Saddam Hussein Ba'athist Iraq.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I have a feeling that in the world you'd like to see, Wikipedia would only be editable by "El Supremo".

Truly, .

[saeton]

If the United States and NATO would've never invaded Iraq in 2003, you wouldn't see this "Islamic State" Cancerous problem.

 

    Now, I understand you'll all will say "He was a dictator, he had to be removed" So what? In order to get certain things done or keep things under control you must have someone like a dictator in placed. So face it, if Hussein was never removed from power in 2003, you wouldn't see a Islamic State roaming Iraq and Syria, and extremist doing Wahabist beliefs.

 

  Anyone agree?

After minoring in international studies/politics, I have to agree. Saddam the batshit guy that nobody !@#$ed with because you didn't know what he was capable of. When we took him out, that's when everything else went bat shit. Had we not touched him, he'd still be around to keep other leaders in check. They didn't know if he had nukes or not. Was it a shit place to live? Sure. But it was damn better then than now.

[elsuper]

I'm beginning to think Francisco Franco and Varspasian are like Demosthenes and Locke from Ender's Game (the book, not the movie).

[Aisha Greyjoy]

If the United States and NATO would've never invaded Iraq in 2003, you wouldn't see this "Islamic State" Cancerous problem.

 

    Now, I understand you'll all will say "He was a dictator, he had to be removed" So what? In order to get certain things done or keep things under control you must have someone like a dictator in placed. So face it, if Hussein was never removed from power in 2003, you wouldn't see a Islamic State roaming Iraq and Syria, and extremist doing Wahabist beliefs.

 

  Anyone agree?

I agree 100%.  Powerful dictators can keep islamists in check.  Baath stands for Arab Secular Nationalism.  Its very ideology was against any sort of religious state.

 

That said, Baathist Iraq was also a powerful check against Iran.  Now we've enabled the terrorists and Iran, so good going Team USA.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

After minoring in international studies/politics, I have to agree. Saddam the batshit guy that nobody !@#$ed with because you didn't know what he was capable of. When we took him out, that's when everything else went bat !@#$. Had we not touched him, he'd still be around to keep other leaders in check. They didn't know if he had nukes or not. Was it a !@#$ place to live? Sure. But it was damn better then than now.

Women in Burquas?  No.  Women in school?  Yes.

 

Safe to walk home at night?  Yes.

 

Electricity?  Yes.

 

Terrorists running the country?  No.

Saddam's Iraq was a paradise compared to the new Iraq.  Mind you, if you spouted crap about Sharia Law, he'd make you watch your wife and daughters raped before sending you to prison for 50 years.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I agree 100%.  Powerful dictators can keep islamists in check.  Baath stands for Arab Secular Nationalism.  Its very ideology was against any sort of religious state.

 

That said, Baathist Iraq was also a powerful check against Iran.  Now we've enabled the terrorists and Iran, so good going Team USA.

Agreed.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Let me revise my earlier remarks.

 

The arab spring may have unseated Saddam in the way Muburuk was unseated or Qadaffi.  The aftermath of that may have led to the an almost identical situation to what we now see, except our hands wouldn't be covered in blood.

 

Another alternative is that Iraq and Syria might both be in the midst of a massive Islamic uprising.  But I'd rather Arabs kill Arabs over the way they want to live them Americans kill Arabs (and the reverse) over the way we want them to live.

[Fox Fire]

Let me revise my earlier remarks.

 

The arab spring may have unseated Saddam in the way Muburuk was unseated or Qadaffi.  The aftermath of that may have led to the an almost identical situation to what we now see, except our hands wouldn't be covered in blood.

 

Another alternative is that Iraq and Syria might both be in the midst of a massive Islamic uprising.  But I'd rather Arabs kill Arabs over the way they want to live them Americans kill Arabs (and the reverse) over the way we want them to live.

The difference is: Everyone there wouldn't hate the living shit out of us, and it would just be a civil war.

[SoS]

The difference is: Everyone there wouldn't hate the living !@#$ out of us, and it would just be a civil war.

They would still hate us.

[Fox Fire]

They would still hate us.

Not nearly as much. AQ was nothing before we invaded Iraq. Our invasion of Iraq was viewed by the Muslim world as an act of impirialist aggression. There were SOO many people who faught us in Iraq under several different AQ linked groups, but not because they "liked" AQ. Solely because they saw us as impirialist enemies and because they thought AQ and other Salafist groups that sprung up (mostly by foreigners taking advantage) as "on their side."

It's possibly the worst strategic mistake the US has ever made.

Sure, they may still think the west is evil, but there wouldn't be the added invasion of their nation and thousands of dead civilians, hundreds of dead children caused by our invasion to use as fuel. That level of hate simply wouldn't be there.

Just put yourself in their shoes. A foreign nation comes and invades your nation, probably kills many of your friends and family, people you care about. Whether the killing of said people was intentional or simply "statistics" would be irrelevent in your mind. The one thing you'd truly know is that some of the closest people in your life were killed by some foreigners that you really have no understanding of, because you, like everyone else, never gave a !@#$ until now. Before the war, you were probably a farmer, a shepard, a mechanic, a typical and normal person whos life was destroyed in a day due to American bombs.

 

Now had we stayed out, all that blood would not be on our hands. All that hate would not be directed at us.