The Three Iraqs

Pre-sanction, sanction, post-invasion

from JoeUser Forums
Iraq is now entering its third period since Saddam Hussein took power.

Which of the three versions of Iraq is the best?


1. Saddam Hussein's pre-sanctions Iraq

In the 1980s Saddam Hussein started two wars, one against Iran and one against Kuwait. Due to his regime and the wars more than 2 million people died, including 1-1.5 million Iranians, 100,000 Kurds, and thousands others.

Period: 1980s, pre-sanctions Iraq
Resident Nutter: Saddam Hussein
Frags: >2 million


2. Iraq during the sanctions

In the 1990s and early 2000s Iraq suffered under UN sanctions while Saddam refused to co-operate with UN inspections. Aid transports were sent away or goods sold elsewhere.

Due to the sanctions and more so due to Saddam's behaviour few of the goods reached their destinations among the Iraqi population.

Saddam Hussein also killed a few thousand Iraqi Shi'ites in the south, but I guess that goes without saying.

Period: 1990s, early 2000s
Resident Nutter: Saddam Hussein
Frags: 1 million children due to sanctions, >100,000 Shi'ites, more


3. Iraq after the invasion

Since the invasion a maximum of 31,000 civilians plus 2000 American soldiers have died mostly due to terrorist attacks by Saddam's supporters.

Period: since 2003
Resident Nutter: on trial
Frags: <35,000


Sources: Wikipedia, Iraq Body Count Web site


Questions:

Which one of these scenarios do you think is best for Iraq and the world?

Which one of these scenarios do or did you support?

Among the world leaders, specifically of the leaders of the five great powers (US, UK, Russia, China, France+Germany), who do you think stood for which Iraq?
7,439 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
May I add that I support Iraq #3.

I believe George Bush and Tony Blair stand for #3, Bill Clinton for #2 towards #3 (he did occasionally attack Iraq), Jaques Chirac for #1 (he wanted the sanctions lifted), Gerhard Schroeder for #2 towards #1 (he supported Chirac), Putin for #1 (analogous to Chirac), and China remained neutral.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very telling stats!  I wonder how the democrats are goign to spin this one?
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
ronald reagan stood for #1 while george hw bush brought stage #2 into being and made it reality.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't hear that Ronald Reagan was very vocal about Iraq at all.

And as for George Bush I, I agree he was not ideal. But stage #2 was much better than stage #1.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
btw, a much more historically accurate explanation of the three iraqs would be: 1. mosul 2. baghdad 3. basra.

to me, the most sensible solution to the problem the brits created (the same way they did so many other failed conglomerations) and we excaberated (first by supporting hussein, then invading iraq and buying it by breaking it), would be to deconsolidate iraq into its traditional divisions.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't hear that Ronald Reagan was very vocal about Iraq at all


rumsfield was reagan's special envoy to hussein. it was he who negotiated providing arms to iraq and--more importantly--caused hussein to believe he had an ally in the us.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kingbee, hows about you give answers to the other 2 questions above the one you chose to answer. Just wondering.

I personally have no answer ATM, I have very little or no knowledge of the first 2. Was not interested in them before.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

to me, the most sensible solution to the problem the brits created (the same way they did so many other failed conglomerations) and we excaberated (first by supporting hussein, then invading iraq and buying it by breaking it), [...]


The problem was created by Sunni Arab nationalism, not the Brits. Different groups can live together in peace without any problems, unless one or more of them don't want to.

Look at the Jews and Druze in Israel as an example from the region. Or look at the Kurds and Arab Shi'ites now in Iraq.


[...] would be to deconsolidate iraq into its traditional divisions.


You mean give it back to Turkey?


it was he who negotiated providing arms to iraq and--more importantly--caused hussein to believe he had an ally in the us.


I think it was Hussein who caused Hussein to believe in an alliance with the US. The man is not a programmable machine, you know.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

ronald reagan stood for #1 while george hw bush brought stage #2 into being and made it reality.



What a pile of malarky! HW had nothing to do with it. Try your friends at the UN. HW imposed no sanctions....the UN did.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

HW imposed no sanctions....the UN did.


The sanctions were clearly better than #1. HW did well.

But #3 is even better. W did better.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

ronald reagan stood for #1 while george hw bush brought stage #2 into being and made it reality.

More accurately, he abided stage 1.  He did not stand for it.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Still waiting for actual answers from the left...
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Still waiting for actual answers from the left..


I hope you have a lot of time.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I am young. I can check every two years.

I wonder why there are so many lefties opposed to the invasion but unwilling to say so out loud when asked about whether they actually preferred the pre-invasion situation.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

rumsfield was reagan's special envoy to hussein. it was he who negotiated providing arms to iraq


Can you tell me which arms these were?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
rumsfield was reagan's special envoy to hussein. it was he who negotiated providing arms to iraq and--more importantly--caused hussein to believe he had an ally in the us.


And just what kind of arms do you think he supplied them with? I do hope that you do "not" mean small arms (pistols, rifles, etc) because that's a steaming pile of BS!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would be really interested in learning what these were, the arms Rumsfield provided.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
None of the above. The most important question is what will period #4 be like?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Period #4???

There is no period #4.

These are the three Iraqs that existed since Saddam came to power. There is no magical fourth option. The three options given are the reality, the world we have to deal with.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are in Period #4. There is no good choice from the first three and period #3 was AFTER Saddam was removed.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are in Period #4. There is no good choice from the first three and period #3 was AFTER Saddam was removed.


Col, read what you just wrote. How can we be in period #4 when we are still in #3?

3. Iraq after the invasion


Anything and everything that happens from now on is after the invation. Like Leauki said there is no #4. You are just looking to start an unnecesary argument about what "could" happen next which in your mind is nothing good.

What ever happens next would be a new chapter and would have to be considered #1 again.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is no good choice from the first three


I didn't ask for a good choice. I asked for the best choice.

If, for you, one million victims are as good as 20,000, you might not be qualified to answer.

As I see it all three periods have their advantages and disadvantages, depending on your point of view.