US should reinstate Saddam and leave Iraq

[leftofthedial]

within the next month.

we could then pay $10 B reparations to Saddam, reinstate the UN sanctions and inspectors and save ourselves $77 B.

Given the moral underpinnings of my opposition to the invasion, namely that a democracy should never invade a sovereign nation absent clear provocation, imminent threat, or genocide, the "right" thing to do as soon as possible would be to apologize, reinstate the government we overthrew, pay reparations and exit.

Thoughts?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Did your opposition to the invasion equate to your support of Hussein?

Mine didn't.

[leftofthedial]

4. Neither did mine.

But if it was wrong to invade another country, it is wrong to continue to act like conquering occupiers. We should return things as closely as possible to their last legitimate state.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Hmmm..that was what about 80 years ago?

befire British interference and then American interference after the Brits got their asses kicked too?

[leftofthedial]

16. There you go! Let's give Iraq back to the British!

Let them sort it out.

[sujan]

20. easier said than done

saddam was the best thing that ever happened to the Iraqi...hey at least better than the American occupiers.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Excuse me?

How so? Don't get me wrong I am NOT for the war but now that it has been done we OWE it to the Iraqui's to restore infratructure and order.

I don't know which idiocy I find more upsetting...Bush's or the idiocy that claims Saddam was the best thing that ever happened to Iraqui's. Are we going back 5000 years for that interpretation?..modern times? In the last 5 months?

This idea is at least as reasonable as most of your posts on religion threads.:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

32. no one is claiming that Saddam was good or that we should

abandon the Iraqis. If you read more of the posts, you'll see that I advocate ending the inevitable and escalating violence as soon as possible and giving the Iraqis aid. But us staying there will do no good to them or to us. Best case it will prolong the bloodshed.

And where you came up with "Saddam was the best thing that ever happened to the Iraquis (sic)" is beyond me.

And what's wrong with my posts on religious threads?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Look again my friend..I wasn't responding to you

[leftofthedial]

37. nsma, sorry. you were talking to sujan--My bad

I replied incorrectly.

sujan, where the hell did you come up with
Saddam was the best thing, etc. ? Sheesh.

[sujan]

85. sheesh

beats the US's illegal occupation any day.

[leftofthedial]

88. I think a reasonable discussion could take place

over whether Iraqis are better off with a repressive dictator and an infrastructure that works, versus a conquering army of occupation and no infrastructure.

But that leaves a L-O-N-G stretch to get to Saddam being the best thing that ever happened to them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. OK time for a complex thought...it's not terribly hard BUT THINK

There is currently no order in Iraq. There is little infrastructure. There are 17 million people on the verge of disease due to water issues divided up into three sects that would just as soon kill as look at each other.

Maybe if you read up on Pol Pot you might reconsider what happens when we abandon the messes we make without cleaning them up.

I won't count on you thinking ..I have no evidence that you actually do...but just try it...it doesn't hurt.

[sujan]

140. oh might sage, answer few questions

There is currently no order in Iraq.

> Who will restore it?

There is little infrastructure.

> we all know who's resposible for that.

There are 17 million people on the verge of disease due to water issues divided up into three sects that would just as soon kill as look at each other.

> and the trigger happy occupying force that is doing a lot of job as to 'kill as look at each other.'

Maybe if you read up on Pol Pot you might reconsider what happens when we abandon the messes we make without cleaning them up.

> clean up? lol. good luck

[sujan]

82. hahahahahahhahaha

good luck with your 'we OWE it to the Iraqui's to restore infratructure and order.'

[9215]

110. Problem is you don't know anything

Just the prittle prattle of propoganda bouncing around in that space between your ears.

By the shear weight of invective heaped upon Hussein he has become a demon in so many peoples eyes when he was nothing but an ally of the US against Iran, raised his country's standard of living to one of the highest in the Mid-East until the US/Bfee decided, after giving him a greenlight to attack Kuwait, to break his balls.

This is the mother of all scandals.

[synthia]

38. i cannot believe anyone could sincerly believe that

i'm speachless.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sujan]

84. ah hah

US will now solve all the Iraqi miseries?

ROFL.

If the US had any clue to solve the problems there, it would divide it into three countries. Fuck, even the UN can't do anything about it. We've created another Afghanistan, so it is better for the US to leave immediately and come back again armed to the teeth to bomb the country in 2023.

In the meantime, I am actually enjoying this charade.


Good luck, oh mighty freedom fighter.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. IF you divide it into 3 countries, how do any of the 3 defend themselves

against their more predatory neighbors who would also like the spoils of their culture?

[sujan]

139. what?

Iraq was carved up in 1932. what culture?

[jiacinto]

106. Are you kidding?

You are defending Sadaam. Are you an Iraqi sympathizer?

[TheYellowDog]

108. Probably

n/t.

[sushi]

52. I don't think

any thinking person supported Saddam Hussein. However, looking back, in hindsight, it would have been in the interest of the US (this is what the US leaders always claim they act in, isn't it?) to leave him there. After all, he's been there for a long time, and the US has left other nasty dictators in power in the past. We can see now that it takes a dictator to keep the different groups in Iraq together.
I don't believe for a second that * invaded because he wanted to liberate the poor Iraqis!

When the coming election is really free (which it should be because the US is introducing democracy to Iraq, isn't it?), the 60% Shiite majority could vote in one of their mullahs, and Iraq could become a theocracy replacing Saddam Hussein's secular state.
I remember hearing Rumsfeld saying in a press conference, that that "won't be allowed!" Well, is the coming election going to be free or not?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. That statement depends on how you define INTERESTS and US

Back in 1998, Cheney was making the energy circuits complaining that the sanctions against Iraq punished the competitive interests of American businesses. This, of course, was why Halliburton used their foreign subsidiary to conduct business in Iraq.

I disagree that it takes a nasty dictator to run Iraq but to go into the history of the nation would take far more energy than I am willing to post.

The POINT is...that had we abandoned sanctions in exchange for greater access while doing trade we might have gone further to neutralize Hussein as a threat.

[leftofthedial]

79. the idea is not that a nasty dictator could restore order

But that Saddam would be highly unlikely to take us up on the offer. Hell, he's probably dead already.

But if he did, he is so weak and discredited now that the Kurds and Shiites would overthrow him quickly.

I'm not a scholar of Iraq's history, but I don't think there ever has been a "legitimate" leader there. First, it is actually several small regions that were separate prior to British colonial intervention. It went right from a monarchy to being conquered and occupied for long periods and then colonization. So I don't think we can "restore" any legitimate government. Restoring the "King" would be like putting the Shah in power in Iran--a slow motion disaster.

[sushi]

83. I wrote

it takes a dictator to keep the different groups together. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but a secular one. Since the US has supported dictators in the past, even very nasty ones, why didn't it just leave SH in power.

I agree SH could have been dealt with in a different manner, without causing so many innocent deaths and destruction of Iraq's infrastructure. Now it will take A LOT of money and a LONG time to put Iraq back together, and there might even be a civil war, plus the foreign extremists who have entered Iraq to add to the trouble.
All this because * didn't stop and think!

[leftofthedial]

86. It's similar to the former Yugoslavia

Tito, a dictator, held together an amalgam of many different ethnicities and religions, many of whom truly hated one another. When he left, all hell broke loose.

I think the situation is far less complex and far less volatile in Iraq. Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites don't have the deep reservoirs of hatred found in the Balkans. But the situation is similar.

[sujan]

87. really

'Sunnis and Shiites don't have the deep reservoirs of hatred found in the Balkans.'

where did you get that?

[leftofthedial]

89. Sunnis and Shiites coexist rather peacefully

in several ME countries.

[sujan]

91. there's Iran

with a 89% of the population being shi'ites and guess what? shi'ite repression has led many sunnis to flee to Pakistan and often time you hear about bombings in shi'ites gathering. I wonder what that's all about.

And Iraq, Saddam is a sunni, and he mostly repressed shi'ites alongside kurds who also happen to represent 65% of the population. With the US's presence, there is a great vacuum and I bet shi'ites are ready to take over it.

So Iraq is a sealed boiling kettle waiting to explode any moment. You just saw the prelude, enjoy the rest of the show.

[leftofthedial]

95. except for one ghetto in Baghdad

Sunni and Shiite regions of Iraq are pretty much segregated. There is no requirement in my scenario that they remain part of the same nation. They never should have been included in the same nation in the first place.

I don't claim they love each other, but I don't think the populations are as integrated, nor are the division as profound as in the Balkans. These are both Muslim populations. Both are of the same ethnicity. In the Balkans the divisions include Christians versus Muslims and multiple ethnicities to boot.

Kurds are another story and would pose significant problems integrating into a government with either Arab Sunnis or Shiites.

[Trek234]

101. This Iraqi seems to agree

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[sushi]

90. I have not been following things

in the Balkans - I hope you're right. Right now the extremists in Iraq want the coalition out. In fact they said they would target all foreigners, so the troops from other countries will be going there to die in order for US troops to go home, or maybe * needs US troops to invade another country!

[DrWeird]

2. No, we have to stay.

We have to protect the iraqi people from the communist North Vietnamese.

[leftofthedial]

6. LOL

It's the Mideast Domino Theory.

[Catholic Sensation]

3. ...

the "right" thing to do would not be put in a murderous dictator, the right thing to do is let them decide what type of government they want and then help put that form of government into power. If they want a theocracy, we'll find a Mullah for them to be oppressed by. If they want a democracy, we'll help them with that. If they want Saddam, THEN we put him back in power. That's like helping Russia to go back to Communism after we helped its inevitable collapse.

[Plaid Adder]

5. Dude.

Just imagine what happens if Saddam Hussein gets back into power right now. He was bad enough before this happened.

The bottom line is simply this: we're fucked. We're fucked, Iraq is fucked, a lot of the rest of the world is fucked. We can't go back and make it not have happened. We could have avoided it; but we didn't, and so no we are, what, fucked.

:mad:

The Plaid Adder

[leftofthedial]

10. there is no way to get "unfucked"

Once you have been, you always will have been.

But in the context of the prevailing opposition to the invasion in the first place, what is our continued justification for hunting down Saddam?

He was a ruthless, murdering thug, but we do not have the authority to selectively hold accountable any bad guy on earth we choose.

Now we are ruthless, murdering thugs. What gives us the right to impose our notion of acceptable government on them.

Under international law, Saddam is the legitimate governing authority. If we reinstated him, he would be so greatly weakened that perhaps now the Kurds and Shiites could overthrow him nad establish whatever government they can.

[Catholic Sensation]

13. are you drunk or something?

When I first read this post I figured it was some Freeper deciding to make the left look bad, but then I noticed that you had 1000 posts, and though I wouldn't put it past someone from Free Republic to come here and waste their time posting leftist messages, I have serious doubts you come from that pool of sulfur and fire.

Hussein was not a legitimate ruler, he murdered his family to get to that position and then created a witchhunt that would have made Joseph McCarthy jealous. The last legitimate ruler was probably in the fifties, before the overthrow of the monarchy.

[leftofthedial]

18. If you are calling me a freeper, I'll have to kick your ass

Although as old and decrepit and pacifistic as I am, you'd certainly wind up kicking mine, so I'll let that pass.

No, I think this is the simplest, wisest, most direct solution.

By my progressive yardstick there never has been a legitimate ruler there. Prior to British colonialism there were hundreds of years of being conquered and occupied. Prior to that were monarchs and I do not believe rule by divine right is any more valid than Saddam's.

As long as we are there, we will not allow a truly democratic government to be estabilished. It would certainly be a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy and no American administration will permit that. Even if wise and good future Democratic presidents are elected, no matter what government we set up, no matter how democratic, no matter how open, it would always be viewed by the region and the world as a US puppet regime. I will always take our military might to help keep it in power.

I think civil war there is inevitable. Let it be a war to overthrow Saddam instead of one to overthrow us. Help the opposition this time instead of abandoning them, but make the IRaqis build their own nation. Help them with aid to repair the damage we have done to infrastructure, but let the Iraqis achieve their own balance.

[leftofthedial]

19. and no, no such luck. I'm totally sober.

So post replies quick. It may not last long!

:-)

[sushi]

93. You're right

We could have avoided it. I really believe that SH should have been left in control to keep Iraq secular, but now that he's gone he's gone.

I was thinking how lucky the west is that the Muslims are divided. The Shiites, the Sunnis, those that follow Sufism, the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia, the Ismaelis led by the Aga Khan. Every group has its fundamentalists, moderates and progressives. They don't seem to get along.

[StandWatie]

96. I wouldn't give a damn if he did

he can't do anything to me anyway.

[leftofthedial]

98. good point--it's fundamentally their business and not ours

we should leave, pack out our trash and let them get on with self determination.

[bemildred]

7. Bullshit.

He was an asshole.
Let the Iraqi people form their own government.
They will thank us, if we do.

[leftofthedial]

15. No American administration will "let them form their own govt."

Their own government would almost certainly be a Shiite Islamic theocracy. Our allies in the region also will not allow a strong role for the Kurds. Your solution will NEVER happen as long as the US is involved. We will allow them to form whatever puppet government is acceptable to us. Period.

That will last until the Iraqi people rise up and overthrow it, like the Vietnamese did to us in our last major imperialistic venture. And that took two decades of horror.

I say let them rise up and overthrow Saddam instead. He's so weakened no that the chaos would be short-lived I believe. I'd support helping the Iraqi people to do that. But the reality on the ground in Iraq right now is that the BEST that our work there will create is decades of turmoil, chaos, death, and a facade of "democracy" every bit as shallow and corrupt as the puppets we kept putting in power in Saigon.

[bemildred]

17. You didn't ask for realism.

Your question is not realistic either.

[leftofthedial]

21. I see it as a choice between

a decades long civil war and war of independence against the occupying
Americans and their puppet regime (very much like Viet Nam)--a war which we can not win. All this time, we will be perceived as wagin war on Islam, breeding more generations of terrorists who hate us. I believe that is the best-case scenario for the path we are on.

or

reinstate a terminally crippled dictator, assist the Kurds and the Shiites, let them kick Saddam out (should take a couple of months) and then they can sort it out themselves (probably by partitioning the country.

And, as I said, we should assist the Iraqis in rebuilding their country.

[bemildred]

22. Right, but you dumped on me for not being realistic.

Do you really think the US Gov't will reinstate Saddam?

Edit:

I think I agree with NeoProgressive, you are drunk and
melancholy and looking for some stimulation.

[leftofthedial]

30. sober as Jimmy Carter

Melancholy, I suppose.

This is hypothetical, or unrealistic if you prefer, but it just might be crazy enough to work. (And I wasn't intentionally "dumping on you" for any reason. Sorry.)

1. What gives the USA the right to hunt down Saddam and kill him? There is no conviction for war crimes. There is no legal sentence of death. On the contrary, there was widespread official condemnation internationally of our invasion. It is purely a case of might makes right. We have tanks and airplanes enough to impose whatever "justice" we determine. (He is an asshole. I hate Saddam. I think he should be punished eternally in the same circel of hell as Bush and his Cabal.)

2. As long as were are present, either on our own as now, or as the nominal heads of a UN force, there will be no peace in Iraq. Our mere presence and that of our surrogates, creates for Iraqis and other Muslims the social injustice that today inflames Palestinians. It won't stop just because we allow a council we selected to instate a leader acceptable to us and then call it "democracy."

3. Given that there will be no peace as long as we are there, we need a solution that does not include us or our surrogates. There is nothing to be gained by prolonging this. So let's leave, restore a dictator who won't be able to maintain power, and let the Iraqis sort it out, free of our neocolonial meddling.

4. Let's give them aid.

[bemildred]

33. Have a beer. It's a better way to spend your time.

"Everyone has to believe in something.
I believe I'll have another beer."

Regards.

[leftofthedial]

35. I don't drink beer

cheers!

[bemildred]

40. More's the pity.

Keep your libraries, keep your penal institutions,
keep your insane asylums ... give me beer.
You think man needs rule, he needs beer.
The world does not need morals, it needs beer.
It does not need your lectures and charity.
The souls of men have been fed with indigestibles,,
but the soul could make use of beer.

-- Henry Miller

[leftofthedial]

47. I used to LOVE beer

and I'm lucky enough to live in the state that brews more beer per capita than any other place on earth.

Much great microbrew too.

Alas! Those days are behind me (and in front of me too, more than I wish!).

Great quotes, by the way!

Thanks.

[sushi]

92. The US will let

the Iraqi people form "their own government" as long as it does what the US tells them to do! In other words, the US wants another Karzai in Iraq.
I don't see it happening if the coming election is a FREE one.

[wtmusic]

8. Let's set him up with some dubyemdees while we're at it

You've negated about the only good result of this mess

[Booberdawg]

11. You are joking, right?

[leftofthedial]

50. Nope

Nothing can make up for the death and destruction we have wrought, but as for the other negative consequences of the illegal invasion, I think this ideserves consideration as a reasonable solution to the mess we're in.

[Booberdawg]

61. It;s absurd consider putting him back now.

[dobak]

12. disagree

As much as it sucks to throw $87B into Iraq and hope it works out, it has to be done.

If we pull out now, things will only get worse. Much worse than if we stay.

Bush and his neo-con buddies who rushed us into war without planning for the post-war mess fucked up, and now we, the average Americans, have to fix it with our hard earned money.

Hopefully the rest of America can see what a mess Bush got us into and decide to throw the bums out.

[leftofthedial]

25. i didn't say just leave--that would be a mistake

I said reinstate Saddam. Everyone currently vying for power hates him worse than the other current contenders.

I think the Kurds and Shiites would make very short work of Saddam. Then they would really be free to establish their own country(ies) without the taint of US imperialism hanging over it.

I also didn't say just abandon them. We should give them aid to help repair at least the repairable damage we have done.

[K-W]

26. You havent explained

how leaving them as is differs in any way from putting saddam there so he can be taken down making an iraq identical to one if we just left.

[leftofthedial]

39. It's a bit like what George The First failed to do after GWI

Except this time, we have hurt Saddam much much much worse. Now we should aid the opposition in overthrowing Saddam instead of abandoning them to his retribution. Then, they can build the nation that we will never be able to, not for $87 Billion, not for $87 Trillion.

And we should give them aid to help repair the damage we have done.

[K-W]

44. That makes no sense.

We already overthrew him, why reinstate him and overthrow him again? All that would accomplish is more violence.

If you think the right thing to do is to just remove saddam and then let them figure things out than you should be simply advocating a complete pullout.

[leftofthedial]

51. That's the point! WE wouldn't overthrow him. The IRaqis would.

Legitimate regime change.

Legitimate nation building.

[K-W]

53. Huh?

Thats not a point. If you think the US should be active in removing him. Job done.

[leftofthedial]

55. Us removing him is not the same as them removing him

They do it and it's a war for independence.

We do it and it is Christians conquering Muslims.

[K-W]

59. Two things not being identical doesnt mean anything

gone is gone. For all intents and purposes it doesnt matter who removes him, He is still gone.

Your argument is that the superficial show that the iraqi people took him down not the US, even though clearly we were the ones responsible anyway is worth the bloodshed of what you are suggesting. I dont think any reasonable person could think that more people should die so we can pretend we didnt bring saddam down.

[leftofthedial]

66. more people will die either way

And it's far more than a superficial difference.

Muslims everywhere won't hate us for the actions of other Muslims.

[K-W]

69. We already invaded and killed many Iraqis

Causing more to die wont make them happy. We cant go back in time. We cant pretend we didnt do what we did. Putting saddam back in place would cause more death than just leavin which would cause more death than rebuilding ourselves which would cause more death than getting the UN to take over.

[leftofthedial]

74. more are dying every day as it is.

once we set up our puppet regime, more will continue to die and it will get worse until the whole thing melts down and we leave (like Viet Nam) and then the real killing starts. It's inevitable.

I agree we can't pretend the whole thing never happened. There are no reparations for the kind of suffering we have caused.

the UN should take over, you're right. As long as Saddam (or his ghost) is out there, overthrown by the USA's illegal invasion, though, he will be a secular martyr for the Arab world and a rallying point for enemies we have who aren't even born yet.

[dudeness]

14. saddam was a criminal

as were all those western governments that supported his reign of terror..all those responsible for Iraqi deaths should be tried for crimes against humanity in the ICC..a legitimate UN peace keeping force should be in place to oversee fair and just elections in Iraq and let the result ride..East Timor is an example of how this can work..

[leftofthedial]

42. but there is no trial and no conviction

so by what authority do we execute him and members of his regime?

[dudeness]

56. I am bemused by your response

are you saying the current US policy of search and destroy is without legal foundation ? or are you suggesting that the US sign off on the ICC so that alleged war criminals receive a trial under the auspices of international law?.

[leftofthedial]

60. bemusement aside

There is no authority for the invasion, the occupation, or the current manhunts and witchhunts in Iraq save US military might.

No international court has convicted Saddam of anything. In fact, he hasn't even been charged with anything as far as I am aware.

The UN did not sanction our unilateral enforcement of their resolutions, so technically, our very presence there is, if not illegal, certainly extra-legal.

Personally, if I found Saddam, I'd kill the murdering bastard myself, but I believe it would be an illegal act.

[dudeness]

63. firstly an apology if my post was patronising

i believe we are debating the same points..i can not disagree with your analysis..having said that however, the US has decided to act outside of the UN, therefore the legalities of the invasion remain dubiuos at best..personally I would foresee a process to try and convict war criminals (of which saddam is surely one) be set up under international law..abregating the need for unilateral action to be decided by the biggest kid on the block.

[leftofthedial]

68. no worries

at least you didn't call me a seven-year-old "fucking idiot!" :-)

I definitely think he is a war criminal. I definitely think he should be tried for his crimes against his own people and his enemies.

It hink it would have far more credibility if that was done by his own people and not by us (the illegal invading conquerors and infidels) or by our puppet regime.

Cheers!

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Ummm how about...

NO!!! I would rather let the Kurds just control the government than bring Saadam back.

[K-W]

24. We should issue a humble plea to the UN

that they take over the nation building in Iraq completely and pledge all the US bluehelmets they need.

[Darranar]

28. That's trash...

what's done is done. Let's not have Saddam kill more innocent people.

[NNN0LHI]

72. Your right. Lets kill more innocent people ourselves

That would be much better.

Don

[Blue_Chill]

29. Someone needs attention.

pathetic.

[K-W]

31. I disagree that this is pathetic

His logic is pretty on spot. We invaded a soveriegn nation illegally. Restoring it back to the condition we found it in would be a technically good thing to do from a standpoint of nations.

Obviously our concern shouldnt be restoring things to status quo, the least we can do after invading them is leave them better off than before.

[Blue_Chill]

36. logic?

It is not logical to reinstall a dictator. It is completely illogical to enter a country lose troops and civilian lives, spend billions and, then reinstall the person you lost and spent so much to remove.

That is NOT logic. That is the complete absence of logic.

[K-W]

41. Its actually fairly simple logic

and I think you are purpossly not trying to understand it because it is morally repugnent.

We never should have invaded iraq. It was a completely wrong move, therefore it does make sense to suggest that the just thing to do would be to restore Iraq to its prewar state. If one believes that it isnt our place to take down dictators or interfere in any way with foriegn nations unless they pose a clear threat to us, then that is the right solution.

Its an argument from a different standpoint. I also disagree with it, but I see the reasoning.

[leftofthedial]

43. tainted fruit

the invasion was illegal and immoral

the deaths are ALL on the hands of the USA and our "coalition" partners.

the results of the illegal and immoral invasion are also tainted and are illegal and immoral.

Either that or you believe the invasion was justified.

[Blue_Chill]

46. So then causing more death is your logical solution?

Good plan you should run for office.

[leftofthedial]

54. THERE IS DEATH THERE EVERY DAMNED DAY RIGHT NOW!

AND DECADES MORE TO COME if we don't do something different.

Staying there and putting a puppet in place will just cause more hate, division and resentment and MORE DEATH.

I think this approach would get the civil war/war of independence over with pretty quickly.

[Blue_Chill]

107. So you think if you restored a crazied dictator

there would be less death? Have you not seen the mass graves?

[leftofthedial]

117. you mean the Kurds George the First helped Saddam kill?

Or the Shiites George the First helped Saddam kill?

As I've said repeatedly, I don't think Saddam would take us up on the offer and if he did, we can not abandon the Saddam opponents again. I think they would kcick him out and hold him accountable for his crimes, which is as it should be.

[Blue_Chill]

126. Wait a minute that is not what you said

You wanted us to reinstate the guy and pay him reparations. Now you are saying we should stay and back opponenets. Big difference.

BTW - what difference does how helped Saddam kill people make? He still played the principle role and you want reinstating him would allow him to do it again.

Face it anyway you cut it NOTHING would improve with Saddam back.

[diamondsoul]

142. Ok, ok, only read this far, and have the best solution-

Pull all the troops out, send in King George, Rumsfeld and Cheney and put them in charge.

I guarandamntee you that would solve a whole host of our troubles right quick! The Iraqis could take care of King George and crew for us, would love the hell out of us for handing his worhtless hide over, and we could get on with trying to REALLY help them, i.e. supporting contrcution efforts, humanitarian aid, etc....

Ok, I know, not realistic, but dammit it sounds like such a great plan!

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

57. to clarify, I wouldn't give Saddam a cent.

I wouldn't piss on Saddam if he was on fire.

I wouldn't feed him my dog's shit if he was starving.

I'd help the Kurds and Shiites overthrow him themselves. As thoroughly as we have trashed his regime, he will be easy pickings for either group.

Then we give money to the legitimate Iraqi self-imposed authorities to rebuild.


Thank you for addressing me in such a civil manner. It reflects highly on your intelligence, breeding and manners.

[Darranar]

67. $10 mil isn't a cent...

that's true. Nice loophole.

[leftofthedial]

71. apparently I can't write or you can't read or both

I said $10 Billion. Bushco/PNAC want $21 Billion for "political reconstruction." I say get Halliburton and their 2000% markup the hell out of it and $10 Billion coul ddo some real good in Iraq.

And I would give it to the legitimate government(s) that emerge AFTER Saddam. Not to Saddam.

I believe he would refuse to return even if we did reinstate him, leaving the three dominant political movements in the country to settle their own affairs.

And I agree with other posters that the UN should play a key role.

[Darranar]

73. I guess you can't write...

we could then pay $10 B reparations to Saddam. You never mention a legitimate government in that statement...

[leftofthedial]

75. you're right. I can't write

or I write too fast.

[leftofthedial]

76. it took several posts to roll out the whole idea

I'm too impatient to type a tome for the first post, plus no one would read it anyway.

The chronology would be:

Involve the UN.

Make a formal statement of "reinstatement" of Saddam

Make a pledge of $10B (number pulled out of my ass) to rebuild Iraq.

Withdraw US forces and US military and political leadership.

I don't believe Saddam would accept our offer. To do so would be suicide.

If he did, help the new powers in IRaq dispatch him quickly, including trying him for his crimes.

Assist (without direct involvement or interference) in the process of establishing new government(s) in Iraq.

Let them use the $10B (or whatever the "right" number is) to rebuild what we have destroyed.

End of the day: We are no longer conquering occupiers. Saddam has been ousted by his own people. A new Iraqi order arises organically instead of through our neocolonial manipulations.

[Darranar]

135. More violence + more chaos = bad plan...

i admit that there seems to be a choice between a number of bad options, but this seems to be the worst.

[leftofthedial]

45. and someone needs a tactic that does not involve ad hominem

If you read the argument, it is logical.

You can disagree, but dismissing it as you do above is weak.

[Blue_Chill]

48. Logic demands you look at all factors involved

and come out with a solution based on the available facts. You instead ignore the result, lives lost, and moeny spent.

[leftofthedial]

62. I know for a certainty that you are wrong

I specifically am thinking of the lives lost, the final outcome and the financial cost.

There is no amount of money that will make the killing stop right now. We have created our own West Bank--a perfect engine for unending violence, hatred and intolerance. One that withina generation will reach a critical mass that can never be stopped.

If we did what I suggest, in six months, we could be out of Iraq. Saddam could be brought to justice by his own people, the victims of his atrocities. If, as I believe, he would not accept our offer of reinstatement, he could be tried in absentia by his own people. Then the prevailing powers inside Iraq (Shiites, Kurds and Sunni, primarily) would truly be free and justified in setting up their own county(ies).

No matter how much money we spend, the way things are going now, we will continuing to be conquerors and occupiers. That is NO basis for democracy. Never has been.


edit: "INtolerance"

[K-W]

65. The right answer is to hand the entire operation over to the UN

and give them our support under UN command to rebuild infastructure and hold free elections.

[fujiyama]

78. Your proposal

is as bad as the invasion itself...This is as bad as backing the MoFo in the first place...

How could a liberal even consider such a thing? It is so disgusting. Just what do you think the US should do? Announce one day that Saddam is the legitimate ruler!? How would any group in Iraq trust us after such a move? Why would they? THey would hate us a million times more than they did in the first place!

This proposal ranks with the worst of Kissenger's cold war era policies.

[leftofthedial]

97. I beg to differ

A. it is the most direct way possible to rectify the wrongs that were committed in the Invasion in the first place. It was an illegal, immoral invasion of a sovereign nation. Forced regime change was an illegal objective. Or do you believe the invasion was justified because it got rid of Saddam? If so, welcome to the Lieberman, right-of-center camp.

B. The people in Iraq don't trust us now. They want us out now. At least one faction there wants Saddam back--now.

C. The country and the entire region would be better off and more stable in the medium term and long term if we were not there on the ground with troops and tanks and airplanes. I say get us out sooner rather than later. The longer we stay the harder it will be to leave.

D. Saddam would never take us up on an offer of reinstatement. Hell, he's probably already dead. The reinstate Saddam part of this is a formality that, together with the reparations we agree to pay, washes our hands and minimizes the hatred the region feels for us now and will feel as time goes on.

E. If Saddam was crazy enough to accept the offer of reinstatement, the Kurds and the Shiites are now in a position to kcik his ass out quickly. He no longer controls the country. His secret police are kaput. He has no army. With us out of the picture, there would be no focus of hatred in the country except for him.

F. In any case, he should be tried, in absentia if necessary, for his crimes. The US "vigilante" justice of take in the troops and kill whomever we don't like is wrong and unsustainable. Might does NOT make right. The rule of US military might should be abolished and the rule of law should be restored.

[Blue_Chill]

127. response

A. it is the most direct way possible to rectify the wrongs that were committed in the Invasion in the first place. It was an illegal, immoral invasion of a sovereign nation. Forced regime change was an illegal objective. Or do you believe the invasion was justified because it got rid of Saddam? If so, welcome to the Lieberman, right-of-center camp.

It does not rectify any wrong, it creates countless more. Wether or not the invasion was justified that does not mean reinstating Saddam helps anytone.

B. The people in Iraq don't trust us now. They want us out now. At least one faction there wants Saddam back--now.

The majority do not want Saddam back. So you would have them rounded up because you have some moronic idealistic point to prove?

C. The country and the entire region would be better off and more stable in the medium term and long term if we were not there on the ground with troops and tanks and airplanes. I say get us out sooner rather than later. The longer we stay the harder it will be to leave.

Agreed that we need to get out. Gather the leaders of the Iraqi factions and have them make a constitution. Then we can leave them with UN civilian support.

D. Saddam would never take us up on an offer of reinstatement. Hell, he's probably already dead. The reinstate Saddam part of this is a formality that, together with the reparations we agree to pay, washes our hands and minimizes the hatred the region feels for us now and will feel as time goes on.

Looks like you are backing off your original statement. Glad to see you coming to your senses.

E. If Saddam was crazy enough to accept the offer of reinstatement, the Kurds and the Shiites are now in a position to kcik his ass out quickly. He no longer controls the country. His secret police are kaput. He has no army. With us out of the picture, there would be no focus of hatred in the country except for him.

You have no idea of the state in which his army may be. Most are alive and many are hidden. You would gamble the lives of Iraqis on your basless assumptions?

F. In any case, he should be tried, in absentia if necessary, for his crimes. The US "vigilante" justice of take in the troops and kill whomever we don't like is wrong and unsustainable. Might does NOT make right. The rule of US military might should be abolished and the rule of law should be restored.

Yes he should be tried. But if you could come down from your ivory tower and tell us just exactly how you propose we capture him alive, or how you would have in the first place we'd love to know. He's not likely to surrender.

You need to consider how things work in the REAL WORLD and stop making laughable 'he should be tried in court' comments when no one ANYWHERE has been able to come up with a way to capture him.

[fujiyama]

137. "Stability"

is what was used as an excuse to back these horrible thugs in the first place. During the Cold war -- it was 'stability' that forced the US govt. to back thugs. Stability has nothing to do with Human rights, freedom, or democracy. Stability is whatever it means to us. Saddam was stable for a while in the 80s - still was bad for Iraqis. Saddam wasn't stable for us during the early nineties- bad for Iraqis. Saddam stable for us now (and makes the Iraqis despise us more than ever before) -- morally incomprehensable (as this war was in the first place).

Most Iraqis don't want Saddam back and some (especially in the north) believe the US should stay because they don't trust anyone in their country at this point."Stability at all costs" is the state dept. motto. It is morally repugnant. Not that the DoD motto is better. "Bomb them to liberation".

You obviously didn't read my statement very well, considering I made it quite clear I found the invasion idiotic and wrong, but your proposal is just as wrong if not worse. It repeats the same mistakes from the past.

We shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, but we have an obligation to clean up whatever we can. The UN should be called in with intl. troops. We should send different troops because the ones there are tired out. The UN can help the Iraqi council build some rule of law. It's unlikely it will be secular, but some form of federalism would be best. Either way, the financial responsibility is OURs. Your's, and mine. It is our nation that set forth on this ridiculous endevour. We have the responsibility to reconstruct everything using bid contracts from the world over. No nation, other than Iraq will profit from their reconstruction. All that said, NEITHER US NOR SADDAM will rule the Iraqis. Saddam is out of power. Getting him out of power wasn't an immediate necessaity, but good riddance to him and his sons.

You don't get it -- we can't change history. He's out of power. Sometimes, good sideeffects occur because of bad events. Saddam being out of power doesn't necessarily justify the war, but I can say the world is better off not having him in power.

It would be better for us to leave them in their current state of chaos, than reinstating him back in power.

[maha]

58. Iraq was not Saddam Hussein's property

The Iraqi people should control Iraq.

[H_NeverAgain]

77. No way, Saddam was already a product of interventionism.

He was helped to fight against the opponent of the "civilized world".

It should have better to find a pacific solution, but the damage is done. Now,I think that to solve the problem perhaps the actual politic is not so bad (if at least we could restrain troops in their actions against civilians).

Don't worry; I don't believe that the present US policy worth a cent :-(, but in the case of Iraq it can help.

The problem of Iraq is that it's not only a multi-ethnics country, but also that these ethnic groups have bad record in their relationships. Then they need a common factor to unite themselves. Maybe the hate against the US occupant could be the perfect one.
And to be honest, US government do its best to be hated. And if the Turk troops come in North Iraq, be sure that even the Kurds will join the resistance.
Then after a small period of time, with this rhythm few months should be enough, the US could be nicely lost the war and go home. And the UN could come in to help an united country.

Of course, it's not a perfect plan. And it's possible that after the departure of the US troops they start a civil war. But there is no good solution to go out from this mess, then let's look for the less worst.

BTW, everybody agree that Saddam was a brutal dictator. What a shame then that USA can't do better!
Never forget that when Saddam killed opponents, he called them too "terrorist". And I don't think that it changes a lot for Iraqis to be killed by a brutal dictator, or to become "collateral damage" during their "liberation". It's shamming that "coalition" even doesn't care to keep record of civilian lost...

[newyawker99]

94. Hi H_NeverAgain!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[leftofthedial]

113. newyawker99, how do you do this?

you are the most incredible one-person welcome wagon, community scribe, cookies and milk for everyone 24X7. You are incredible!

Thanks for what you do. It is very cool!

:toast:

[Junkdrawer]

80. We'll do the next best thing: appoint Chalabi to head...

Iraqi "security", put some of our troops on the borders and send the rest home. Elections via Diebold equipment in about a year.

[leftofthedial]

81. Diebold elections

would be the only way Chalabi comes within a mile of being elected.

He's a fraud and a crook and has no credibility with the majority of Iraqis.

[sushi]

99. And the Iraqis

don't want him. Who chooses Iraq's leader, the Iraqis or the Pentagon? If it's the latter then the US hasn't brought democracy to Iraq!

[leftofthedial]

102. nor peace

nor stability

[karlschneider]

104. Well, I bit the bullet and read the whole thread. And you are sorta right

I know of no evidence that a significant majority of Iraqis were, pre-March 03, sufficiently displeased with their leadership. It's clear that throughout recorded history, there's a limit to the amount of oppression a citizenry will tolerate. Revolutions don't even always need a huge contingent, and surely not always a tactical or strategic advantage, they just need to "be."

It's a lot easier for a thousand ants to subdue a spider than for the spider to chase down those 1K small critters - an analogy that could legitimately be applied to the current Iraq situation.

As has been noted ad nauseum, the world has no shortage of brutal pricks running countries and/or empires. Always have been some and probably always will be.

Sometimes the victors are not worthy of the spoils.

[leftofthedial]

105. thanks for reading the whole thing!

man, you're a trooper.

and I didn't make it easy for you.

I think a better government, by, of and for the IRaqi people would emerge quicker this way.

[NNN0LHI]

109. leftofthedial

I admire your courage to even bring this suggestion to the forum. And though I admit that the wise thing to do before we invaded would have been to use the carrot approach to try and convince Saddam to treat his people in a more decent way, as it may have well worked. it is too late now for this to happen. Even if the US were to install Saddam back into power now we still could not leave Iraq for years. After decimating his government and his security forces that kept him in power the US would now find ourselves in the position that our military would be reqired to stay to provide enough muscle to keep him in power. We would not gain anything by that. We would still be considered occupiers by a great number of Iraqis even if he were to be placed back in power now. Saddam would be considered a US puppet with all of the ramifications that would involve. Our soldiers would continue to be killed, and there would be no gain whatsoever at this point. Lets face the facts here. We are screwed no matter what we do now. I don't know what the answer is now. And I don't think anyone else does either. We have no good options. Going to bed now, but I thought I would throw my two cents in and hit the sack. Take care.

Don

[leftofthedial]

112. Thanks and sleep well

I don't think Saddam would accept the offer at all and if he did he wouldn't last very long (probably a matter of days) as weakened as he is and as emboldened as the Shiites and the Kurds are.

This clearly would not work without a swift and dramatic transition to the UN for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.

Peace.

[9215]

111. Sounds like a good idea to me

Saddam is no worse than what is happening now, even according to the utter bullshit the BFEE controlled media has spewed about him. The motherfuckers pampered, prodded and armed this "maniac" and then stole his precious natural resources to provoke his reaction.

This is the mother of all scandals: how we lured Saddam to attack Kuwait and then turned on him like a snake.

The US needs a very wrenching, I mean hard ass kick in the fuckhead to get off this overthrowing countries trip it is on. The volume of bullshit pumped out demonizing Hussein has an osmotic effect after a point, like conditioning a lab rat to respond to certain stimuli: it is verbotten to suggest Hussein is anything less than a demon.

[IranianDemocrat]

114. Ya giving Saddam back his country is a great idea.

He'll just forget about us invading his country in the first place!!! We'll all hold hands afterwards and be allies! The Iraqi people will defintely be better off once they are under the control of Saddam again! Hell he's not that bad of a guy! He's learned his lesson now and he'll be a force for good in the world once we give him back his country! He will NEVER long for vengence against the U.S. after we reinstate him!!!!!!!

You anti-american extremists are hillarious.

[TheYellowDog]

115. I agree

They really are. You can tell that they don't live in the real world.

[NNN0LHI]

116. OK IranianDemocrat and TheYellowDog

You two are very good at telling people what should not be done. So try telling us what we should be done then. Lets hear your brilliant plans on what you two think we should do to get us out of this fucking mess.

Don

[NNN0LHI]

121. [/Insert the sound of crickets chirping here] n/t

[IranianDemocrat]

122. Hand the country over to the UN and get our guys the hell out of there!

eom

[NNN0LHI]

124. Last time I checked the UN building is in New York city

And if the other UN countries do not want to get involved in our mess because they don't want their sons dying like dogs in the sand of Iraq for Haliburton Corporation what do you suggest then?

Don

[IranianDemocrat]

130. I don't know.

Lets take it step by step.

[NNN0LHI]

136. That makes two of us. I don't have a clue either n/t

[9215]

118. So you approve of the status quo?

With sarcasm on you say: He's learned his lesson now and he'll be a force for good in the world once we give him back his country!



Bottom line is that it was never the US's right to take the country in the first place. Bush did NOT remove Saddam to better Iraq, he did it to conquer the country for the BFEE, as Poppy baited Iraq to attack Kuwait which was stealing oil that nearly bankrupted Iraq.

The BFEE DOES NOT, NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL care about human rights. The bastards supported and still support Pinochet, Suharto, etc. They simply use this liberation shit as a smokescreen. Why do I have to reinvent the wheel on this at every topic. You aren't Psy-opsing me are you? The little bit about me being somehow unpatriotic makes me wonder.

The thimble brained dems and others who casually say: "its a good thing Saddam is gone" fail to consider that they are, in so many words, condoning what Bush did.

You cannot condone or allow to stand the end result of a barbaric act, which is what our invasion of Iraq was, without accepting the act itself. This precedent for non-provoked and decietfully sold aggression against a soveriegn nation should never be allowed to stand.

What sickens me is how Bush, after wrenching the international community through the shear violence he has wrought, now sits back and watches the world go at each other over what to do now.

First priority should be war crimes trials for Bush and Co. using the same standards of evidence for sending them to the gallows that they used to justify attacking Iraq.

[IranianDemocrat]

123. No I don't Support the Status Quo.

But reinstating Saddam is NOT the solution.

[Blue_Chill]

128. He doesn't know what a dictator is about

Anyone who says anyone would be better off with one is clueless.

[9215]

131. Who said that?

Get some brains! I'm sick and fucking tired of limp brains making false claims about what I said.

Did I say "better off"?

You completely ignore the issue I address, which has nothing to do with what Saddam did nor did not do. The fucking point for the 10,000 time is that the US fucked up and needs to make amends.

Got any ideas?

[9215]

129. Your not much on solutions

Just what do you propose?

[indepat]

119. Would $10B be a proverbial drop in the bucket in relation to the

immediate and long-term damage inflicted?

[David__77]

120. That would be reactionary--and not anti-imperialist.

Hussein was a US flunkey, so it's not totally ironical to fathom a US-Hussein alliance. I think though the best solution for Iraqi sovereignty is for the foreign forces to leave now, and allow the Iraqis themselves to determine their future. "Reinstating" Hussein after destroying Iraq's armed forces and state implies actively reconstructing the Ba'athist state power. I do not think that progressive forces in Iraq could support such a thing at all--and they would fight it with force of arms. The Kurdish groups, secular patriots like the Iraq Communist Party and others including Arabists and Shia forces will come together to support a democratic republic. If only now will the foreigners leave.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

125. If I wanted to discredit the Democratic party, I would post a pro-Saddam

anti-American thread like this. Since I want the Democratic party to be the majority party, I wouldn't. Why would you?

[Blue_Chill]

132. exactly

I was thinking the same thing

[FlashHarry]

133. You gotta be f*ckin' kidding me!

Nice one! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[HR_Pufnstuf]

134. Too late to turn back now. America just officially looted Iraq.

Presidential Documents

<[Page 52315>]

Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003

Blocking Property of the Former Iraqi Regime, Its
Senior Officials and Their Family Members, and Taking
Certain Other Actions


http://www.politrix.org/foia/sep03/us-steals-iraqi-funds.txt

[Fescue4u]

138. Thats proably the best thing we could do.

The Iraqis will never be stable as long as we are there.

[bluestateguy]

141. comment

i can applaud the removal of Saddam Hussien and not support the pre-emptive war policy. Just like I can applaud the fall of the Soviet Union but not supoprt nuking Moscow to achieve that outcome.

[NNN0LHI]

143. Said well bluestateguy n/t

[leftofthedial]

144. goals and process

The goals are:
1. Get the US out
2. Mediate as much as possible the current abundant reasons we have given everyone in that region to hate us.
3. Enable the Iraqis to build the government(s) THEY want, not the puppet regime that WE are putting in place now (like we tried and failed with the Shah in Iran, numerous Central Americn governments, the series of puppet governments we put in place in South Viet Nam). Any government we help put in place will be viewed as illegitimate.
4. Reverse as best we can the wrongs we have inflicted on the Iraqi people
5. Reverse as best as possible the assault we commited on the rule of international law


The chronology would be:
1. Involve the UN.
2. Make a formal statement of "reinstatement" of Saddam
3. Make a pledge of $10B (number pulled out of my ass) to rebuild Iraq.
4. Withdraw US forces and US military and political leadership, transitioning to multi-national peacekeeping an humanitarian organizations.

I don't believe Saddam would accept our offer. To do so would be suicide.

5. But if he did, help the new powers in Iraq dispatch him quickly, including trying him for his crimes.

6. Assist (without direct involvement or interference, that is, mainly by staying the hell out of the way) in the process of establishing new government(s) in Iraq.

7. Let them use the $10B (or whatever the "right" number is) to rebuild what we have destroyed.

8. End of the day: We are no longer conquering occupiers. Saddam has been ousted by his own people. A new Iraqi order arises organically instead of through our neocolonial manipulations.

All this chaos, bloodshed, and violence that you decry will happen eventually anyway. Our neocolonial interventions in other countries always eventually fail. What most of you seem to advocate is perpetuating slow motion chaos and violence--daily bombings, assassinations, growing resistance, guerilla war, establishment of a US puppet regime--that eventually will result in us abandoning Iraq to the "forces of chaos" anyway.

I say get it over now and do all we can to minimize the bloodshed.