4 ms·

Actually, the Iraqi people were happy we freed them from the iron-grip of Saddam -- we unfortunately over stayed our welcome. For a while I was seeing a banner

Actually, the Iraqi people were happy we freed them from the iron-grip of Saddam -- we unfortunately over stayed our welcome. For a while I was seeing a banner on an overpass: "thank you for our freedom, now go home". I kind of think they expected it to be a repeat of Panama with a quick game of "capture the dictator" followed by installing a puppet government but the general level of incompetence (i.e. de-Ba'athification of the government) didn't let that happen. And, yes, I do kind of consider myself a pacifist who just happened to have gone down to Panama and was involved in both Iraq invasions.

frickinLasers 8y ago
This has nothing to do with the parent's comments. Whoop-de-do, so we toppled an unpopular dictator and left a power vacuum in his place; how does that "keep [America] safe"? We should not be the World Police. We can't even afford to keep our own people out of poverty.
cncrnd 8y ago
Don't fool yourself. The US made life in Iraq miserable through a program of sanctions it refused to remove until Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, these sanctions started in the mid 90s. Estimates of the effect of these crippling sanctions include half of a million dead. US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. If we destroy a country then oust it's dictator who people blame for the poor state of things...are we really the good guy? I don't know if your ignoring this fact or just talking nonsense. The US destroyed Iraq and it has never recovered, and this is a widely accepted fact. Stupid comment imo, can't believe this is serious and hasn't been called out already.
- cmndrkeen 8y ago
  Saddam was an aggressive expansionist and brutal dictator. There will always be tragic tradeoffs when dealing with such people.
  - cncrnd 8y ago
    Sure, but in this case it would have been infinitely better if we did nothing at all. We invaded because of supposed weapons of mass destruction which were not there, it was a mistake pure and simple. I'm still surprised by the way the American people accept Bush in society with his cutesy paintings when he got the US into this expensive mess. Guess that's what we get for electing a dummy. But hey, as long as he smiles it's cool right?
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. You do know those were UN sanctions, involving UN inspectors, right? And the first Gulf War was a UN action involving a whole bunch of countries? My battalion was attached to a French tank division for example. Before Iraq invaded Kuwait there were no sanctions and after there were (plus a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds from getting gassed...again), kind of makes you wonder if maybe the two are related, maybe just a little? So, yeah, I can see why you think the big cuddly bear Saddam Hussein was the victim in all this...
  - cncrnd 8y ago
    Yes, the sanctions are a result of the invasion. But in their goal of ousting Saddam, they destroyed an entire nation. There are better ways. They were UN sanctions pushed for by the US but many involved spoke out against them during the period and afterwards. Many more are involved in the sanctions process than the ones who decide on the sanctions... I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't bad, but we did more damage to Iraq than he could have ever done. We fucked up in Iraq. No sane Iraqi person is happy that the US got it's hands in Iraq, only those in personal opposition to Saddam who lied to the US in order to support an invasion. Dude, even Republicans have started to see the Iraq war for the abosolute sham that it was. What, you think the US is a big cuddly altruistic bear trying to free people all around the world? Just don't talk about subjects you know nothing about or speak for the Iraqi people you are not a part of. Congrats, number one stupidest comment I have ever seen on HN.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      > Congrats, number one stupidest comment I have ever seen on HN. Pointing out facts (which you go on to agree with) is the stupidest comment you've seen on HN? And, you know, "people" speak out against everything so that's not really a valid point -- "unnamed people said UN sanctions against Iraq were a war crime, news at 11..." > Just don't talk about subjects you know nothing about or speak for the Iraqi people you are not a part of. I was just talking about my personal experience dealing with the good people of Iraq (in my previous comment not the one correcting you for "talk[ing] about subjects you know nothing about") during and after the second invasion, who's speaking for them? But, anyway, pointless discussion...

frickinLasers 8y ago

This has nothing to do with the parent's comments. Whoop-de-do, so we toppled an unpopular dictator and left a power vacuum in his place; how does that "keep [America] safe"? We should not be the World Police. We can't even afford to keep our own people out of poverty.

cncrnd 8y ago

Don't fool yourself. The US made life in Iraq miserable through a program of sanctions it refused to remove until Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, these sanctions started in the mid 90s. Estimates of the effect of these crippling sanctions include half of a million dead. US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. If we destroy a country then oust it's dictator who people blame for the poor state of things...are we really the good guy? I don't know if your ignoring this fact or just talking nonsense. The US destroyed Iraq and it has never recovered, and this is a widely accepted fact. Stupid comment imo, can't believe this is serious and hasn't been called out already.

cmndrkeen 8y ago
Saddam was an aggressive expansionist and brutal dictator. There will always be tragic tradeoffs when dealing with such people.
- cncrnd 8y ago
  Sure, but in this case it would have been infinitely better if we did nothing at all. We invaded because of supposed weapons of mass destruction which were not there, it was a mistake pure and simple. I'm still surprised by the way the American people accept Bush in society with his cutesy paintings when he got the US into this expensive mess. Guess that's what we get for electing a dummy. But hey, as long as he smiles it's cool right?
UncleEntity 8y ago
> US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. You do know those were UN sanctions, involving UN inspectors, right? And the first Gulf War was a UN action involving a whole bunch of countries? My battalion was attached to a French tank division for example. Before Iraq invaded Kuwait there were no sanctions and after there were (plus a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds from getting gassed...again), kind of makes you wonder if maybe the two are related, maybe just a little? So, yeah, I can see why you think the big cuddly bear Saddam Hussein was the victim in all this...
- cncrnd 8y ago
  Yes, the sanctions are a result of the invasion. But in their goal of ousting Saddam, they destroyed an entire nation. There are better ways. They were UN sanctions pushed for by the US but many involved spoke out against them during the period and afterwards. Many more are involved in the sanctions process than the ones who decide on the sanctions... I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't bad, but we did more damage to Iraq than he could have ever done. We fucked up in Iraq. No sane Iraqi person is happy that the US got it's hands in Iraq, only those in personal opposition to Saddam who lied to the US in order to support an invasion. Dude, even Republicans have started to see the Iraq war for the abosolute sham that it was. What, you think the US is a big cuddly altruistic bear trying to free people all around the world? Just don't talk about subjects you know nothing about or speak for the Iraqi people you are not a part of. Congrats, number one stupidest comment I have ever seen on HN.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    > Congrats, number one stupidest comment I have ever seen on HN. Pointing out facts (which you go on to agree with) is the stupidest comment you've seen on HN? And, you know, "people" speak out against everything so that's not really a valid point -- "unnamed people said UN sanctions against Iraq were a war crime, news at 11..." > Just don't talk about subjects you know nothing about or speak for the Iraqi people you are not a part of. I was just talking about my personal experience dealing with the good people of Iraq (in my previous comment not the one correcting you for "talk[ing] about subjects you know nothing about") during and after the second invasion, who's speaking for them? But, anyway, pointless discussion...