this is so 1950. It's the 21th century Kellhound.

[Kellhound]

Ah come on this is so 1950. It's the 21th century Kellhound.

Perhaps you are thinking about the US' importation of a commanding 14% of Iraq's oil production?

[May90]

I don't like that the war occurred and it started under false pretenses AND it destabilized the region... But as shitty as all of that is, I still feel like getting rid of Saddam was a good thing...

People piss and moan about ISIL and the like, civil wars and what not... But that shit pales in comparison to Saddam... The guy massacred northern Kurdish for years... He killed hundreds of thousands of them...

He caused multiple wars that resulted in AT least hundreds of thousands of deaths, though some estimates put the Iraq-Iran war upwards of a million deaths...

And in the several decades he was in power his regime probably killed hundreds of thousands of people and imprisoned hundreds of thousands more maintaining power and suppressing dissent...

And the big one and probably the main reason we invaded... The guy was a loose cannon... He severely destabilized the region and was a constant threat to global trade since he had the capacity to threaten the flow of oil. They got a two for one deal out of that invasion... Removed him as a threat to global trade and gave a hefty nudge to Iran saying "look what happens when you do that..."

I think ISIS is a worse system than the one Saddam created. Saddam may have managed to kill more people than ISIS, but ISIS has been around for just a few years, while Saddam had been for, what, 24? Plus, Saddam owned an entire country, while ISIS is just a few dozen thousand people keeping some cities. Give ISIS Iraq - and Saddam will look like an innocent child, compared to what these guys would do.

That said, Saddam was nasty indeed. Regardless of anything else, it was a good riddance, and, from what I understand, few Iraqi people miss him. Few Iraqi people approve of the current situation either, but ask any of them, "Would you like Hussein to return?". The answer will be pretty clear. It was clear during the war as well, when Saddam's forces dropped their weapons en masse and abandoned the battlefield, demonstrating how much real support that guy really had.

[Deleted]

Perhaps you are thinking about the US' importation of a commanding 14% of Iraq's oil production?

I am thinking about the destabilization of a KEY country in the middle east. A large oil rich country stuck between syria and Iran, that would have allowed things like the "iran iraq syria" deal of 2011 (you know... just before the civil war) that would have brought gas to Europe's doorstep.
Why would you NEED oil. You need to CONTROL oil market not STEAL oil. this isnt 1850 Kellhound.

[Deleted]

As long as people avoid admitting that the Iraqi war against Iran was supported by the US and many other Western countries, this discussion is useless. Typical black and white thinking. "He was bad guy so the ends justified the means, no matter what happened afterwards or during his removal".

Seriously, most of the things Saddam did was tolerated or ven unoficially supported by the same powers that later used them as a cause to replace Saddam. That doesn't make him a saint, but even the invasion of Kuwait was done with the permission of the US - which they later rescinded.

Also the number of Iraqis that Saddam supposedly killed are ridicilously exaggerated.

Estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[9][10] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[11][12] (Wikipedia)

Half a million lifes is the number that the last invasion of Iraq cost.

Of course, this comparison is completely useless as an argument for either side. It doesn't make Saddam better or worse imo. But please, at least keep it factual.

[May90]

As long as people avoid admitting that the Iraqi war against Iran was supported by the US and many other Western countries, this discussion is useless. Typical black and white thinking. "He was bad guy so the ends justified the means, no matter what happened afterwards or during his removal".

Seriously, most of the things Saddam did was tolerated or ven unoficially supported by the same powers that later used them as a cause to replace Saddam. That doesn't make him a saint, but even the invasion of Kuwait was done with the permission of the US - which they later rescinded.

Well, such is world politics. It is dirty. The US government criticizes and sanctions Iran harshly, but they close their eyes on what's happening in Saudi Arabia, an even more Orwellian state - because Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally. I am not justifying anything, I just don't think one should be blamed for caring about their interests more than about others'. While I personally would like the politicians to be consistent and to not have double standards on everything, with the current world and political climate it is virtually impossible.

[Kellhound]

I am thinking about the destabilization of a KEY country in the middle east. A large oil rich country stuck between syria and Iran, that would have allowed things like the "iran iraq syria" deal of 2011 (you know... just before the civil war" that would have brought gas to Europe's doorstep.
Why would you NEED oil. You need to CONTROL oil market not STEAL oil. this isnt 1850 Kellhound.

Oh, you mean gas that would have broken Russia's strangle hold on supplying Europe? Dont see how that would be a bad thing for the US.

[Deleted]

Oh, you mean gas that would have broken Russia's strangle hold on supplying Europe? Dont see how that would be a bad thing for the US.

You dont see why that would be a bad thing for a gas exporting USA?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, such is world politics.

Ah... spoken like a true "realist".. lol.

[Caolela]

Ah, more of the endless and mindless pretzel logic of Merky and his merry pranksters.

[Kellhound]

You dont see why that would be a bad thing for a gas exporting USA?

The US doesnt export that much gas outside of North America, about .1% of US gas exports went out via ships in 2015.

[Deleted]

The US doesnt export that much gas outside of North America, about .1% of US gas exports went out via ships in 2015.

Dont play dumb Kellhound.

[Kellhound]

Dont play dumb Kellhound.

Nothing dumb about what I said. The US basically exports gas to Canada and Mexico. There is little likelihood that will ever change to include Eurasia in any significant amounts.

[Independent voter]

How can people still justify that the Gulf War was a "mistake"?


So once again an Iraq thread boils down to the foreigners saying "America, you bad" and the Americans saying "there are foreigners?"

[Deleted]

Nothing dumb about what I said. The US basically exports gas to Canada and Mexico. There is little likelihood that will ever change to include Eurasia in any significant amounts.

Your choice then Kelly.

- - - Updated - - -

How can people still justify that the Gulf War was a "mistake"?


So once again an Iraq thread boils down to the foreigners saying "America, you bad" and the Americans saying "there are foreigners?"

*pat* of course Hubcap. It's all about that. Well spotted.

[Kellhound]

Your choice then Kelly.

My choice to go with facts? Yes it is.

[Deleted]

So youve sent your fellow american brothers and sisters to die for no reason whatsoever apart helping a foreign country. Wouldnt that make the people responsible traitors?

[Caolela]

How can people still justify that the Gulf War was a "mistake"?

Jesus, you're back with more inane questions?? You know this has been destroyed, why are you so redundant?

[grexly75]

"on August 2, 1990, Iraq launched an invasion of Kuwait. The resulting international response led to the Persian Gulf War, which Iraq lost. The United Nations (U.N.) initiated economic sanctions in the war's aftermath to weaken the Ba'athist Iraqi government. The country's economic conditions worsened during the 1990s, and at the turn of the 21st century, Iraq's economy started to grow again as several states ignored U.N. sanctions. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks of 2001, the United States initiated a Global War on Terrorism, and labelled Iraq as a part of an "Axis of Evil". In 2003, U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq, and the Ba'athist Iraqi government was deposed less than a month later."

I'll change the title, but I don't see why everyone is nitpicking when it's basically the same shit.

Thing is George Bush Snr had the sense to get out when the job was done and that was to turf Iraq out of Kuwait of which they did.. The problem when the US went in the second time was to find WMD's that never even existed and to get Hussein.. Which was a big mistake as the dude that took over the job Nouri al-Maliki was so paranoid and pissed off so many people that was the start of how Isis began..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/rise-of-isis/ watch this and it will show how we got to where we are now..

[Synadrasa]

the Americans probably needed some jobs, wars create jobs, and maybe some rich individuals in the government wanted more money, contracts with the military and all that shit

You're so original in your views. Money = Bad, America = Bad, that must mean they did it because of money.