Kicking Sadaam Out - Good or Bad Thing?

[pdmike]

Even if you think it was wrong for us to go into Iraq in the first instance, and even if you think we should get out now, how do you feel about the fact that Sadaam Hussein has been relieved of power?
Isn't that a good thing?

Is there anything bad that can be said about us kicking Hussein out?

This may seem like a strange question, but I was in just such a discussion with a friend of mine this morning. I feel very strongly that we never should have gone to Iraq, yet I am hard pressed to find anything wrong with booting Sadaam.

Any thoughts on this?

pdmike

[Droopy]

1. The problem with ousting Saddam

is that it took at least 11,000 lives to do it. I don't think that number includes Iraqi soldiers. I don't think there's accurate numbers for them. Saddam did a lot of terrible things, but we dealt with him doing terrible things of our own. As far as the people who are living in Iraq goes, they are probably relieved to be rid of Hussein unless it cost them a family member to do it.

[Wonk]

5. Lest we forget, most of the terrible things Saddam did over the years were

measures to suppress the various radical Islamic factions (Shi'ites and Sunnis mostly) living in Iraq, and were done with tacit (and sometimes overt)



support of the US.

[StandUpGuy]

8. Was it not ultimately ...

The US's responsibility to remove the puppet they propped up after installing ?


What outrages me is the fact that it took over 1 million Iraqi lives over 14 yrs.

All this to minimize US casualties.

Shame

[Imperialism Inc.]

20. I hardly think that is a good argument.

It is our responsibility to not put him there in the first place. Since we couldn't be trusted to do the right thing then I see no reason why we should be trusted to do the right thing now. The US running around saying who should lead what country is the problem, not the solution.

[wuushew]

2. Bad

Even evil dictators eventually die. All we did was stir up the hornet nest. Oh well I guess everything is hunky dory now that we have the sweet sweet oil.

[iconoclastic cat]

3. He was a genocidal killer. But Chimpy did it for the worst reasons,

with the worst group behind him, and without any sort of consensus, support, or plan.

[ConsAreLiars]

4. "Booting Saddam" meant boosting Osama and Al Qaeda

Looking only at the ouster of Mr. Hussein in isolation is like arguing that cutting off an arm is a good thing because it got rid of a pesky hangnail. Sure hangnails are undesirable, but the treatment was worse than the problem.

[TahitiNut]

6. Let's see ...

About 20,000 innocent lives have been lost. The cost has been well over $100 billion. And the loss of lives and wasted money that could feed, shelter, cloth, and educate the needy everywhere ... will go on and on. Furthermore, there're probably ten to a hundred times more people ready to blow themselves up in order to kill Americans and collaborators.

Nope. Not worth it at all.
Hell, he could've probably been bribed for a few billion. :shrug:

[K-W]

7. Wrong question.

Has his removal made Iraqi's lives better? That is all that matters.

[Dangerman]

10. With a gun-toting shoot-at-insurgents-in-back-on-head Prime Minister...

Not to mention the remaining US forces and continuing prison torture and all-out turmoil in the country?

Are the Iraqis' lives better after Saddam?

Suuuuuure, they are.

[BlueEyedSon]

17. No, it is not the only thing that matters.

I thought reducing complex political issues to a 5 word soundbite was a RW specialty. :)

There is a big picture, which includes the stability of an entire region and the quality of life of US citizens - who are paying the highest military cost (in lives) and will eventually pick up the bill (in $$$).

There is the damage done to the media, which has been compelled to reach new lows in accracy and integrity in order to echo all of the bogus reasons for the war.

There is the political capital gained by the Bush administration vai phony patriotism stirred up by war.

There is the damage done to the US' image throughout the world, based on the invasion, war profiteering and Agu Ghraib atrocities.

Do we run off half cocked and intervene everywhere we counld "make life better" for some foreigners ('cause there are a lot of places we could)? Nope.

Try for a more complete cost/benefit analysis next time.

[babzilla]

9. Building Sadaam Up -- good or bad thing?

Let us recall the Iran Iraq war.
Who was our buddy then? Ask Rumsfeld.

Tis a pity to be a fairweather friend.
Surely it makes trouble ahead and many innocent lives destroyed in the meantime.

[JohnnyRingo]

11. Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron hand.....

....And now we need someone that can rule Iraq with an Iron hand

[jpgray]

12. Hard to say which method would cause more pain and suffering

Invading and removing him ourselves while killing many quickly, thus depriving the Iraqis the chance to grow into their own non-totalitarian form of government and nearly guaranteeing a long spell of delayed chaos.

OR

Letting Saddam and our own brutal sanctions waste the country away for a few more decades, causing death and suffering on a more gradual but nonetheless depressing scale.

[eridani]

13. Allawi is the same as Saddam

A 'strong' ruler, obedient to the US, as Saddam used to be before he got uppity.

Does the name Marcos mean anything to you? Ceausescu? Pahlavi? People have been known to overthrow their own dictators without destroying libraries and hospitals and throwing depleted uranium and cluster bombs all over the place.

[0rganism]

14. The Iraqis needed to do it themselves

The right time to remove Saddam was during the post-GW1 uprising, when the Shi'a and Kurds would have toppled him with American backing, while the republican guard was weakened and in full retreat. Instead, after promising support to the rebels, our gov't betrayed them and enabled Saddam to persist in the name of "regional stability". Hundreds of thousands died in the "sanctions regime" years that followed.

We sold out the anti-Saddam revolution 13 years ago.

It's a fine thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer the dictator of Iraq. It's not such a fine thing that we've become villains in the process.

[eridani]

15. They didn't even need American backing

All they needed was for the US to NOT intervene on the side of Saddam.

[0rganism]

16. you're probably right about that

In any case, the result would have been the best natural outcome we could hope for from the artificial nation called Iraq, a result we're likely to see eventually whether we like it or not. We propped up Saddam in the name of preventing the terrorism and civil war that are coming into bloom even now.

[leftofthedial]

18. way too high a cost

and we replaced him with chaos

[Disturbed]

The Sanctions would have ended.

If Hans Blix would have been allowed to continue the inspection for WMDs a few more months it would have been concluded what David Kay concluded. No WMDs. The sanctions would have been lifted. It has been said that Saddam then would have insisted upon selling Iraq's oil via Euros. This would have cause an upset in the US.

Was it worth what it has cost so far in lives and money? Can we know that for a few years?

How many more US and Iraqi lives will be lost before the US Govt. be it Bush Admin. or Kerry Admin. before the American people demand that the US lieave Iraqi to solve it's own desinty?

[wellst0nev0ter]

19. Removing Saddam Hussein Was Objectively The Wrong Choice

But don't take MY word for it, ask the GAO.

"In a few key areas - electricity, the judicial system and
overall security - the Iraq that America handed back to its residents
Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to
calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday."

<snip>

"-In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per
day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's
26 million people live in those provinces.


-Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to
rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent.
The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry
operations.


-The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges
are frequent targets of assassination attempts.


-The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are
suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.


-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority
called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to
1,169 in May."

<snip>

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9041465.htm

[Darranar]

21. A good thing....

but context is essential in evaluating any act, and considering the fact that a destructive, murderous war was launched to remove him, and a repressive, unelected puppet government has been inserted to replace him, it cannot be considered a good development, taking everything into account.