Europe submits voluntarily

[arkirk]

Saddam had plenty of weapons, I understand (and may be wrong) the Oil for food program provided 33 cents for each man woman and child.

He had plenty of some weapons. He didn't have other weapons he wanted.

And the exact amount of the oil-for-food dollars is irrelevant--that's only to import what wasn't produced locally, it wasn't the total of what people ate.

Despite is barbarity before the invasion, Iraq much worse off then before.

Agreed. Saddam kept a cap on the Islam-vs-Islam battles. Now they rage and are far worse for the people than Saddam was.

If we are looking at the taking over of Iraq, the US acted sloppily. Instead of removing the entire army and putting many into opposition, it could have retained the army and civil services with its appointed puppet at the fore. You will find this in Sun Tze(it is best to capture an army intact) and also this is the way the former colonialists operated.

The problem is that the army was not acceptable to the people at large--it was a tool of oppression of the majority. There were no good answers.

There is no evidence Saddam particularly wanted his people to suffer for something that was already causing this.

He wanted his people to suffer to make the sanctions look bad on the evening news to get them lifted. Suffering wasn't the goal, but merely a means to an end.

Your post is telling us what goes on in other people's heads when in fact you REALLY DON'T KNOW. You are making assertions that are just repetitions of Bush's talking points and are simply denials of what whichphilosophy said. You do so without supporting data.

 

[untermensche]

You are right.

You ignoring facts won't change them.

Not seeing that the massive US invasion of Iraq is a major cause of current unrest, and the real immorality in all of this, is to be blind.

You don't think that Saddam is the root cause of the current unrest?

No. He had absolutely nothing to do with them.

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

 

[Jayjay]

You don't think that Saddam is the root cause of the current unrest?

No. He had absolutely nothing to do with them.

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

So how do you explain the mass graves with dead Shia from Saddam's reign? Are these planted by Bremer also, or maybe the Shia just had a massive slip in the shower one day?

 

[untermensche]

No. He had absolutely nothing to do with them.

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

So how do you explain the mass graves with dead Shia from Saddam's reign? Are these planted by Bremer also, or maybe the Shia just had a massive slip in the shower one day?

Those were people who rose up against Hussein after the first Gulf war, when the US ruled the skies of Iraq. In fact Hussein never regained control of the skies of Iraq after the first Gulf War.

The US allowed Hussein to crush that uprising when it could have prevented it, or supported it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

I explained exactly how Saddam fuelled sectarian conflicts in the post you are responding to. What was wrong with my description of it?

He kept them in check with his secret police. He made sure they'd hate each other too much to unite against him. I find it pretty shocking that anybody is this fucking clueless on Saddam/fascism.

 

[Jayjay]

No. He had absolutely nothing to do with them.

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

So how do you explain the mass graves with dead Shia from Saddam's reign? Are these planted by Bremer also, or maybe the Shia just had a massive slip in the shower one day?

Those were people who rose up against Hussein after the first Gulf war, when the US ruled the skies of Iraq. In fact Hussein never regained control of the skies of Iraq after the first Gulf War.

The US allowed Hussein to crush that uprising when it could have prevented it, or supported it.

In what sense is not a Shia uprising against their Sunni oppressors, or Saddam crushing that uprising not sectarian violence? And do you honestly think that the Shia discontent just suddenly appeared when US imposed no-fly zones, and had nothgn to do with the sectarian oppression that had been going on for decades?

 

[untermensche]

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

I explained exactly how Saddam fuelled sectarian conflicts in the post you are responding to. What was wrong with my description of it?

He kept them in check with his secret police. He made sure they'd hate each other too much to unite against him. I find it pretty shocking that anybody is this fucking clueless on Saddam/fascism.

He kept the population in check through intimidation torture and fear.

He didn't care about these sects.

And the majority of people in them didn't care. Neighborhoods were mixed without any sectarian violence.

- - - Updated - - -

No. He had absolutely nothing to do with them.

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

So how do you explain the mass graves with dead Shia from Saddam's reign? Are these planted by Bremer also, or maybe the Shia just had a massive slip in the shower one day?

Those were people who rose up against Hussein after the first Gulf war, when the US ruled the skies of Iraq. In fact Hussein never regained control of the skies of Iraq after the first Gulf War.

The US allowed Hussein to crush that uprising when it could have prevented it, or supported it.

In what sense is not a Shia uprising against their Sunni oppressors, or Saddam crushing that uprising not sectarian violence? And do you honestly think that the Shia discontent just suddenly appeared when US imposed no-fly zones, and had nothgn to do with the sectarian oppression that had been going on for decades?

For something to be sectarian violence it has to be carried out for religious reasons.

Hussein was not religious and did nothing for religious reasons.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For something to be sectarian violence it has to be carried out for religious reasons.

Hussein was not religious and did nothing for religious reasons.

No you don't. You just need to treat people unfairly and make sure you sit on the money. And reward people for how much they kiss your ass. They just need to belong to identifiable groups. Could be anything really. Even just arbitrary shit. Saddam was notoriously erratic. You can easily manipulate people into sectarian violence this way, which he did.

There's a famous film when he takes power. He forces one half of the parliamentarians shoot the other half. Just random terror to keep them on their toes. The guy was a complete fucking psycho maniac.

 

[Jayjay]

I explained exactly how Saddam fuelled sectarian conflicts in the post you are responding to. What was wrong with my description of it?

He kept them in check with his secret police. He made sure they'd hate each other too much to unite against him. I find it pretty shocking that anybody is this fucking clueless on Saddam/fascism.

He kept the population in check through intimidation torture and fear.

He didn't care about these sects.

And the majority of people in them didn't care. Neighborhoods were mixed without any sectarian violence.

- - - Updated - - -

No. He had absolutely nothing to do with them.

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

So how do you explain the mass graves with dead Shia from Saddam's reign? Are these planted by Bremer also, or maybe the Shia just had a massive slip in the shower one day?

Those were people who rose up against Hussein after the first Gulf war, when the US ruled the skies of Iraq. In fact Hussein never regained control of the skies of Iraq after the first Gulf War.

The US allowed Hussein to crush that uprising when it could have prevented it, or supported it.

In what sense is not a Shia uprising against their Sunni oppressors, or Saddam crushing that uprising not sectarian violence? And do you honestly think that the Shia discontent just suddenly appeared when US imposed no-fly zones, and had nothgn to do with the sectarian oppression that had been going on for decades?

For something to be sectarian violence it has to be carried out for religious reasons.

Hussein was not religious and did nothing for religious reasons.

Hussein used religion for his own ends, and fanned the flames of the Sunni and Shia division by favoring the former at the expense of the latter. That's sectarian violence, and one of the main reasons why the Shia and Sunni still can't get together. If Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been the kind of magical land of friendship with its "mixed neighborhoods" as you claim there would not be ISIS in the north or Shia militias in the south now. This religious division didn't just appear out of nowhere in 2003, it has existed as direct result of Saddam's oppression.

 

[untermensche]

For something to be sectarian violence it has to be carried out for religious reasons.

Hussein was not religious and did nothing for religious reasons.

No you don't. You just need to treat people unfairly and make sure you sit on the money. And reward people for how much they kiss your ass. They just need to belong to identifiable groups. Could be anything really. Even just arbitrary shit. Saddam was notoriously erratic. You can easily manipulate people into sectarian violence this way, which he did.

There's a famous film when he takes power. He forces one half of the parliamentarians shoot the other half. Just random terror to keep them on their toes. The guy was a complete fucking psycho maniac.

There was no sectarian violence when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq as a secular dictator.

 

[untermensche]

Hussein used religion for his own ends, and fanned the flames of the Sunni and Shia division by favoring the former at the expense of the latter.....

He never had to.

And didn't.

He ruled with an iron fist. He was ruthless. People were afraid to challenge him.

But the various religious sects lived side by side and they were not at war with each other.

 

[whichphilosophy]

He kept the population in check through intimidation torture and fear.

He didn't care about these sects.

And the majority of people in them didn't care. Neighborhoods were mixed without any sectarian violence.

- - - Updated - - -

No. He had absolutely nothing to do with them.

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

So how do you explain the mass graves with dead Shia from Saddam's reign? Are these planted by Bremer also, or maybe the Shia just had a massive slip in the shower one day?

Those were people who rose up against Hussein after the first Gulf war, when the US ruled the skies of Iraq. In fact Hussein never regained control of the skies of Iraq after the first Gulf War.

The US allowed Hussein to crush that uprising when it could have prevented it, or supported it.

In what sense is not a Shia uprising against their Sunni oppressors, or Saddam crushing that uprising not sectarian violence? And do you honestly think that the Shia discontent just suddenly appeared when US imposed no-fly zones, and had nothgn to do with the sectarian oppression that had been going on for decades?

For something to be sectarian violence it has to be carried out for religious reasons.

Hussein was not religious and did nothing for religious reasons.

Hussein used religion for his own ends, and fanned the flames of the Sunni and Shia division by favoring the former at the expense of the latter. That's sectarian violence, and one of the main reasons why the Shia and Sunni still can't get together. If Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been the kind of magical land of friendship with its "mixed neighborhoods" as you claim there would not be ISIS in the north or Shia militias in the south now. This religious division didn't just appear out of nowhere in 2003, it has existed as direct result of Saddam's oppression.

For all his wrongs he ran a secular society which was opposed by the majority Shiites in many quarters, especially after the Iranian revolution. There again Saddam received arms from the West to attack Iraq. Nonetheless, he kept a strict control over this. Isis is the direct by product of US and former colonial policy. ISIS didn't exist when Saddam was around. Nor did Al Qaeda have any presence in Iraq though the allies invented the idea that he did along with WMDs and other tooth fairy tales spread by our own governments.

What we did was to replace a harsh dictatorship with something much worse.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No. He had absolutely nothing to do with them.

He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country.

This is not only factually false but the exact opposite is true. He kept sectarian rivalries completely in check. There were no violent sectarian attacks until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect under the plan of the mastermind Bremer, a man who deserved to be hanging right next to Hussein. Before that neighborhoods were mixed and sectarian violence in Iraq hadn't existed in hundreds of years.

So how do you explain the mass graves with dead Shia from Saddam's reign? Are these planted by Bremer also, or maybe the Shia just had a massive slip in the shower one day?

5,000 bodies found countrywide compared to between 500,000 to 1,000,000 who died from the Oil for Food program. Added to this far more have been butchered by ISIS and other groups in the region. Certainly the information suggested by Blair that there are around 400,000 bodies was not substantiated. Saddam was convicted of the death of 148 Kurds (with the Gas Germany provided to him to do the job). This does not justify Saddam's genocide and treatment of Kurd and Shiite activists, but the situation today has since far deteriorated from that point.

Of course he used religion for his own ends. What is religion? It's our older method of sheep herding the masses. Even China uses religion for this purpose. It set up its own state run Catholic and Protestant churches vs the established ones. Indeed bible thumpers of the Southern states of America flock to politicians who may further their agendas.

 

[angelo]

You are right.

You ignoring facts won't change them.

Not seeing that the massive US invasion of Iraq is a major cause of current unrest, and the real immorality in all of this, is to be blind.

You don't think that Saddam is the root cause of the current unrest? He kept sectarian rivalries alive and well in order to have a stronger grip of the country. He made an effort to keeps wounds open and the butt-hurt strong. He, on purpose, created a stratified society where there was a pyramid of oppression. He made a majority of the Iraqis complicit in the rape of their own country. Made them feel complicit. This is of course standard fascist tactics. When the artificial network of structural oppression is removed there's a hell of a lot of butt-hurt that is finally allowed to be released. This is actually good. This is the key to why democracies are so successful. Dirty laundry is constantly aired and talked about. When a fascist regime falls all the butt-hurt is released in one big bang... all at once. This is what happened in Libya and what still is happening in Syria. It's often, but not always, messy.

After the fall of Saddam the Shia muslims (the majority) put in place policies that benefited the Shia communities at the expense of the Sunni communities. The Shia thought it was fair because Saddam had, during his entire reign, ploughed more money into the Sunni community that Shia. At the time of Saddam's fall the Sunni areas were way more affluent than the Shia areas. Some Shia areas had been kept desperately poor on purpose, on the brink of starvation.

Although solid arguments it breaks democracy. This line of reasoning leads to everybody just voting for whatever ethnic identity they have rather than following their ideologies. Bad leaders of unpopular parties will always get the votes from their ethnic group, and therefore never be removed. So it leads to corruption and mismanagement and the tyranny of the majority.

I don't think the invasion was necessarily a bad idea. Saddam needed to go. And when it did it would get messy. The invasion wasn't the problem. The problem was the occupation. The Bush administration clearly didn't have a plan. They just thought democracy was the magical sauce that would fix everything.

And it's not like there aren't examples in history of how to do it right. When we go from a dictatorship to a democracy it needs to be done in stages. Democracy needs to be implemented a little at a time. Only gradually expanding the franchise. This can be done in a variety of ways. But the important thing to keep in mind is to avoid full on democracy is one go. It almost never works. The fail rate is extremely high.

To take USA as an example. After the American revolution the central government was extremely weak... and broke. It couldn't really do much. For the average American the government was largely irrelevant. Only local elections mattered. As USA slowly got their act together the influence of the central government slowly asserted itself. When the time came a central power was strong enough for any dictator to bother with seizing power, democratic institutions were already well in place, to prevent such a coup. In Sweden and England the franchise was expanded slowly according to income. First only the wealthy could vote. Little by little the required wealth shrunk and shrunk until everybody had a vote. There was no upheaval or jolt to the system. Or we could do it like the French. Democracy for almost everybody (people who had property and weren't due to unfortunate circumstances women) over night and then utter and total carnage for about 100 years. Or as they did in Germany (= fascism).

My sentiments exactly. This is an excellent post. The biggest mistake was thinking the Iraqis would embrace democracy. Most Muslims wouldn't know how a democracy is supposed to work, let alone live in one.

 

[repoman]

This thread needs some topical humor:

 

[DrZoidberg]

No you don't. You just need to treat people unfairly and make sure you sit on the money. And reward people for how much they kiss your ass. They just need to belong to identifiable groups. Could be anything really. Even just arbitrary shit. Saddam was notoriously erratic. You can easily manipulate people into sectarian violence this way, which he did.

There's a famous film when he takes power. He forces one half of the parliamentarians shoot the other half. Just random terror to keep them on their toes. The guy was a complete fucking psycho maniac.

There was no sectarian violence when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq as a secular dictator.

First off. You are wrong. There was plenty. It was a constant head-ache for the regime.

Secondly, I think you should study on how fascism works. All fascist states create internal tension between groups. "Divide and conquer". It's how they stay in power.

 

[untermensche]

There was no sectarian violence when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq as a secular dictator.

First off. You are wrong. There was plenty. It was a constant head-ache for the regime.

Secondly, I think you should study on how fascism works. All fascist states create internal tension between groups. "Divide and conquer". It's how they stay in power.

You are wrong.

There was no sectarian violence in Iraq for hundreds of years.

Until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect.

 

[repoman]

I think that multiculturalism and a call for race mixing for everyone but the Jews in Sweden is the order of the day now:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[DrZoidberg]

My sentiments exactly. This is an excellent post. The biggest mistake was thinking the Iraqis would embrace democracy. Most Muslims wouldn't know how a democracy is supposed to work, let alone live in one.

The difference between us is that I don't think Islam is the problem here. I don't think it's the Islam that is ruining the efforts for democracy. If you look at the utter carnage that took place in Europe during our transition to democracy then you'll quickly realize that it's just history repeating itself. I should also point out that this transnational period for Europe is still going on. Europe is still not completely democratic. Ukraine is ripped apart by sectarian/ethnic violence as we speak.

On the topic of calling a spade a spade. Why don't you start doing that?

 

[bilby]

First off. You are wrong. There was plenty. It was a constant head-ache for the regime.

Secondly, I think you should study on how fascism works. All fascist states create internal tension between groups. "Divide and conquer". It's how they stay in power.

You are wrong.

There was no sectarian violence in Iraq for hundreds of years.

Until the US invaded and began separating the population according to sect.

The territory now called Iraq didn't exist as a unified single nation a hundred years ago.

One of the biggest causes of tensions in the Middle East is the arbitrary boundaries between 'nations' imposed by the League of Nations (essentially by Britain and France) after WWI.

As in Africa, the drawing of borders with regard only for colonial power balancing and horse trading; and with no regard for pre-existing ethnic, tribal and sectarian boundaries leads to strife.

Powers, Great Powers, and Superpowers always prefer stability, and will tolerate the most obscene dictatorships and the most vile regimes in stability's name.

But they seem oblivious to the fact that arbitrarily drawn borders are inevitable causes of instability.

Stability cannot be imposed on arbitrary borders in the long term. First the borders need to be redrawn around peoples who share common roots - or at the very least, do not harbour ancient rivalries. Once that is done, the new nations become 'real' countries, to which their citizens feel loyalty and belonging; and stability is then a matter of striking a power balance, with assistance to the weaker nations if they are threatened by the strong, to provide the stability that the powers - and the ordinary citizens - desire, without the need for vicious tyrants to keep a lid on the underlying hatreds that inevitably exist when warring tribes are forced to live in a single 'nation'.