The Iraq War is one of those wars that nearly everybody agrees was a shit idea. Well, thankfully for you, I'm not everybody.

I've gained a bit of a reputation for supporting the War in Iraq; it's made people think of me as a hawk in foreign policy. Not a label I care for, but not one I necessarily reject.

First of all, turning to the beginnings of the Ba'ath Party; it was intimately linked with Nazism, dating back to the Nazi coup in Iraq of 1941. Even despite these dire origins, the Ba'ath Party was seen as something of a viable party for governance - especially by left-wing journalists - in conjunction with the Iraqi Communist Party. This. . .  optimism about Iraq, specifically Hussein, led journalist Christopher Hitchens to write, in 1976, that Hussein could provide a secular, socialist leadership for the country, worthy of admiration.

However, Hussein proved to be nothing more than extremely efficient at building on the party's Nazi origins. He began purging the Communist Party to the Left of him, and using methods extremely reminiscent of Stalin to gain power (he would go on to have the head of his secret police killed). He had Abu Nidal as head of Palestinian liberation and began a campaign of vile racial hatred against Kurds - murdering about 200,000 with chemical weapons erroneously supplied by the Reagan administration.

On top of this, he also disappointed hopes of secularism. Turning his regime into one of Islamic fundamentalism and a cult of personality, suppressing the Shi'a majority in Iraq and having a fucking Qur'an written in his own blood. Top this off with his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 (two years after an eight-year-long war with Iran), and various ecological disasters he caused, including the essential rape of Kuwait during his retreat and his destruction of the Mesopotamian Marshes.

All in all, the only mistake was leaving him in power in 1991.

I don't think people disagrees with Saddam meeting Mr. Mayhem, they're just disgusted that Bush trumpeted a grief-stricken, suddenly Uber patriotic post 9/11 country into war in Iraq under the pretense that Osama was hiding in Sadam 's bedroom and that he had a huge cache of WMDs.

Quote from: οΌˆγ£β—•β€Ώβ—• ）っNick McοΌˆγ£β—•β€Ώβ—• ）っ on December 28, 2014, 02:42:49 PM

I don't think people disagrees with Saddam meeting Mr. Mayhem, they're just disgusted that Bush trumpeted a grief-stricken, suddenly Uber patriotic post 9/11 country into war in Iraq under the pretense that Osama was hiding in Sadam 's bedroom and that he had a huge cache of WMDs.

You've got a really poor understanding of what started the Iraq war. 9/11 had nothing to do with it, and there's definitive proof that Saddam had (and used) weapons of mass destruction.

I've always been confused by where the discrepancy lies here. The Butler Report in our country essentially showed that Blair's government lied and covered things up to make it seem like Saddam had WMDs. . . But he did, he used them on the fucking Kurds.

Are people just conflating WMDs with nukes?

Quote from: Auld Lang Turkey on December 28, 2014, 04:29:42 PM

Quote from: οΌˆγ£β—•β€Ώβ—• ）っNick McοΌˆγ£β—•β€Ώβ—• ）っ on December 28, 2014, 02:42:49 PM

I don't think people disagrees with Saddam meeting Mr. Mayhem, they're just disgusted that Bush trumpeted a grief-stricken, suddenly Uber patriotic post 9/11 country into war in Iraq under the pretense that Osama was hiding in Sadam 's bedroom and that he had a huge cache of WMDs.

You've got a really poor understanding of what started the Iraq war. 9/11 had nothing to do with it, and there's definitive proof that Saddam had (and used) weapons of mass destruction.

I've always been confused by where the discrepancy lies here. The Butler Report in our country essentially showed that Blair's government lied and covered things up to make it seem like Saddam had WMDs. . . But he did, he used them on the fucking Kurds.

Are people just conflating WMDs with nukes?

Yeah, I guess. But the sanctions and investigations were always for chemical weapons, since they were trying to prevent another massacre.

I've always said that toppling Hussein was necessary, but spending five years in Iraq "rebuilding" it was idiocy.

First time, sure, Saddam crossed the line.

Second time? Invading a sovereign nation based on largely false claims of WMDs, knowing that a panicked post-9/11 American public would support pretty much any military action if it would keep them safe. It was illegal, and fucked up more than it fixed.

Quote from: οΌˆγ£β—•β€Ώβ—• ）っNick McοΌˆγ£β—•β€Ώβ—• ）っ on December 28, 2014, 02:42:49 PM

I don't think people disagrees with Saddam meeting Mr. Mayhem, they're just disgusted that Bush trumpeted a grief-stricken, suddenly Uber patriotic post 9/11 country into war in Iraq under the pretense that Osama was hiding in Sadam 's bedroom and that he had a huge cache of WMDs.

You've got a really poor understanding of what started the Iraq war. 9/11 had nothing to do with it, and there's definitive proof that Saddam had (and used) weapons of mass destruction.

But not nearly in the capacity the public was led to believe, and post-9/11 paranoia definitely played a part in the public going along with it--just take a look at Bush's approval ratings.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 28, 2014, 05:35:42 PM

Quote from: Kupo on December 28, 2014, 05:31:03 PM

largely false claims of WMDs

I don't care what the public believed.

180,000 dead Kurds suffered at the hands of these weapons. If that's not enough to motivate the electorate, then fuck the electorate.

The Syriam situation is just as bad - if not worse.

You're right, it's worse.

There's no side one can peaceably support. I've chosen Assad, however, and I'll face the consequences of that in the future if I have to.