''But at least, he kept order'' : a fallacy ?

[sarahtasher]

Whenever there is a tragedy, like today, there are people who argumentation rest on ''if only Hussein/Khadaffi was still there, he would have kept order and we would not be in that mess''.

Of course, saying a generality like ''if Irak was not in a mess, it would be better for everyone (especially Iraqis, should I say)'' are quite accurate (and remarkably evident), but IMO the question is rather if Hussein/Khadaffi/Assad were actually keeping ''order''

In fact, as seen in Yugoslavia and countless order places, I would dare to say that ruthless repression only work to a certain degree against very sizable minorities. Yugoslavia did managed to make the whole concept vaguely acceptable to non-Serbs, but they also made concessions to the said non-Serbs (concession removed by Milosevic, cue to several unpleasanteries)

Considering what he done to Kurds, Shias (and a lot of Sunnis too, especially form his own family), it's very doubtful that Saddam would have died in his bed : the way he ''kept order'' (just repression, and running the country like a business owned by the Tikritis) was not keeping order...it was sowing the seeds of violent uprising.

TLDR : shooting terrorists is of course an absolute priority-but it's not by backing cloud cuckoolanders that such a goal is best achieved.

[Adam Jensen]

Saddam held Iraq tight in his hands for something like 24 years, a violent uprising wasn't going to happen.

Was he evil? Yes. Was he despicable? Yes. Did he get what he deserved? Yes. But in comparison to the chaos and violence that followed him, taking him out of power might not have been our best course of action.

Besides, our job is not to be world police and there are numerous Saddam-level dictators out there that were are very happily ignoring.

[Bathory]

Was he evil? Yes. Was he despicable? Yes. Did he get what he deserved? Yes. But in comparison to the chaos and violence that followed him, taking him out of power might not have been our best course of action.


Besides, our job is not to be world police and there are numerous Saddam-level dictators out there that were are very happily ignoring.

This. Especially after we were misled into going in there.

[McCulloch]

Saddam held Iraq tight in his hands for something like 24 years, a violent uprising wasn't going to happen.

Was he evil? Yes. Was he despicable? Yes. Did he get what he deserved? Yes. But in comparison to the chaos and violence that followed him, taking him out of power might not have been our best course of action.

Besides, our job is not to be world police and there are numerous Saddam-level dictators out there that were are very happily ignoring.

I agree with this entirely.

[sarahtasher]

Saddam held Iraq tight in his hands for something like 24 years, a violent uprising wasn't going to happen.

Was he evil? Yes. Was he despicable? Yes. Did he get what he deserved? Yes. But in comparison to the chaos and violence that followed him, taking him out of power might not have been our best course of action.

Besides, our job is not to be world police and there are numerous Saddam-level dictators out there that were are very happily ignoring.

As Saddam did not had a chinese copy of a Soviet export of the Golden Throne, he would have died at one point. And what I was trying to say what want Saddam did explain a lot of the current mess in Iraq.

[PACOX]

Saddam held Iraq tight in his hands for something like 24 years, a violent uprising wasn't going to happen.

Was he evil? Yes. Was he despicable? Yes. Did he get what he deserved? Yes. But in comparison to the chaos and violence that followed him, taking him out of power might not have been our best course of action.

Besides, our job is not to be world police and there are numerous Saddam-level dictators out there that were are very happily ignoring.

No, taking out was the best course of action. The problem was that the powers that took him out failed at restructuring.

The chaos was inevitable. See Syria. See half of Africa. See any country that has gone through a revolution/civil war.

[Rageroar]

After seeing how Syria has turned out. I'm 100% sure Assad is a better option than Isis. When we get involved it ends up with us being hated. So lets stop getting involved with trying to overthrow regimes. Lets be serious here to, no one cares about brutal dictators. The Shah of Iran was brutal, but he supported the west. Assad is allies with Iran and Russia, so of course we think hes evil. He actively runs a secular government in Syria, and protects christian minorities from islamic extremists. Its not even sure if he was the one using chemical weapons. https://www.rt.com/news/study-challe...al-attack-681/ Considering how absolutely inhumane and brutal Isis is, they would use them without hesitation.

- - - Updated - - -

No, taking out was the best course of action. The problem was that the powers that took him out failed at restructuring.

The chaos was inevitable. See Syria. See half of Africa. See any country that has gone through a revolution/civil war.

The thing is the civil war is caused by a sudden power vacuum. One where arguably worse groups fight for control. Revolution only works when the people rise up. When you overthrow your dictator to install a theocracy just as bad, thats not an improvement.

[sarahtasher]

RT on a regime allied to Russia give a whole new sense to the word ''reliable''.

- - - Updated - - -

After seeing how Syria has turned out. I'm 100% sure Assad is a better option than Isis. When we get involved it ends up with us being hated. So lets stop getting involved with trying to overthrow regimes. Lets be serious here to, no one cares about brutal dictators. The Shah of Iran was brutal, but he supported the west. Assad is allies with Iran and Russia, so of course we think hes evil. He actively runs a secular government in Syria, and protects christian minorities from islamic extremists. Its not even sure if he was the one using chemical weapons. https://www.rt.com/news/study-challe...al-attack-681/ Considering how absolutely inhumane and brutal Isis is, they would use them without hesitation.

- - - Updated - - -



The thing is the civil war is caused by a sudden power vacuum. One where arguably worse groups fight for control. Revolution only works when the people rise up. When you overthrow your dictator to install a theocracy just as bad, thats not an improvement.

Saying that ISIS is worse than Assad (TBH, it's really not a feat to be ''better than ISIS'') is accurate, but it does not change anything to the fact that Assad policies mightily helped to create the current mess.

[Rageroar]

RT on a regime allied to Russia give a whole new sense to the word ''reliable''.

- - - Updated - - -



Saying that ISIS is worse than Assad (TBH, it's really not a feat to be ''better than ISIS'') is accurate, but it does not change anything to the fact that Assad policies mightily helped to create the current mess.

Saying that RT is unreliable because they are allies is hilarious. So any US news source on the topic is just as unreliable because the US is against Assad. Also the study was done by MIT, not exactly a Russian institution.

[sarahtasher]

RT is never reliable at all. If they are told that X-regime is for Russia, they would write without an hesitation report about how their foes make sacrifices to Satan.

And RT use a very basic agitprop technique, used by truthers all the time : quote a real report, but make him says things that are not wrote there.

[Fugus]

Wish I agree that this wouldn't have happened under the former regime, I also say the former regime wouldn't have happened if we hadn't funded them to overthrow their previous rulers to create them in order to have a government sympathetic to us.

You didn't like Saddam Hussein, then our government shouldn't have put him in power. The area evidently was much better before we paid to overthrow it and put him in power.

You didn't like Osama Bin Laden, maybe we shouldn't have funded him either.

As much as I hate to say it, I see all this crap as decades of US policy coming to bite us in the ass.

[Rageroar]

RT is never reliable at all. If they are told that X-regime is for Russia, they would write without an hesitation report about how their foes make sacrifices to Satan.

And RT use a very basic agitprop technique, used by truthers all the time : quote a real report, but make him says things that are not wrote there.

http://web.mit.edu/sts/Analysis%20of...Syria%20CW.pdf

Direct link to the MIT study that raises the same concerns. The truth overall is why should American or European lives be lost to overthrow a dictator when the end result creates much more danger to the American and European people. The whole we have a duty to stop injustice is pure propaganda considering in Africa and even Allied countris like Saudia Arabia the human rights violations are just as bad if not worse. By overthrowing these dictators we have not made any allies in the region, but more enemies angry due to destabilization of the region. Rebuilding the areas don't work either, as the more influence you exert there, teh more extremism grows. We left Iraq not too early, but not early enough. We were there for over a decade and yet what did we accomplish?

[sarahtasher]

Wish I agree that this wouldn't have happened under the former regime, I also say the former regime wouldn't have happened if we hadn't funded them to overthrow their previous rulers to create them in order to have a government sympathetic to us.

You didn't like Saddam Hussein, then our government shouldn't have put him in power. The area evidently was much better before we paid to overthrow it and put him in power.

You didn't like Osama Bin Laden, maybe we shouldn't have funded him either.

As much as I hate to say it, I see all this crap as decades of US policy coming to bite us in the ass.

Neiher Bin Laden or Hussein were put in place by the US. Bin Laden was funded by Pakistan and Hussein was supported by the Soviet Union.

[RockmSockm]

We should pull everything back to America and Europe. Let the rest of the world fend for themselves. The western world does not have the stomach for war. The western world tries to rebuild areas. It is simply not worth the time and effort for the inevitable failure. People have to fix there own problems.

[Independent voter]

Saying that RT is unreliable because they are allies is hilarious. So any US news source on the topic is just as unreliable because the US is against Assad. Also the study was done by MIT, not exactly a Russian institution.

Russians want to keep Assad in power cause they have bases in Syria. If Russia didn't have bases, they could care less.

Iran wants to keep Assad in power cause both Assad's people and Iran are Shiites. ISSI is Sunni.

[tehealadin]

Whilst Saddam was no saint, and I am not sad that he is dead, from a view of human suffering, is the situation now better or worse? I'd argue that it was worse. I wasn't against deposing him as such, but the way that it was carried out created a situation much worse. Same in Libya. There didn't seem to be any thought as to what happens next, what groups will come out of the woodwork, what tensions could arise/resurface as part of this.

[Ravenblade]

As Saddam did not had a chinese copy of a Soviet export of the Golden Throne, he would have died at one point. And what I was trying to say what want Saddam did explain a lot of the current mess in Iraq.

Most dictators have a history of taking care of proper succession. Either that or the successor became more moderate within the scope of the social environment of the people.

[oxymoronic]

Saddam held Iraq tight in his hands for something like 24 years, a violent uprising wasn't going to happen.

Was he evil? Yes. Was he despicable? Yes. Did he get what he deserved? Yes. But in comparison to the chaos and violence that followed him, taking him out of power might not have been our best course of action.

Besides, our job is not to be world police and there are numerous Saddam-level dictators out there that were are very happily ignoring.

you don't know that

24 years is nothing... wtf are you thinking?

- - - Updated - - -

you have to remember... to the people saying everything would be great... they think everything was great when saddam/kadafi and others were in charge... aka idiots. why even question them?

- - - Updated - - -

Russians want to keep Assad in power cause they have bases in Syria. If Russia didn't have bases, they could care less.

Iran wants to keep Assad in power cause both Assad's people and Iran are Shiites. ISSI is Sunni.

so sunni is the good side right? cause everybody knows iran and assad is garbage.

[Flutterguy]

Unfortunately, the Bush Doctrine was abandoned when he left office, so we will never really know how well it could have worked out.

[Chetnik]

In fact, as seen in Yugoslavia and countless order places, I would dare to say that ruthless repression only work to a certain degree against very sizable minorities. Yugoslavia did managed to make the whole concept vaguely acceptable to non-Serbs, but they also made concessions to the said non-Serbs (concession removed by Milosevic, cue to several unpleasanteries)

WTF? You use Yugoslavia as an example? You realize Milosevic wasn't even president or prime minister of Yugoslavia? He was only president of Serbia (more specifically, the Serbian Communist Party), a state within Yugoslavia. Ante Markovic was the last prime minister and Milan Pancevski was the last president, and both of them had considerably more power than Milosevic. The only "repression" in Yugoslavia was under Tito, and most of us were fine with that because we had great quality of life.