And we’re not, are we ? If we do nothing, plenty will die, therefore we do nothing.
As a rule no, especially America.
-
Um, the post WWII era is the one we live in.
-
Actually it was pretty bloody. See my top 10 list.
-
And actually… if you look carefully… you’ll see that my dataset doesn’t really contradict your point. I guess I didn’t make that clear enough.
The Iraq War had deaths in between mean and median range. Now I don’t know what a “big” conflict is, but surely it is above average. (Similarly, a small conflict would have deaths below the median – but Quartz never claimed that the Iraq War was small. He just said it wasn’t big.)
-
Still, I think the OP was trying to distinguish cases like Iraq or Gulf War from less extensive military action in Grenada (Reagan) or US steps to halt genocide in Bosnia (Clinton). Not that Quartz’s point wasn’t worth making.
-
I can never get my head around US traffic accident/warfare comparisons.
Ok, actually Quartz said that 30K was barely a blip. Call it hyperbole.
Sadly, 30 or 40K is fairly small compared with the 1000K who died during the 1978-2002 Afganistan civil war. Never mind the 1958-1978 Indochinese conflict. (But it’s also substantially larger than the post WWII median of 5K.)
You’re seriously trying to tell me that Iraq would be in the state it’s in today had it just been left to its own devices? Really?
Holy crap.
Is that the best the apologists* can do these days?
Whatever, Scylla.
Difference is, before we invaded, Iraq had a government – one which, for all its faults, governed effectively. It was a society that worked. Unlike now.
ugh. Now if that kind of argumentation doesn’t bring me back to the good old times under the cold war and hearing communist praising Stalin and Mao. Bravo BrainGlutton! Iraq under Saddam had a effectively government under Saddam something like Auswitch was an efficient operation and North Korea has a government which, for all its faults, governs effectively and has a society that works brilliantly. Of course, efficiency never did keep six millions Europeans from the ovens or kept a couple more million Iraqis from mass-graves than are casualties from the current war. But it sure was an efficient and well oiled machine alright. And I bet some trains kept to their time-schedule as well. Don’t forget that bit!
I’m in no way an apologist, but when Saddam died or was eventually toppled, the kind of sectarian divisiveness that would come about would happen regardless if the US was there or not, so in effect, it’s better there is the MNF somewhat trying to prevent to conflict escalating into full blown civil war, and also has helped get people elected rather than appointing themselves to office which would happen if the MNF wasn’t in Iraq after Saddams toppling.
Iraq has a government now, just that the make up of that government is more representative of the people who elected it, rather than the government beforehand which dictated to the Iraqi people what they wanted, not what the people it was governing wanted.
So yeah, if you call an Iraqi government which effectively slaughtered 1 million of its own people in order to maintain the person at the top in his place alongside other Tikriti cousins, then yes, it worked :rolleyes:
Now that’s apologism
What you see now is the result of Saddams divisiveness as a leader and what effect that had on the society at large because he favoured various Sunni groups as opposed to the majority Shia or ethnic Kurds. The legacy he left Iraq is a legacy of inheirent violence and brutality which is still being felt today.
Yes. But it is not an effective government. What good is a government that cannot govern?
I heard an Iraqi religious leader interviewed on All Things Considered this evening, and he was feeling nostalgic for the Hussein government. “Yes, we had no freedom,” he said, “but life was easier. We had security.” That’s what people really remember – not the mass graves and the network of part-time police spies, but the quality of daily life. Steady work, food and clean water available, health care available, electric power that worked, not too much crime. The basics of life, the things you have to have taken care of before you can afford to worry about anything else. Michael Moore was not being disingenuous when he showed clips of a happy pre-invasion Iraq in Farenheit 9-11.
Hussein did not create that state of affairs. The Sunnis of Mesopotamia were a ruling elite under the Ottoman Empire and under all of Hussein’s predecessors.
Furthermore, the contention that Saddam’s death would inevitably lead to instability was not substantiated by Ryan.
Stalin had a murderous regime. He died. No subsequent warfare. Ditto for Mao’s China (which has its share of ethnic conflict, btw.)
Czechoslovakia had ethnic conflict, an eventual breakup and no civil war.
Personally, I would think that Hussein’s death would have likely been followed by a military coup, if the US had not destroyed and dismissed the Iraqi army.
But to contend that the events following Hussein’s death are obvious and pre-ordained is just silly. Sheesh.
With the Islamic Court Union taking over Mogadishu, the sequel to Black Hawk Down make be next. But I wish Least Original User Name Ever’s prediction comes true.
Which the British unravelled when they took over the country on a mandate, which after the subsequent Shia rebellion, forced the UK to be more dependent on the military, which was in turn dominated by Sunni military officers. The people of Mesopotamia were ruled by Turkish Sunnis, not Arab Sunnis, so it wasn’t even Arabs who created that state of affairs (which is no excuse for Saddams minority government) it was the Turks/Ottomans.
The religious leader, what sect is he? if He’s Sunni Arab, it’s fine, Saddams Islamisation process before the war would benefit him the most, plus buy him his loyalty. But lets ask Shia and Kurdish leaders, both groups whom represent 80% of the populace, and ask them how they liked life under Saddam.
On the contrary, given the situation, it is an effective government just getting started which is free and democratic. It’s been what? 3 years? Saddam ruled for almost 30.
Stalin and Mao had massive and effective security apparatuses in place to make sure there was no subsequent civil war afterwards. But given the fact that Saddam didn’t have complete control of the country and his power was weakened, it would make it more likely that there would be civil war after his death.
I think Saddam was grooming one of his sons for the top job, and another for control of the security forces, which would of created a situation where both the Shia and Kurds rebelled again, this time with US support.
Shias are well known to be labelled second class citizens in the Middle East, Sunnis in Iraq wouldn’t be so welcome to the change of government going from centuries of Sunni domination to Shia domination overnight. Hence we’d probably see civil war if the MNF wasn’t there to allievate it somewhat.
Hell of a lot better than an effective government that sees as its raison d’etre to kill as many people as possible. In fact, there are few things more dangerous than an effective government.
There are East Germans who’ll wax nostalgic about DDR for hours. There are a whole bunch of Russians and, unbelivable Ukrainians, who long back to the good old days of Stalin, where life was easier and jobs secure. There’s even a German or two or hundred thousand who miss the good old times in the Hitler Jugen. I’ve even been told that there’s a chap or two that miss the 80’s and padded shoulders. Doesn’t mean a thing, except that people are stupid. And Moore was obviously being manipulative when he tried to portray Iraq pre-invasion as a place where kids were safe and happy, because quite a lot were neither, many others were being tortured and buried in mass graves because of Saddam. But let’s be fair, for all Saddam Hussien’s faults, he never did kick his mother in the stomac – if for no other reason than he never knew her.
And if you continue that line of thought, it’s all Eve’s fault for taking that bite.
Reminds me of that quote from Team America by the puppet version of Sean Penn
*Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles. *
Unless you compare it with what the Iraqis have got now.
Sometimes, in some respects, King Stork is preferable to King Log.
But we (Westerners) already knew about all the bad stuff in Iraq, before the invasion. Moore was simply telling the other side of Iraq’s story – a side just as real as what the Bush Admin was telling us, but which our tame news media pretty much ignored. There were no rivers made of chocolate ( :rolleyes: and shame on Stone and Parker for that one), but there were a lot of people enjoying a relatively high standard of material comfort and personal safety by the standards of the Arab world. And now most of that is gone. And it might well be gone irretrievably.
:rolleyes: Yeah, somehow Saddams government was better repressing them rather than them having a government they elected
But we (Westerners) already knew about all the bad stuff in Iraq, before the invasion. Moore was simply telling the other side of Iraq’s story – a side just as real as what the Bush Admin was telling us, but which our tame news media pretty much ignored.
If you were talking about the Iraq before the Iraq-Iran war, then you’d be right, other than the usual uprising by the Kurds, Iraq had decent facilities and infrastructure in place, but unfortunately the Iraqis then got a leader who plunged the country into 3 wars within 2 decades, and in turn isolated the people from the world stage all in the name of aggrandisement and ego.
Material comfort and personal safety only applied primarily to those who were either;
A) In the Baghdad surroundings
B) Sunni
C) Tribe/clan/group personally loyal to Saddam
It’s well noted that the Shia in Iraq received less investment and focus of infrastructure than those of central Sunni origin (Given the fact that alot of the Anbar province was a backwater). Same applies to the Kurds.
Like Rune said, I’m sure some people in the GDR and USSR are unhappy that those states cease to exist, however, plenty of people in those states also don’t regret the destruction of the old order either.
Look, what they’ve got in Iraq (and in Afghanistan) now is what diplomats and political scientists call a “disordered state” – i.e., a state without effective government. Like Somalia. Or Lebanon in most of the '70s and '80s. Rune might think lack of effective government is a good thing by definition, but based on real-world history, a disordered state is never a good place to be.
Yet with the help of the MNF and international community, Iraq will go towards the road of an effective government, we all have to stick by them until they can reach a point in which they can do it independently. Lebanon came through and survived, so will Iraq.
Better in the long term for achieving a state where the rule of law and democratic governance can come about, rather than tolerating a state which brutalises it’s citizens in order to maintain it’s hold on power.
The leader of the Soviet Union didn’t actually die, but we can say the leadership of the Soviet Union “died.”
As a result, we got the war in, and break up of, Yugoslavia. No one would say all that bloodshed was a good thing, but hopefully sometime over the next 50 years we’ll all look back and say, “the death of the Soviet Union was a good thing.”
The US of course, is to blame for what’s bad, but not credit for what is good.