[A.Fitzgerald]

“I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting . . . it was the start of a new Arab world... The Berlin Wall has fallen.”

Walid Jumblatt Leader of the Lebanese Druze

Search in Google- Arab Spring

I hereby fomally claim that the Arab Spring could not have happend without the liberation of the Iraqi people, since before 2003 the only democracy in the middle east was Israel...

[Carecup]

You can declare all you like if you haven't got any substantial evidence to back it up your statement is a mere assertion.

[Aj12]

We don't know if the Arab spring happened or not because of Iraq though I lean towards it happening either way. Anyway regardless of the motives of the invasion of Iraq its good to see that something good is coming of it after the years of sectarian violence.

[Perseveranze]

What liberation lol? A million lives and half the nation flattened?

Strongly doubt every Iraqi will agree with you, and quite a few probably want retribution.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
What liberation lol? A million lives and half the nation flattened?

Strongly doubt every Iraqi will agree with you, and quite a few probably want retribution.

The liberation that removed a dictator who had killed millions of Iraqi's and gassed his own people and directly and indirectly caused the death of most likely 100,000 Iraqi's and at worst 500,000 many of whom were killed by sectarian violence in the aftermath

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Aj12)
The liberation that removed a dictator who had killed millions of Iraqi's and gassed his own people and directly and indirectly caused the death of most likely 100,000 Iraqi's and at worst 500,000 many of whom were killed by sectarian violence in the aftermath

UN figures again?

[Aj12]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
UN figures again?

The first is the Iraqi body count and the second the Lancet journal. The two most reliable sources for casualty figures.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Aj12)
The first is the Iraqi body count and the second the Lancet journal. The two most reliable sources for casualty figures.

I don't know about that, its had its fair share of criticisms.

Amazing how people still try to justify an invasion, a complete wreck full of sectarian, criminal and bandit encouraged violences, high corruption, and millions of deaths/misplaced people.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I don't know about that, its had its fair share of criticisms.

Amazing how people still try to justify an invasion, a complete wreck full of sectarian violences, high corruption, and millions of deaths/misplaced people.

So does everything whats your point? At leats I'm not just pulling numbers out of thin air. If you think the lancets had its criticism then you should see how that OBR buisness survey that put the number at over a million got ripped apart.

[Suetonius]

Well, the alternative is obviously the will to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Anyone who opposes the war for Iraq on moralistic grounds is ill-informed and delusional.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
What liberation lol? A million lives and half the nation flattened?

Strongly doubt every Iraqi will agree with you, and quite a few probably want retribution.

You're degree of hypocrisy is perverse. You and your Salafi co-religionists are truly the lowest of the low.

[A.Fitzgerald]

For those of you who disagree (or those of you who do agree but like to feel a bit better about yourself) over the liberation of the Iraqi people please take some time to watch this video and do a little research on the other side of the argument. Thank you.

[A.Fitzgerald]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
I don't know about that, its had its fair share of criticisms.

Amazing how people still try to justify an invasion, a complete wreck full of sectarian, criminal and bandit encouraged violences, high corruption, and millions of deaths/misplaced people.

Oh and they are still finding mass graves in Iraq today

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
You're degree of hypocrisy is perverse. You and your Salafi co-religionists are truly the lowest of the low.

That's one of the things that have shocked me most about Muslims. You'd think that with their whole anti-war stance they're against any types of interventions. But clearly not.



You think those countries lost their country peacefully? No, it was through war. And at least American imperialism is at best neo-colonialist whereas Muslims are for full colonialism. It's clear Muslims aren't against invasions. It's just when it's on non-sharia grounds it's bad.

Anyway, I agree with you OP but wtf is up with your logic? Arab spring wasn't the result of Iraq invasion. One less dictatorship which happened 5 years before the Arab spring isn't going to trigger that. The Iraqi people are better of with Saadam gone, he was one of the worst tyrants of our decade. Iraq may not be a beacon of freedom and democracy today but no one every said things happen overnight.

[anarchism101]

Yeah, we've all heard the 'Saddam was a bad guy' argument a million times before, and it's totally true. But then again, the West has prior to the invasion been keeping him in power for 24 years.

As for democracy since then, the US continually ignored the wishes of the Iraqi people that they leave, or even give a fixed timetable for leaving. The US continually suppressed the local democratic and community groups, and meddled hugely with the elections and government, and still is doing so.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Yeah, we've all heard the 'Saddam was a bad guy' argument a million times before, and it's totally true. But then again, the West has prior to the invasion been keeping him in power for 24 years.

As for democracy since then, the US continually ignored the wishes of the Iraqi people that they leave, or even give a fixed timetable for leaving. The US continually suppressed the local democratic and community groups, and meddled hugely with the elections and government, and still is doing so.

I don't think anyone really denies that the US aren't angels far from it. After all, their idiotic economic sanctions against the Iraqi people cost around 500,000 lives.

Most supports just believe that the current situation is preferable to having Saadam in power.

[Dirac Delta Function]

A-M The issue is sectarianism. Saddam was a bastard, but he was a Sunni Bastard with a majority Shia opposition, which is why is can still be regarded as a "martyr" in the view of influential Muslim clerics. The others on the other hand - Assad, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Qadhafi were worthy of being toppled.

They talk about "Western imperialism" and the like, but had no problem with Western intervention in toppling Qadhafi. This is the hypocrisy of the Libyan rebels - the same people that went to Iraq for "jihad" worked with European powers in Libya. The same people who call Iraqis "traitors" for working with the West, worked with them also when the opportunity was presented to them.

Iraq is and will always be different to the other Arab dictatorships because of sectarian matters. The typical Muslim view on Iraq has no credibility, because by any standard, it should be the foremost of countries that a regime change should have been supported, especially given the fact that there was a large uprising in 1991 that almost succeeded - demonstrating clear intent for regime change from Shia and Kurds, who together make up around 80-85% of the population.

And on the political front, Iraq is really not the failure it's often presented to be. It has a lot of problems but it's generally moving in the right direction in most aspects. Given that Iran and the Arab states mounted enormous pressure on the country to fail, it's frankly a miracle it's still in one piece.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
I don't think anyone really denies that the US aren't angels far from it. After all, their idiotic economic sanctions against the Iraqi people cost around 500,000 lives.

Most supports just believe that the current situation is preferable to having Saadam in power.

You could certainly say, but I'd argue that's not the right question, and what we should be asking is whether Iraq would be better off if they'd been able to overthrow Saddam by themselves, like they tried to after the First Gulf War (NATO assisted Saddam in putting down the rebellion).

With this in mind, the sanctions. As you mentioned, the effects on life were horrific, but they were for political reasons - they strengthened Saddam within Iraq, but weakened the country itself. This was because the US and Britain had decided they wanted Saddam gone, but they wanted control over what happened next, so the sanctions were put in place to keep Saddam there until they could figure out what to do next.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by anarchism101)
You could certainly say, but I'd argue that's not the right question, and what we should be asking is whether Iraq would be better off if they'd been able to overthrow Saddam by themselves, like they tried to after the First Gulf War (NATO assisted Saddam in putting down the rebellion).

With this in mind, the sanctions. As you mentioned, the effects on life were horrific, but they were for political reasons - they strengthened Saddam within Iraq, but weakened the country itself. This was because the US and Britain had decided they wanted Saddam gone, but they wanted control over what happened next, so the sanctions were put in place to keep Saddam there until they could figure out what to do next.

I agree, Iraq would've been better off if Saadam was overthrown by the Iraqi people. However, I don't think Iraqis would be able to overthrow Saadam by themselves look at how Libyans and Syrians aren't able to accomplish that. Saadam doesn't give a **** about the amount of people he murders and wouldn't hesitate to show full strength with massive disregard for life at any opposition he faces. After all, who is there to appease? He has no reason to go soft.

[rawkus]

(Original post by Aj12)
The liberation that removed a dictator who had killed millions of Iraqi's and gassed his own people and directly and indirectly caused the death of most likely 100,000 Iraqi's and at worst 500,000 many of whom were killed by sectarian violence in the aftermath

You know he was killing his own people back in the 80s when senior American personnel were flying over there to reassure him that his actions would not affect their relationship with one and other? Please explain to me how the deaths of so many people during the war were Saddam's fault when he was captured in 2004?

It would be impossible to argue that Saddam didn't deserve what he got but an equally challenging notion is arguing that the coalition invaded Iraq solely or even at all in the interest of the Iraqi people.

Is the neg for anything in particular or just from a bitter person who can't take it when an untenable position which he/she holds is challenged?