'655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'

[bogeyman]

at least they "saw" the WMD

They can certainly see imagined threats that suit their political ends, but ignore any real threats where it doesn't add up for them to expend the lives and money in a war, or where the adversary might fight back hard (e.g. NK).

The US (and UK's current leadership dragging on Uncle Sam's sh1ty coat-tails) will only sacrifice the lifeblood of their respective nations if there is a moderate political, or financial advantage to be had for the ruling elite (even if only short-term).

Interesting "This World" prog on the box last light about how the Israelis might have to bomb Iran to stop the Mad Mullahs getting their paws on nukes. They know full well they'll be criticised and vilified, but they'll go it alone (even without the US) because know they are the only ones with the guts, and immediate necessity, to stand between civilized Western democracy and a medieval Islamic tyranny.

[Joe Black]

The point is that this level of violence did not happen during Saddam, and come to think of it if deal was made with him then he could have been good ally against Iran: exactly the job he was doing pretty well in the last 20 years.

On the latter, leaving the phrase "good ally" aside, perhaps he might have been. Then again it could also be suggested that the reason Iran may have been carrying out a covert nuclear program for so many years could just as much have been the result of Saddam himself and the 8 year war, invading Kuwait etc, and generally destabilising the entire region...I'll leave that one to the historians.

As for the violence, yep, maybe Saddam kept it in check by brute force and persecution. But as LB and Mordac suggest though, would this never have happened if the US/UK hadn't invaded?

I ask the question having been in Serbia (then Yugoslavia) years ago and having to listen to people telling me all too often how all the Bosnians/Croatians/Kosovans were all dirty, thieving lying scum who didn't deserve any respect etc, etc.

[AtW]

But as LB and Mordac suggest though, would this never have happened if the US/UK hadn't invaded?

Definately not because Saddam made sure that sectarian violence does not happen, brutally, but effectively. There is no end in sight to what's going on in Iraq, now I would not be suprised it will be split up - the Kurds in any case already have semi-independence, if they did not have problems with Turkey they could have just put pipeline to their and get a lot of benefits.

Saddam is scum, but so are politicians who would prefer to blow $500 bln on war instead of investing that money to find cure of AIDS, cancer and lots of other things: that's criminal error of judgement.

[wendigo100]

But as LB and Mordac suggest though, would this never have happened if the US/UK hadn't invaded?

Whether it would or not, the important thing is that it wouldn't have been our problem.

[Joe Black]

AtW, I might agree with the last paragraph, but my question is still the same.

Just because the US/UK invaded does not mean all this would never have happened in any case. Saddam isn't/wasn't immortal. Likewise with him in Iraq would Iran never have thought of starting a nuclear weapons program?

Correct me if I'm wrong but which country/countries invaded Yugoslavia and forced them to start killing each other, and made them round up all those men and boys in Srebrenica? Too me it doesn't seem much different from armed Shia/Sunni militia rounding up and murdering their professed enemies in Iraq...

[Lucifer Box]

'655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'

Chico must have the biggest hard-on in all of Christendom at the thought. I'll warrant it's still not enough for him though.

[AtW]

Correct me if I'm wrong but which country/countries invaded Yugoslavia and forced them to start killing each other, and made them round up all those men and boys in Srebrenica?

Invasion there happened AFTER they started killing each other, in Iraq this phrase was long gone and it was established "peace", crap one but look at Iran - by far more dangerous problem.

[Joe Black]

Whether it would or not, the important thing is that it wouldn't have been our problem.

Possibly, but then it comes down to a judgement call/executive decision, whatever you want to call it.

It could also have been just as possible that Saddam, having no WMD's, finds Iran is gearing up to do just that and then does the same, and the following 8 year war turns into an 8 minute one where they both lob nukes about, including perhaps at Israel, Kuwait, who knows where, and half the worlds oil supply in gone in an instant. So what do you do, likewise with Yugoslavia?

Hindsight and speculation is wonderful...

[hyperD]

John Snow was interviewing the USA Secretary of State (?) about Korea on C4 news and asked as we invaded Iraq because we believed they had WMD, now that we know that Korea has definitely got them, will the US invade shortly?

He smoothly replied that this was different as Korea was using this as a means of posturing within the global arena and has a history of it.

Er, OK then.

[Masher]

It appears that Saddam treated Iraqis the way they need to be treated and that kept a lid on all this. Maybe he should be nominated for a Nobel peace prize.