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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 04, 2006
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!
on Jan 04, 2006
I would be really interested in learning what these were, the arms Rumsfield provided.
on Jan 04, 2006
None of the above. The most important question is what will period #4 be like?
on Jan 04, 2006
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.
on Jan 04, 2006
We are in Period #4. There is no good choice from the first three and period #3 was AFTER Saddam was removed.
on Jan 04, 2006
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.
on Jan 04, 2006

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.
2 Pages1 2