A Leauki's Writings
Pre-sanction, sanction, post-invasion
Published on December 12, 2005 By Leauki In War on Terror
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?


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 12, 2005
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.

on Dec 12, 2005
Very telling stats!  I wonder how the democrats are goign to spin this one?
on Dec 12, 2005
ronald reagan stood for #1 while george hw bush brought stage #2 into being and made it reality.
on Dec 12, 2005
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.
on Dec 12, 2005
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.
on Dec 12, 2005
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.
on Dec 12, 2005
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.
on Dec 12, 2005

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.
on Dec 12, 2005

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.
on Dec 12, 2005

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.
on Dec 12, 2005

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.

on Dec 16, 2005
Still waiting for actual answers from the left...
on Dec 16, 2005
Still waiting for actual answers from the left..


I hope you have a lot of time.
on Dec 16, 2005
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.
on Jan 03, 2006

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?

2 Pages1 2