Occupying the Moral High Ground

[crackerjack]

Yes it it. Without the pointless invasion, there would -- as far as we can tell --not be a civil war in iraq.

Then to get an accurate figure you would have to subtract the huge numbers of deaths in pre-invasion iraq. And if you want to blame THEM on the Americans too (though the sanctions had the support of the UN), perhaps we could go back to pre Gulf War I Iraq, and tot up the numbers killed in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as massacres of Iraqi innocents by Saddam.

 

[vimothy]

Yes it it. Without the pointless invasion, there would -- as far as we can tell --not be a civil war in iraq.

Until Saddam died or the Shia rose and overthrew the regime - then we'd be in the same situation we're in now, absent any international interest and involvement.

Neither you nor I have any reliable numbers about North Korea. If you want to factor in the Korean war you also need to add all the other pointless wars/dictators the US has sponsored, e.g. the attack on Iran.

I think it's fair to say that the North Korean famine in and of itself was responsible for more deaths than have occured in the wake of the fall of Saddam.

Well if think it is difficult to compare them, why did you do so in the post I responded to.

I didn't, Pavel Litvinov wrote the article you quoted from. And he was comparing American human rights abuses to Soviet human rights abuses, as per Amnesty, and then to that of other dictatorships (such as Cube, Saudi Arabia, etc). He wasn't talking about all deaths occuring in after the invasion of Iraq.

 

[vimothy]

Actually, borderpolice, can you tell me the average annual number of deaths "caused" (however you choose to slice that) by Saddam's regime?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes it it. Without the pointless invasion, there would -- as far as we can tell --not be a civil war in iraq.

Oh come now - this is verging on "Well, Arabs will be Arabs!" culpability-disavowal. I don't think the American leadership is exactly cackling with glee every time a bus full of schoolchildren goes kablooey; it's making business very hard to conduct there, for one thing.

 

[borderpolice]

Then to get an accurate figure you would have to subtract the huge numbers of deaths in pre-invasion iraq.

I subtract these figures. I have no sympathy for Saddam. As far as I can see, these figures would be significantly lower.

And if you want to blame THEM on the Americans too (though the sanctions had the support of the UN),

I have no problems with the sanctions.

perhaps we could go back to pre Gulf War I Iraq, and tot up the numbers killed in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as massacres of Iraqi innocents by Saddam.

As far as I am aware, Saddam was a US ally. In particular, I assume that the Iran-Iraq war was supported by the US, maybe even instigated. I don't know that for sure, and I'm happy to retract this conjecture if given persuasive evidence by credible historians. But it will probably be another decade or two before the precise nature of the the US involvement with Saddam will be understood.

 

[vimothy]

Yes it it. Without the pointless invasion, there would -- as far as we can tell --not be a civil war in iraq.

Not pointless at all - badly fucked up, stupidly planned and lacking in any strategic clarity, perhaps (they're certainly strong arguments), but "pointlesss"? Give me a break, you are talking about probably the worst, most oppressive regime on the planet at that time - with the possible exception of the DPRK - a "concentration camp above ground and a mass grave beneath".

 

[borderpolice]

Until Saddam died or the Shia rose and overthrew the regime - then we'd be in the same situation we're in now, absent any international interest and involvement.

That's wishful thinking on your part.

I think it's fair to say that the North Korean famine in and of itself was responsible for more deaths than have occured in the wake of the fall of Saddam.

There is no credible estimate for the numbers of deaths in the NC famine, estimates i have seem range from 100000 to several millions. It's pointless to speculate about it, especially since it's completely unrelated to the discussion. Nobody here is in favour of the north corean government. It's just a diversion tactic: look NC is so bad hence US = good. It's childish.

I didn't, Pavel Litvinov wrote the article. He wasn't talking about all deaths occuring in after the invasion of Iraq.

You quoted it approvingly.

 

[borderpolice]

Actually, borderpolice, can you tell me the average annual number of deaths "caused" (however you choose to slice that) by Saddam's regime?

I cannot. Neither can you. I have seen various wildly variant figures with a strong correlation to the political position of whoever quotes them. The iraqis of my personal acquaintance, all of which left because of saddam, tell me that violence is worse now than it used to be.

 

[crackerjack]

I subtract these figures. I have no sympathy for Saddam. As far as I can see, these figures would be significantly lower.



I have no problems with the sanctions.



As far as I am aware, Saddam was a US ally. In particular, I assume that the Iran-Iraq war was supported by the US, maybe even instigated. I don't know that for sure, and I'm happy to retract this conjecture if given persuasive evidence by credible historians. But it will probably be another decade or two before the precise nature of the the US involvement with Saddam will be understood.

Saddam was certainly a US ally, but he was a much closer one of Russia. There are figures you can find (compiled by some reputable Stockholm organisation) which will show you who sold how much to Iraq - you will be surprised by how low the US comes in the table (I certainly was).

I'm not an historican and cannot prove the US didn't instigate the invasion of Iran - though judging by the piss poor quality of the 'evidence' that they did, I think it's a fair bet they didn't.

 

[borderpolice]

Not pointless at all - badly fucked up, stupidly planned and lacking in any strategic clarity, perhaps (they're certainly strong arguments), but "pointlesss"? Give me a break, you are talking about probably the worst, most oppressive regime on the planet at that time - with the possible exception of the DPRK - a "concentration camp above ground and a mass grave beneath".

I don't think the invasion took place because of Saddam, a former US buddy. I think the reason was an ill-conveived mix of a desire to "Show the Arab who's boss", i.e. to reassert US dominance of the region which had received blow through the WTC attacks, and a messianic and naive and ethnocentric belief in the superiority of anglo-saxon forms of social organisation, and the ease of transferring this to other societies.

 

[vimothy]

That's wishful thinking on your part.

No it isn't. If you can't even be bothered to read what I'm writing, why are you bothering to respond? Saddam could not have lived for ever (despite your best efforts). The obvious tensions between Sunni and Shia would have remained until unleashed by instability. How could they be dispersed under Baathist rule?

There is no credible estimate for the numbers of deaths in the NC famine, estimates i have seem range from 100000 to several millions. It's pointless to speculate about it, especially since it's completely unrelated to the discussion. Nobody here is in favour of the north corean government. It's just a diversion tactic: look NC is so bad hence US = good. It's childish.

Again, this is a bit frustrating. It was relevant to a discussion that I was having with persons other than yourself. We were discussing the comparison made by Amnesty between the Soviet gulag and the American Gitmo. Since North Korea is really the last remaining Soviet-style slave state, complete with a Soviet-style slave empire, one should hardly be suprised that a Russian immigrant and gulag survivor brings it up. America don't run a gulag; North Korea do.

You quoted it approvingly.

It's a pretty damn good point - this aside notwithstanding.

 

[vimothy]

I cannot. Neither can you. I have seen various wildly variant figures with a strong correlation to the political position of whoever quotes them. The iraqis of my personal acquaintance, all of which left because of saddam, tell me that violence is worse now than it used to be.

I, too, have heard varying reports from Iraq refugees, and from others with families nearby (chiefly in Iran). Whatever, that's not the point. I'm sure that it is, at present, at a higher day-to-day level than it was under Saddam. But if you can quote estimates of Iraqi deaths after the fall of Saddam (this is implicit in your argument), then I see no reason why you cannot do the same before the fall of Saddam.

 

[vimothy]

I don't think the invasion took place because of Saddam, a former US buddy. I think the reason was an ill-conveived mix of a desire to "Show the Arab who's boss", i.e. to reassert US dominance of the region which had received blow through the WTC attacks, and a messianic and naive and ethnocentric belief in the superiority of anglo-saxon forms of social organisation, and the ease of transferring this to other societies.

Well, it's all open to interpretation, isn't it? My point is that regardless of the alledged motives of the relevent people and institutions in the US government and the international community, the overthrow of Saddam still represented freedom for Iraqis from a totalitarian thug. Even now, with Iraq in ruins, describing the Iraq invasion as "pointless" basically just moves the Iraqi people right out of the picture.

 

[borderpolice]

Saddam was certainly a US ally, but he was a much closer one of Russia. There are figures you can find (compiled by some reputable Stockholm organisation) which will show you who sold how much to Iraq - you will be surprised by how low the US comes in the table (I certainly was).

A sure, the SU also supported SH. In fact during the cold war, loads of 3rd world dictators played the two off against each other very successfully.

I'm not an historican and cannot prove the US didn't instigate the invasion of Iran - though judging by the piss poor quality of the 'evidence' that they did, I think it's a fair bet they didn't.

I agree, the evidence is scant. The reason why i'm tentatively taking this as the most likely cause of events is that it fits so well with US strategic interests at the time. "My enemy's enemy is my friend" happened all the time and still happens, just look at which militias the US is suddenly collaborating with in iraq/afganistan. Or at what happened in gaza when Hamas threw out fatah ...

 

[borderpolice]

No it isn't. If you can't even be bothered to read what I'm writing, why are you bothering to respond? Saddam could not have lived for ever (despite your best efforts). The obvious tensions between Sunni and Shia would have remained until unleashed by instability. How could they be dispersed under Baathist rule?

It is my understanding that these tensions didn't really exist as a significant force before the ethnic divide-and-conquer post invasion. after all, there aren't violent Sunni/Shia clashes in neighbouring countries every time a leader changes. I admit that there is a possibility of post-saddam ethnic tensions, just like i don't completely rule out civil unrest in Finnland, if an ethnic swede is elected, but I assign comparativly low probability to this happening.

 

[crackerjack]

The reason why i'm tentatively taking this as the most likely cause of events is that it fits so well with US strategic interests at the time.

True, though it wasn't just their interests. USSR had a far more immediate concern about Islamic fundamentalist Iran - just count the number of Muslim states on and within their old borders. I think a more accurate assessment is to say saddam assumed the countries which mattered wouldn't mind (which, by & large, they didn't).

 

[vimothy]

It is my understanding that these tensions didn't really exist as a significant force before the ethnic divide-and-conquer post invasion. after all, there aren't violent Sunni/Shia clashes in neighbouring countries every time a leader changes. I admit that there is a possibility of post-saddam ethnic tensions, just like i don't completely rule out civil unrest in Finnland, if an ethnic swede is elected, but I assign comparativly low probability to this happening.

Oh so the ethnic, inter-faith rivalries operating in Iraq are the fault of the Americans as well, are they? Nothing to do with the leaders of a small Sunni minority brutally repressing the Shia. Nothing to do with the deposed members of the Baath party, bitter at losing power, attacking the Shia with thet goal of provoking state failure and their return to dictatorial government. Nothing to do with the Shia, still suffering under Sunni death squads and worried that the Americans, so human and fallible after all, might sell them out to the Sunni / Baathi again, forming militias of their own and fighting back, taking Iraq to the brink, perhaps beyond the brink, of civil war.

Also, "...every time a leader changes" is nonsense. There are few examples of ruling Sunni factions being deposed by Americans to install Shia dominated democratic governments. Most times leaders change in the Middle East it represents not the loss of power for one group, but the passing of a position between a small and limited network of people (Saudi Arabia, Sryia, etc), and in those instances where regimes have been toppled, replacing the ruling elite with a totally new group, I'm sure there has been plenty of bloodshed between the competing factions.

 

[vimothy]

True, though it wasn't just their interests. USSR had a far more immediate concern about Islamic fundamentalist Iran - just count the number of Muslim states on and within their old borders. I think a more accurate assessment is to say saddam assumed the countries which mattered wouldn't mind (which, by & large, they didn't).

OTM

 

[crackerjack]

It is my understanding that these tensions didn't really exist as a significant force before the ethnic divide-and-conquer post invasion.

Sorry, but this is just SO wrong. There are areas (Baghdad) where Sunni and Shia happily lived side by side, but the Sunni minority's suppression of the Shia in Iraq was notorious - think back to the Shia uprising in '91. And it was going on long before that.

 

[crackerjack]

It is my understanding that these tensions didn't really exist as a significant force before the ethnic divide-and-conquer post invasion.

Actually, these tensions were one of the prime motivations for the Iran-Iraq war - Saddam didn't want the new Shia state inspiring any funny ideas in his own country.