UN Inspector - Iraq better off under Saddam

[Flashpoint]

Hard to believe it has come to a point where Iraqis might long for the days of Saddam.

But given the growing violence, and apparent descent into civil war, it does seem to make sense that "stability under dictatorship" seems like a much better option for the people of Iraq than the current "anarchy under democracy". Particularly since there is little to no hope for success.

If nothing else the Iraqi death count was much lower by even conservative estimates.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/25102006/...inspector.html

[Flash Walken]

See?! What do those stupid hippy treehugging academics know?!

[Hakan]

They hate freedom.

[CaptainCrunch]

We're seeing the same thing that happened when the Soviet union abandoned communism and centralized control of the people combined with a strong security element (KGB for Russia). Just with less internal violence on the Soviet side.

The people lose a lot of thier fear, and a lot of thier direction, and self interest becomes a larger driving force then self preservation.

With the Soviet Union they had a smoother (not by much) transition because they had a more experienced leadership in place, but a lot of them yearn for the days under Stalin because in a lot of ways it was easier.

With Iraq its easy to see that people might yearn for Hussein because they didn't have the overly threat of mass violence just the threat of individual targetted violence (Bombs vs a midnight visit by the secret police).

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Hard to believe it has come to a point where Iraqis might long for the days of Saddam.

But given the growing violence, and apparent descent into civil war, it does seem to make sense that "stability under dictatorship" seems like a much better option for the people of Iraq than the current "anarchy under democracy". Particularly since there is little to no hope for success.

If nothing else the Iraqi death count was much lower by even conservative estimates.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/25102006/...inspector.html

No, clearly you dont understand. If Saddam kills Iraqi citizens thats bad, if the US kills them then thats ok cause its all in the name of "democracy" and "the war on terror".

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Hard to believe it has come to a point where Iraqis might long for the days of Saddam.

But given the growing violence, and apparent descent into civil war, it does seem to make sense that "stability under dictatorship" seems like a much better option for the people of Iraq than the current "anarchy under democracy". Particularly since there is little to no hope for success.

If nothing else the Iraqi death count was much lower by even conservative estimates.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/25102006/...inspector.html

Depends on the outcome. I'm sure if a poll were conducted during the Civil War as only one example people would have said that it was better before this started. But out of it came the start of freedom for Americans of color.

I'll bet the Kurds already don't agree.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Hard to believe it has come to a point where Iraqis might long for the days of Saddam.

But given the growing violence, and apparent descent into civil war, it does seem to make sense that "stability under dictatorship" seems like a much better option for the people of Iraq than the current "anarchy under democracy". Particularly since there is little to no hope for success.

If nothing else the Iraqi death count was much lower by even conservative estimates.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/25102006/...inspector.html

Well a recrnt poll of Iraqi's disagree with this fella. 61% of Iraqi's say after all that has happened, it has been 'worth it'. I'll take their word over the UN guy's.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

No, clearly you dont understand. If Saddam kills Iraqi citizens thats bad, if the US kills them then thats ok cause its all in the name of "democracy" and "the war on terror".

So you think that the USA and Saddam are comparable morally?

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

So you think that the USA and Saddam are comparable morally?

No i didnt say that nor do I think it is the case. If your asking me if I think George W is comparable to Saddam morally I would still say no but it would be fairly close from where I sit.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Depends on the outcome. I'm sure if a poll were conducted during the Civil War as only one example people would have said that it was better before this started. But out of it came the start of freedom for Americans of color.

I'll bet the Kurds already don't agree.

Big difference between a country that had strong leadership with a democratic background and a country that doesn't seem enthusiastic for democracy. Each faction thinks it's a good time to grab power and I wouldn't be surprised to see Iraq divided in three.

Yeah, the Kurds should be happy to get some independence but this could have been accomplished without a wholescale invasion. If the Kurds do set up their own country, Turkey and Iran won't be thrilled and could cause big trouble.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Big difference between a country that had strong leadership with a democratic background and a country that doesn't seem enthusiastic for democracy. Each faction thinks it's a good time to grab power and I wouldn't be surprised to see Iraq divided in three.

Yeah, the Kurds should be happy to get some independence but this could have been accomplished without a wholescale invasion. If the Kurds do set up their own country, Turkey and Iran won't be thrilled and could cause big trouble.

Yep lots of things in history have caused big trouble. Do the Kurds deserve freedom -- YEP. Do they deserve their own country -- YEP.

Will it upset the Turks and Iranians -- Who freakin cares.

Like IRAQ divided in three is a bad thing -- Personally I think it's the ideal solution -- I'd implement it right away.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Yep lots of things in history have caused big trouble. Do the Kurds deserve freedom -- YEP. Do they deserve their own country -- YEP.

Will it upset the Turks and Iranians -- Who freakin cares.

Like IRAQ divided in three is a bad thing -- Personally I think it's the ideal solution -- I'd implement it right away.

The problems arise when you start discussing where the partitions would take place. Kurdish areas in the north and Shi'ite in the south have large oil wealth. The middle, largely Sunni, doesn't have near the amount of resource wealth that the other two areas have, which would lend itself to poverty and the ills that come with it.

[Vulcan]

The Kurds aren't limited to Iraq. Half their homeland is in Turkey and Iran and now that they've got a base they're giving Turkey a real headache. Not saying they don't deserve their own country, just saying the ramifications from invading Iraq are more far reaching than the simplistic answers Bush feeds his supporters.

[octothorp]

I think the best comparable might be to Yugoslavia: both are post-ottoman states that combine varied ethnic and religious groups who have no real connection with one another beyond a history of occupying (and often fighting over) the same territory. Both were briefly established as monarchies (the Hashemites in Iraq and the Karadadrovics in Yugoslavia) that were subsequently overthrown in coup d-etats and were ruled by strong, charismatic and occasionally brutal dictators (Tito, Saddam) who tried to suppress the identities of the various groups. Both suffered a leadership-void following the end of the dictator's reign and experienced a rise in tensions (primarily ethnic in yugoslavia, sectarian in iraq). And like Yugoslavia, the ultimate solution in Iraq may be to divide it up into several small nations.

Part of the reason the former yugoslavia has reached a relatively peaceful state is because of the ethnic cleansing that occured (first by various militias and armies, and later by a voluntary relocation program). The partitioning into various (relatively) ethnically homogenous nations could not have happened had it not followed the tragedy of the ethnic cleansing. And now there are reports today of ethnic cleansing in Bagdad, which is one of the first signs that they're headed down that same path. The foreign powers involved in Iraq need to come up with a solution now to address this, because otherwise the Iraqis will address it themselves in a far bloodier manner. I think it's time to start looking at partitioning the country. It's going to be an extremely difficult process. It might even be impossible, but it's starting to look more and more like the best bet to avoid civil war. And you can't do it without the concent of Turkey and Iran. They need to be on board, or the new nations will collapse in a hurry.

[mykalberta]

Not that I am disputing the qualifications of a man who would likely say the sun never shines, but lets look at his qualifications:

FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the University of Moscow in 1987.
FLUFF AWARD: Recipient of the Henry de Wolf Smyth Nuclear Statesman Award (Washington, D.C.), 1988).
FLUFF AWARDHonorary membership in the Cambridge Union Society.
FLUFF Gold Medal for distinguished service in the field of nuclear affairs by the Uranium Institute (now World Nuclear Association) in 1997.
FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2003.
FLUFF "Commander of the Légion d'Honneur" in 2004.
FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the University of Padova in 2004.

Something of note: He is the son of professor Gunnar Blix and Hertha Wiberg and comes from a family of old Norwegian nobility

Lawyer - Doctorate, was a professor.

Card Carrying Liberal.

Please tell me why this person's opion matters at all. A Liberal Lawyer who has recieved many honorary doctrates (fluff, great sounding mean nothing - likely donated money) has what appears to be like the Order of Britian, but in France yet he is a Swede.

Heck, this could be Jean Cretien, take away some BS "Doctorate Honoris causa" and this could be Jean - except Jean actually had success winning in Politics and didnt have to go to the UN.

Can anyone give any credible evidence why this man's opionion (non law) deserve's its own topic in CalgaryPuck - for frack sakes we have to have some standards.

to be honest, I dont know if there were WMD in Iraq, if they were they were either given to them by former US administration or by the USSR. In either case I am pretty sure the US would know about it, we all know the Iraqis would nver be smart enough to design an ICBM to hit the US but is it likely they they had them, I think yes - could they attack the 50 states or associated territories, not with some help from Russia.

Think of WMD in Iraq like the OJ Trial, Did OJ butcher those people, if you think no then you are liekly 99% chance likely to believe there were never any WMD. If you think he did then you might believe Iraq had the possibility and if an intelligence agency would know about, I think MIX or the CIA would - no offence to French Intelligence but they couldnt find shat on a feed lot.

MYK

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Not that I am disputing the qualifications of a man who would likely say the sun never shines, but lets look at his qualifications:

FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the University of Moscow in 1987.
FLUFF AWARD: Recipient of the Henry de Wolf Smyth Nuclear Statesman Award (Washington, D.C.), 1988).
FLUFF AWARDHonorary membership in the Cambridge Union Society.
FLUFF Gold Medal for distinguished service in the field of nuclear affairs by the Uranium Institute (now World Nuclear Association) in 1997.
FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2003.
FLUFF "Commander of the Légion d'Honneur" in 2004.
FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the University of Padova in 2004.

Something of note: He is the son of professor Gunnar Blix and Hertha Wiberg and comes from a family of old Norwegian nobility

Lawyer - Doctorate, was a professor.

Card Carrying Liberal.

Please tell me why this person's opion matters at all. A Liberal Lawyer who has recieved many honorary doctrates (fluff, great sounding mean nothing - likely donated money) has what appears to be like the Order of Britian, but in France yet he is a Swede.

Heck, this could be Jean Cretien, take away some BS "Doctorate Honoris causa" and this could be Jean - except Jean actually had success winning in Politics and didnt have to go to the UN.

Can anyone give any credible evidence why this man's opionion (non law) deserve's its own topic in CalgaryPuck - for frack sakes we have to have some standards.

to be honest, I dont know if there were WMD in Iraq, if they were they were either given to them by former US administration or by the USSR. In either case I am pretty sure the US would know about it, we all know the Iraqis would nver be smart enough to design an ICBM to hit the US but is it likely they they had them, I think yes - could they attack the 50 states or associated territories, not with some help from Russia.

Think of WMD in Iraq like the OJ Trial, Did OJ butcher those people, if you think no then you are liekly 99% chance likely to believe there were never any WMD. If you think he did then you might believe Iraq had the possibility and if an intelligence agency would know about, I think MIX or the CIA would - no offence to French Intelligence but they couldnt find shat on a feed lot.

MYK

So after all that do you think he's wrong?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Lawyer - Doctorate, was a professor.

Card Carrying Liberal.

Please tell me why this person's opion matters at all.

You already answered your own question by calling him a liberal! It means he is more in touch with reality than Bush and the Neo-cons.

Putting aside political slurs, how come you didn't mention how he was head of the International Atomic Energy Agency for 16 years? That might qualify him for looking for UMD's, as well as indicate he is a pretty bright guy (to go along with the fact he was a lawyer, so might have some critical reasoning skills. Some might say that any dumbass can graduate from Cambridge with a PHD in law, but I wouldn't be one of them).

Lets set aside intelligence though. Even smart cookies like Blix can be wrong.

Why should we listen to him?

How about because he has been proven right? No WMDs, no nuclear program, and Bush using it as an excuse to take out Saddam has resulted in misery and death for an entire country.

Decended from nobility you say? Gosh, how can he justify choosing into what family he was born. Given honorary degrees? He should have turned them all down.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Yep lots of things in history have caused big trouble. Do the Kurds deserve freedom -- YEP. Do they deserve their own country -- YEP.

Will it upset the Turks and Iranians -- Who freakin cares.

Like IRAQ divided in three is a bad thing -- Personally I think it's the ideal solution -- I'd implement it right away.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The problems arise when you start discussing where the partitions would take place. Kurdish areas in the north and Shi'ite in the south have large oil wealth. The middle, largely Sunni, doesn't have near the amount of resource wealth that the other two areas have, which would lend itself to poverty and the ills that come with it.

These are my thoughts pretty much exactly. But I was wondering if a peace agreement could be set up in the formation of these new nations that would incorporate some kind of revenue crutch for the Sunnis in the middle. Surely the Kurds and the Shi'ites would think that paying off the Sunnis for a lasting peace would be worth it in order for stability, greater influence and their own country- no?

But I'm betting that religion and hatred are elements that come into play here as well preventing such an opportunity.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

to be honest, I dont know if there were WMD in Iraq, if they were they were either given to them by former US administration or by the USSR. In either case I am pretty sure the US would know about it, we all know the Iraqis would nver be smart enough to design an ICBM to hit the US but is it likely they they had them, I think yes - could they attack the 50 states or associated territories, not with some help from Russia.

Think of WMD in Iraq like the OJ Trial, Did OJ butcher those people, if you think no then you are liekly 99% chance likely to believe there were never any WMD. If you think he did then you might believe Iraq had the possibility and if an intelligence agency would know about, I think MIX or the CIA would - no offence to French Intelligence but they couldnt find shat on a feed lot.

MYK

You don't know if there were WMD in Iraq? Really!
Now I get it, Saddam and OJ were in cahoots.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Not that I am disputing the qualifications of a man who would likely say the sun never shines, but lets look at his qualifications:

FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the University of Moscow in 1987.
FLUFF AWARD: Recipient of the Henry de Wolf Smyth Nuclear Statesman Award (Washington, D.C.), 1988).
FLUFF AWARDHonorary membership in the Cambridge Union Society.
FLUFF Gold Medal for distinguished service in the field of nuclear affairs by the Uranium Institute (now World Nuclear Association) in 1997.
FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2003.
FLUFF "Commander of the Légion d'Honneur" in 2004.
FLUFF Doctorate Honoris causa of the University of Padova in 2004.

Something of note: He is the son of professor Gunnar Blix and Hertha Wiberg and comes from a family of old Norwegian nobility

Lawyer - Doctorate, was a professor.

Card Carrying Liberal.

Please tell me why this person's opion matters at all. A Liberal Lawyer who has recieved many honorary doctrates (fluff, great sounding mean nothing - likely donated money) has what appears to be like the Order of Britian, but in France yet he is a Swede.

Heck, this could be Jean Cretien, take away some BS "Doctorate Honoris causa" and this could be Jean - except Jean actually had success winning in Politics and didnt have to go to the UN.

Can anyone give any credible evidence why this man's opionion (non law) deserve's its own topic in CalgaryPuck - for frack sakes we have to have some standards.

to be honest, I dont know if there were WMD in Iraq, if they were they were either given to them by former US administration or by the USSR. In either case I am pretty sure the US would know about it, we all know the Iraqis would nver be smart enough to design an ICBM to hit the US but is it likely they they had them, I think yes - could they attack the 50 states or associated territories, not with some help from Russia.

Think of WMD in Iraq like the OJ Trial, Did OJ butcher those people, if you think no then you are liekly 99% chance likely to believe there were never any WMD. If you think he did then you might believe Iraq had the possibility and if an intelligence agency would know about, I think MIX or the CIA would - no offence to French Intelligence but they couldnt find shat on a feed lot.

MYK

All that "Fluff", as you put it, seems like quite a resume. I'd love to have all those notches in my belt.