If Saddam Had Stayed

[BeAChooser]

It was a huge investment of blood and treasure for no measurable gain for the US.

It's almost like you didn't read the OP.

 

[willhaven]

Saddam with a nuclear weapon isn't much of a threat to the US. Iran with a nuclear weapon is more of a threat to the US given their religious ideology. Even then, Iran isn't that worrying to me.

Not worth a trillion+ dollars and 4400+ lives. We desperately need that money and those lives could have been better spent in other pursuits.

 

[Virus]

Saddam with a nuclear weapon isn't much of a threat to the US. Iran with a nuclear weapon is more of a threat to the US given their religious ideology. Even then, Iran isn't that worrying to me.

Not worth a trillion+ dollars and 4400+ lives. We desperately need that money and those lives could have been better spent in other pursuits.

A completely unhinged madman with a nuclear weapon. What could go wrong?

This comes from a guy who just said he'd let Islamists take control of a quarter of the world's oil supply.

 

[BeAChooser]

Not worth a trillion+ dollars and 4400+ lives. We desperately need that money and those lives could have been better spent in other pursuits.

Like I said, it's almost like you didn't bother to even read the OP. Because, like I noted, a good case can be made that with Saddam and his sons in power, and supporting terrorism in one form or another, it would have cost America a trillion+ dollars and 4400+ lives anyway ... somewhere ... sometime.

 

[willhaven]

A completely unhinged madman with a nuclear weapon. What could go wrong?

In the case of North Korea, not much. At least not yet. In the case of Iraq, we'll never know. In the case of Iran, we may know soon. My guess if it happens? Not much.

Like I said, it's almost like you didn't bother to even read the OP. Because, like I noted, a good case can be made that with Saddam and his sons in power, and supporting terrorism in one form or another, it would have cost America a trillion+ dollars and 4400+ lives anyway ... somewhere ... sometime.

We'll never know, will we? The only thing we know for sure is we're damn capable of doing it ourselves.

 

[Toontown]

In the case of North Korea, not much. At least not yet.

Virus did not ask you what has gone wrong with NK yet. Besides, it's too small a sample and too short a time to derive any meaningful data on the long term behavior of kooks with nukes.

Actually, it would be better if we do not derive that data. Because we don't know what the data is going to tell us - the hard way.

Look at it this way. You might be curious as to what a 4yo child might do with a loaded shotgun. But it's probably better not to find out. Because of the way you might find out.

In the case of Iraq, we'll never know.

As explained above, that's the whole point. We didn't want to know a whole lot about Saddam's hypothetical future behaviors. We decided it was better to terminate his future behaviors.

In the case of Iran, we may know soon. My guess if it happens? Not much.

I don't know how to begin to describe to you how little respect I have for your guess, so I won't even try, except for a derisive comment on the feasibility of foreign-policy-by-Willhaven-guess.

We'll never know, will we? The only thing we know for sure is we're damn capable of doing it ourselves.

Er...right. That was the whole point, see. Not to find out what it would be like to leave the freakishly evil Hussein family in sole possession of a fourth of earth's oil supply.

We found out pretty much what did happen while the Husseins were the Big Oil Monkeys. It wasn't pretty. We didn't wanna see no more.

Oil is power, see. And sometimes you just don't want certain people to have that much power.

Jeezus freaking christ. I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this. Again. For, like, the thousandth time. It's like talking to a herd of rocks.

 

[leftysergeant]

A completely unhinged madman with a nuclear weapon. What could go wrong?

We just had eight years of that here.

This comes from a guy who just said he'd let Islamists take control of a quarter of the world's oil supply.

When did Iraq's oil become OUR oil supply?

Typical right winger attitude. "It's MINE! MINE! MY OIL! MY MONEY! WAAAAAH!"'

 

[willhaven]

Look at it this way. You might be curious as to what a 4yo child might do with a loaded shotgun. But it's probably better not to find out. Because of the way you might find out.

Then again, I wouldn't travel halfway around the world and spend half of my money to stop it from happening. It just isn't my problem and I have bigger things to worry about.

If that 4 year old lived in my home, that might be another story.

Regardless, that's a bad analogy.

I don't know how to begin to describe to you how little respect I have for your guess, so I won't even try, except for a derisive comment on the feasibility of foreign-policy-by-Willhaven-guess.

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Er...right. That was the whole point, see. Not to find out what it would be like to leave the freakishly evil Hussein family in sole possession of a fourth of earth's oil supply.

So is it about WMDs or oil supply? Both?

If it's more about the oil supply, that's why we helped out Kuwait with the backing of the UN. There wasn't a threat to the oil supply in 2003.

 

[Toontown]

We just had eight years of that here.

Ooooo. Clever. I see what you did there.

When did Iraq's oil become OUR oil supply?

It never did. We wrested the oil from Saddam's sweaty grasp and gave it to the Iraqis. We preferred that they have it, rather than the creepy Hussein family.

Typical right winger attitude. "It's MINE! MINE! MY OIL! MY MONEY! WAAAAAH!"'

Typical left winger attitude: "It was SADDAM's oil! HE was born on top of it, and then HE SEIZED IT, fair and square! HE was the Sovereign Inviolate! By INTERNATIONAL LAW! If you seize a country, you own it. Lock, stock, and barrel. Er...but only if you're born in it! Because....er...

...Whatever....It was always all about HIM!"

But the Saudis' oil should be seized, of course. Lefties say that all the time. You've said it yourself. And we know why lefties say that, don't we. It's because the Saudis are compliant with the US, and really aren't a threat. That's it, isn't it, Leftie.

 

[Toontown]

Then again, I wouldn't travel halfway around the world and spend half of my money to stop it from happening. It just isn't my problem and I have bigger things to worry about.

If that 4 year old lived in my home, that might be another story.

Regardless, that's a bad analogy.

It's a bad analogy now that you've conveniently placed the 4yo a safe distance away, thereby making it your analogy, not mine.

Don't try to twist up an analogy and then foist it off on me. The only way you get away with that is if I happen not to notice you did it.

But this time I noticed. So. Based on YOUR analogy, as long as the little tyke is a safe distance away, it's bye bye baby, as far as you're concerned?

And how far is a safe distance from kooks with nukes?

See, that's the problem with twisting up an analogy and then failing to successfully foist it off on someone else. You end up stuck with it.

Oh, and I did a little checking. It turns out that a trillion divided by 8 years is nowhere near half our money. It is enough, however, to put a small dent in our cosmetic and clothing allowance. Oh, the horror.

Oh, and 4400 American dead is roughly equivalent to a 45 day death toll due to auto accidents. I haven't checked to see how it stacks up against the annual bathtub-drowning death toll, which could turn out to be truly horrendous.

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Resulting in world wars I and II. Perhaps an "entangling alliance" or two might have been in order. Oh, and just because they smile in your face and trade with you, doesn't necessarily mean they're your honest friends. It's more complicated than that.

So is it about WMDs or oil supply? Both?.

Oooooo, clever response!

Both. And several other considerations. Oh, was I supposed to be afraid to say both?

If you really want to know what it was all about, you could try reading some of the resolutions and speeches by people like Clinton, Bush, and Blair (in Clinton's case, when he was for it before he was against it). Then you might get a clue or two. It was mostly their doing, you know. Mikey "Fatboy" Moore didn't really have anything to do with it or have any concept of what it was all about. He just made a lot of money feeding the leftie political junkies talking points about it.

If it's more about the oil supply, that's why we helped out Kuwait with the backing of the UN. There wasn't a threat to the oil supply in 2003.

Yes there was a threat to the oil supply. UNSCR 1441 was about restoring "peace and stability in the area", as plainly stated therein. Thus it cannot be rationally claimed that the Security Council believed peace and stability existed in the area at the time. So, as useless as the SC is much of the time, they did once serve the purpose of rebutting your claim that there was no threat to the oil supply.

At any rate, it wasn't entirely about securing the oil supply, and I wasn't talking about securing the oil supply. I was talking about the genocidal Chapter VII Hussein family, and how much sense it made to let them keep all that vast wealth and power. What had they done with it so far? Were they getting any smarter, or any more rational, or any less genocidal?

But nevermind. As you've stated, that's all outside your small caring sphere. Frankly, I don't see why you're even discussing the matter. You don't care. Remember?

 

[Virus]

If you really want to know what it was all about, you could try reading some of the resolutions and speeches by people like Clinton, Bush, and Blair (in Clinton's case, when he was for it before he was against it). Then you might get a clue or two.

I think the number of born-again evangelicals well-versed in Richard Dawkins is greater than the number of radical leftists well-versed in what Bush and Blair actually said.

 

[Toontown]

I think the number of born-again evangelicals well-versed in Richard Dawkins is greater than the number of radical leftists well-versed in what Bush and Blair actually said.

I think you're right.

Nor do they need to be well-versed in any of that. That's all outside their caring sphere.

The peanut gallery needs peanuts, not expensive black walnut meats. They need something cheap, of a nutty nature, that they can throw.

 

[DC]

born-again evangelicals well-versed in Richard Dawkins

Considering how well versed they are in missunderstadning evolution and the big bang , it is very doubtful they are well versed in anything other than the bible..... and a lot not even there....

 

[willhaven]

But this time I noticed. So. Based on YOUR analogy, as long as the little tyke is a safe distance away, it's bye bye baby, as far as you're concerned?

If I have to spend my fortune and lose a family member in the process, yes. Not my problem.

And how far is a safe distance from kooks with nukes?

In order for me to be worried about a country with nukes, they need to be able to reach the US and they need enough to be able to annihilate us. To my knowledge, the only other country who ever reached that level of armament is Russia.

Iraq was a long way off from being a real nuclear threat. North Korea is more of a threat and they're not really much to worry about to be honest.

Oh, and I did a little checking. It turns out that a trillion divided by 8 years is nowhere near half our money. It is enough, however, to put a small dent in our cosmetic and clothing allowance. Oh, the horror.

1/2, 1/4, 1/10, 1/100. A dollar spent to kill people we don't need to kill is too much.

Oh, and 4400 American dead is roughly equivalent to a 45 day death toll due to auto accidents. I haven't checked to see how it stacks up against the annual bathtub-drowning death toll, which could turn out to be truly horrendous.

And all of them, 100% unnecessary.

Oh, and just because they smile in your face and trade with you, doesn't necessarily mean they're your honest friends. It's more complicated than that.

Of course. I still think preemptive war isn't necessary.

Oooooo, clever response!

Both. And several other considerations. Oh, was I supposed to be afraid to say both?

If you really want to know what it was all about, you could try reading some of the resolutions and speeches by people like Clinton, Bush, and Blair (in Clinton's case, when he was for it before he was against it). Then you might get a clue or two. It was mostly their doing, you know. Mikey "Fatboy" Moore didn't really have anything to do with it or have any concept of what it was all about. He just made a lot of money feeding the leftie political junkies talking points about it.

The war was sold mainly on the premise of WMDs and Saddam's connections with terrorism. Neither of which existed to any worrying degree to reasonable people. Without those two, the war would not have happened.

I was talking about the genocidal Chapter VII Hussein family, and how much sense it made to let them keep all that vast wealth and power. What had they done with it so far? Were they getting any smarter, or any more rational, or any less genocidal?

But nevermind. As you've stated, that's all outside your small caring sphere. Frankly, I don't see why you're even discussing the matter. You don't care. Remember?

I care when lives and money are wasted on problems that are not ours to begin with.

 

[Virus]

You don't care about a genocidal fascist regime ruling Iraq. But you seem to care an awful lot about that genocidal fascist regime getting stomped and replaced with free elections.

Do you want to scrap the genocide convention? After all, it's none of our business is it?

 

[Augustine]

If I have to spend my fortune and lose a family member in the process, yes. Not my problem.

Iraq War spending accounted for approximately 3.2% of all federal spending according to CBO analysis. Not a fortune. Approximately 1/200 of 1% (0.005%) of American families lost a family member in Iraq. 99.995% of American families did not. So your conditionals are not correct.

The war was sold mainly on the premise of WMDs and Saddam's connections with terrorism. Neither of which existed to any worrying degree to reasonable people. Without those two, the war would not have happened.

I would suggest you take the time to read Public Law 107-243. This may explain to you why military force was authorized in Iraq by a bipartisan vote.

 

[Praktik]

You don't care about a genocidal fascist regime ruling Iraq. But you seem to care an awful lot about that genocidal fascist regime getting stomped and replaced with free elections.

Yep that's it I don't care about genocidal fascist maniacs and I hate freedom.

My moral compass is hopelessly skewed and I also like to abuse puppies.

 

[Toontown]

In order for me to be worried about a country with nukes, they need to be able to reach the US and they need enough to be able to annihilate us. To my knowledge, the only other country who ever reached that level of armament is Russia.

You are a veritable Alfred E. Neumann.

Who do you think you're kidding? Nothing short of the prospect of total anhilation worries you?

Then why are you all tore up about a little tiny dust-up like Iraq?

Iraq was a long way off from being a real nuclear threat. North Korea is more of a threat and they're not really much to worry about to be honest.

and now Iraq is even further away from being a nuclear threat. And now a single genocidal, bloodthirsty family no longer owns a fourth of the world's oil.

North Korea just proves that even the dictators of small, impoverished, famine-wracked countries can obtain nukes when aided by a sufficient amount of apathy and stupidity, of which there is no shortage in monkeyworld.

1/2, 1/4, 1/10, 1/100. A dollar spent to kill people we don't need to kill is too much.

You haven't made any case that there was no need to overthrow Saddam. And what little you have is nothing but selective hindsight, and you're wrong about that too.

Unlike world leaders like Clinton, Bush, and Blair, who did make compelling cases, and did not have the crutch of selective hindsight to lean on.

Of course. I still think preemptive war isn't necessary.

Early preemptive action against Hitler, rather than dumb apathy followed by desperate tardy appeasement, could have prevented the conflagration in Europe and saved the lives of tens of millions.

But you're right. Preemptive war is not necessary. You can let events take their course. You can take the first punch, which, in the case of France, was a knockout punch. You can appease, you can even make a pact, as the Soviets did with the Nazis. And you might even survive your grievious error. The resulting rain of Nazi punches on the Soviets' stupid heads amazingly didn't knock them out. The blow the Japanese landed on the US jaw at Pearl almost laid the west coast of the US bare, and would have if the US carriers had been there.

I wouldn't want to take those punches. But you can do whatever. It's your head.

The war was sold mainly on the premise of WMDs and Saddam's connections with terrorism. Neither of which existed to any worrying degree to reasonable people. Without those two, the war would not have happened.

A small amount of sarin in the hands of terrorists is enough to kill thousands and worry millions of "reasonable people". However, the Alfred E. Neumanns will remain unpurturbed.

And now, for the umpteenth time:

Saddam was himself a terrorist, with 2 million scalps on his belt, who made al Qaeda look like children playing with toys. He used terror to sieze an entire country and hold on to power for 30 years. He used terror to destabilize and terrorize an entire region. He made and used WMD on an industrial scale. At one point, he was within a year of producing a nuke. He owned an entire country and a fourth of the earth's oil. He already had half the UN corrupted with his bribes. He was working to get the sanctions lifted. It was just common sense to temporarily get rid of the WMD, which could always be reconstituted.

Bribe some countries, politikers, and UN officials. Get the sanctions lifted. Wait a little while for the world's short attention span to wander, and suddenly it makes no difference whatsoever that there was no WMD at the time of the invasion, as if that ever mattered. Because in this scenario, the one you prefer, there was no invasion, and now the bloody Ba'aths with their reconstituted WMD are back in the saddle again, riding hard. But wiser and sneakier this time.

And everybody would be wanting to string Bush up for not taking Saddam out when he had the chance.

So your way results in no essential difference. Hussein family still in power with WMD and bad intentions, everybody yelling for Bush's scalp. Status quo ante.

But the Clinton/Bush/Blair way, everything is different. There is no WMD in the hands of a tyrannical Chapter VII regime. There is no Hussein dynasty. Bush is back at the ranch. There is now a fledgeling democratic republic in the cradle of human civilization, where the bloody Hussein dynasty once stood.

To me, that looks like a faltering step in what is at least a different direction from the usual status quo which has only led to war after war after war. Your way looks like just another pustule on the already pockmarked face of humanity.

You see it your way. I see it my way.

 

[willhaven]

Who do you think you're kidding? Nothing short of the prospect of total anhilation worries you?

Then why are you all tore up about a little tiny dust-up like Iraq?

Why would it worry me? We don't have any country seriously threatening to attack or invade the US. Even if they were so inclined, very few would have the capability to do so in any meaningful way.

Why am I worried about Iraq? Because it was needless.

and now Iraq is even further away from being a nuclear threat. And now a single genocidal, bloodthirsty family no longer owns a fourth of the world's oil.

And we may have radicalized a generation of Iraqi youth in the process.

You haven't made any case that there was no need to overthrow Saddam. And what little you have is nothing but selective hindsight, and you're wrong about that too.

Unlike world leaders like Clinton, Bush, and Blair, who did make compelling cases, and did not have the crutch of selective hindsight to lean on.

I was always against the war from day one. I always knew that Iraq wasn't a radical Islamic government that would ally themselves with Al Qaeda.

Early preemptive action against Hitler, rather than dumb apathy followed by desperate tardy appeasement, could have prevented the conflagration in Europe and saved the lives of tens of millions.

Hindsight. It's better to wait to act and always be in the right by defending yourself than to preemptively act and be wrong as we were with Iraq.

A small amount of sarin in the hands of terrorists is enough to kill thousands and worry millions of "reasonable people". However, the Alfred E. Neumanns will remain unpurturbed.

It wasn't incredibly effective in the hands of terrorists in Tokyo. Also, Iraq wasn't known to have any relevant stockpiles of sarin before the invasion or after. A few remnants were found after the invasion and were believed to be from around the time of the Iran-Iraq war. With a shelf life of ~5yrs, even if they had once contained sarin and were just left as they were, they would have been ineffective.

Iraq was not a threat to the US and would not have been an ally with Al Qaeda. Tariq Aziz definitely agrees with the latter.

 

[Praktik]

Besides, no one in the West minded the chemical weapons when they were used against targets we also didn't like, such as the Iranians...

I'm with ya Willhaven - I just don't see much gain to have come out of the Iraq War. Even if there was some gain, I don't see a trillion dollars worth of gain - not even counting what externalities/blowback may be waiting in the decades to come.

From an insulated Western perch, I can see how others might argue with me. But often what's missing from war supporters is any understanding of the perspective of Iraqis themselves, whose opinions on the war and whether it was "worth it" surely count more than American voices. When the costs to Americans are largely disconnected from any personal loss (aside from those with dead or wounded loved ones) I think its easy to say that it was worth it.

Not so much for Iraqis who have to pay a much steeper price in blood, health and livelihood for nearly a decade now.