The death of 3 U.S. service members is forcing President Joe Biden to weigh military action that could carry risks of escalation and heavy political consequences.
They often crumble from internal sectarian violence. Or get overrun by Russian sock-puppets barrel-bombing and using chemical weapons against their own people. But ah, yes, while I opposed the Iraq invasion, Saddam was clearly a great guy and Iraq was thriving, right? Or how about Iran? No bases there! I’m sure the women just love their bastion of freedom from their US overlords, lol.
Keep in mind though that there is no way of knowing how accurate official figures from the past were (this also goes for the numbers on human and economic development, of course). Also worth noting that the government itself could kill and maim with impunity back then:
I would admit that life in Iraq could be safer under Saddam Hussein compared to today, given that he kept a lid on especially religious conflicts, but this came with a big asterisk: Provided you didn’t run afoul of the regime or provided the regime didn’t think you did (no court of appeal, no independent judiciary, torture and murder are common - you can be the most loyal Baathist and still just be unlucky), provided you didn’t have a pretty daughter (or were one) in a place where Saddam’s son were looking for girls to rape, torture and murder, provided you weren’t a member of a persecuted ethnic group, provided you didn’t own something Saddam or his sons wanted from you, etc. The usual caveats of living under autocratic rule, with the added “insane son of dictator” factor (see also: what Kim Jong Il was up to in his younger days).
Power, opportunism, thirst for war, corruption (not oil though). Plenty of reasons for this war.
Your logic has a flaw though: It’s not like Saddam would have just stopped doing his thing in 2003 had he not been removed from power. The country was a powder keg anyway, so perhaps it would have ended up just like Syria eventually (I can’t imagine the Arab Spring leaving it alone) - or perhaps we would have seen another war between it and Iran. Another possibility would have been Iraq attacking a neighbor other than Iran again, perhaps at a time when they weren’t expecting a harsh American response (e.g. under a Democratic US presidency).
None of this excuses that Bush and Blair made up reasons to invade the country nor the incompetent handling of it afterwards that led to most of the up to one million dead post-Saddam, but let’s not pretend that everything would have been rosy had the second Gulf War not happened.
20 years more of Saddam rule? As much as the pretense for going into Iraq was bogus, the oppressed Shia population would beg to differ.
You’re the one who told me to look at countries that don’t coordinate with the US. I did. I’m not impressed. I look at countries like Germany today and by contrast, I am impressed. So are you impressed by Iran, Russia, North Korea? Or do you disagree with the likes of Jordan openly cooperating with the US to contain ISIS?
You can look at what happens to countries that don’t “coordinate”
They often crumble from internal sectarian violence. Or get overrun by Russian sock-puppets barrel-bombing and using chemical weapons against their own people. But ah, yes, while I opposed the Iraq invasion, Saddam was clearly a great guy and Iraq was thriving, right? Or how about Iran? No bases there! I’m sure the women just love their bastion of freedom from their US overlords, lol.
Iraq was better off before the invasion. Fact.
Also, do you think women get freedom when the US installs bases?
I don’t think this is a fact. Let’s look at a few metrics, starting with HDI:
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Iraq/human_development/
Infant mortality rate:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/infant-mortality-rate
GDP per capita (ignore the silly outlier):
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/gdp-per-capita
These basic figures suggest that a number of key aspects of life are indeed better than they were during the dictatorship.
The homicide rate is higher now:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/murder-homicide-rate
Keep in mind though that there is no way of knowing how accurate official figures from the past were (this also goes for the numbers on human and economic development, of course). Also worth noting that the government itself could kill and maim with impunity back then:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde14/003/1996/en/
Freedom of the press is still pretty abysmal these days (and the page also touches on what you were likely mentioning the instability):
https://rsf.org/en/country/iraq
A report from 2002 on the state of affairs under Saddam’s rule:
https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/press.html
I would admit that life in Iraq could be safer under Saddam Hussein compared to today, given that he kept a lid on especially religious conflicts, but this came with a big asterisk: Provided you didn’t run afoul of the regime or provided the regime didn’t think you did (no court of appeal, no independent judiciary, torture and murder are common - you can be the most loyal Baathist and still just be unlucky), provided you didn’t have a pretty daughter (or were one) in a place where Saddam’s son were looking for girls to rape, torture and murder, provided you weren’t a member of a persecuted ethnic group, provided you didn’t own something Saddam or his sons wanted from you, etc. The usual caveats of living under autocratic rule, with the added “insane son of dictator” factor (see also: what Kim Jong Il was up to in his younger days).
Up to one million people are dead because of the War on Iraq. You spit on their graves when you say life is better.
The upper estimates for the number of people killed under Saddam Hussein are about one million as well. Now what?
So America is about as bad as Saddam Hussein?
Then what was the fucking point? What did we do any of that for? Do you expect them to thank us?
Power, opportunism, thirst for war, corruption (not oil though). Plenty of reasons for this war.
Your logic has a flaw though: It’s not like Saddam would have just stopped doing his thing in 2003 had he not been removed from power. The country was a powder keg anyway, so perhaps it would have ended up just like Syria eventually (I can’t imagine the Arab Spring leaving it alone) - or perhaps we would have seen another war between it and Iran. Another possibility would have been Iraq attacking a neighbor other than Iran again, perhaps at a time when they weren’t expecting a harsh American response (e.g. under a Democratic US presidency).
None of this excuses that Bush and Blair made up reasons to invade the country nor the incompetent handling of it afterwards that led to most of the up to one million dead post-Saddam, but let’s not pretend that everything would have been rosy had the second Gulf War not happened.
Right, that just happened for no reason. Not like the US directly instigated the collapse of stability in the region. 🙄
Let’s not pretend I said that.
20 years more of Saddam rule? As much as the pretense for going into Iraq was bogus, the oppressed Shia population would beg to differ.
You’re the one who told me to look at countries that don’t coordinate with the US. I did. I’m not impressed. I look at countries like Germany today and by contrast, I am impressed. So are you impressed by Iran, Russia, North Korea? Or do you disagree with the likes of Jordan openly cooperating with the US to contain ISIS?
One of the dumbest fucking comments I’ve ever read on this platform…
Iraq can only finally start to recover now that it is asking the US military to leave.
Oh, but the US won’t leave. You okay with that too?
Yeah I am. Have you been there? They’re not ready… exhibit a: every article about US bombings this week…
They don’t want us there! What right do we have to decide if they are “ready”?
That’s some white man’s burden bullshit.