3 ms·

> The US destroyed their lives. Their communities were destroyed, their jobs vanished, and their loved ones were dead. Many certainly reacted despicably, but th

> The US destroyed their lives. Their communities were destroyed, their jobs vanished, and their loved ones were dead. Many certainly reacted despicably, but the US deserves most of the blame. The US gets blamed for the deaths that occured, but it won't get praise for the deaths that may have been prevented. Consider who Saddam Hussein was, how he came to power, how he stayed in power and what his dictatorship was like. Does he strike you as someone who can maintain a dynasty? In a country like Iraq, where the regime is Sunni despite being in the minority, where the Shia majority is being supported by neighboring Iran? Consider what the Iraqi military could have done under Saddam Hussein to its own people, in the case of a civil war. Consider that Saddam Hussein didn't hesitate to kill over 100,000 Kurds and Assyrians. > One of the major triggers for the Arab Spring was the US diplomatic cable leaks, and much of the military power any insurgents had was a result of US backing. Without the War on Terror, the Arab Spring would have been a completely different thing if it happened at all. That almost sounds like your average dictator blaming all civil unrest on "foreign meddling". Sure, you can blame the US or Wikileaks for exposing these regimes, or for running a couple of covert support operations, but it also takes a huge part of the people to actually do the uprising.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Consider who Saddam Hussein was, how he came to power, how he stayed in power and what his dictatorship was like Though Hussein's power grab was later, let's not forget the US support for the Ba'ath party takeover. They were willing to purge communists, they must be good guys. Then we gave Hussein billions in aid, because if they're willing to kill Iranians they must be good guys. Even after hearing he was gassing Kurds, we tried to blame it on Iran and continued aiding him. >Does he strike you as someone who can maintain a dynasty? His reign, as terrible as much of it was, at least kept the country functioning. Succession likely would have led to problems, but it's nonsense to say that justifies US action. We ensured it caused major issues to avoid a risk of it causing major issues? >That almost sounds like your average dictator blaming all civil unrest on "foreign meddling". Sure, you can blame the US or Wikileaks for exposing these regimes, or for running a couple of covert support operations, but it also takes a huge part of the people to actually do the uprising The US is not the main reason the people were willing to rise up, but US action unquestionably influenced when and how they rose up. If you change your original sentence I quoted to "the regime may well have collapsed over the past twenty years," I think we're in agreement.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily in favor of any of these foreign interventions. I just don't accept that the US gets so much blame just for being involved at some level in a conflict that they have some strategic interest in.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    We're talking about the Iraq War here, they deserve far more blame than they get.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>Consider who Saddam Hussein was, how he came to power, how he stayed in power and what his dictatorship was like Though Hussein's power grab was later, let's not forget the US support for the Ba'ath party takeover. They were willing to purge communists, they must be good guys. Then we gave Hussein billions in aid, because if they're willing to kill Iranians they must be good guys. Even after hearing he was gassing Kurds, we tried to blame it on Iran and continued aiding him. >Does he strike you as someone who can maintain a dynasty? His reign, as terrible as much of it was, at least kept the country functioning. Succession likely would have led to problems, but it's nonsense to say that justifies US action. We ensured it caused major issues to avoid a risk of it causing major issues? >That almost sounds like your average dictator blaming all civil unrest on "foreign meddling". Sure, you can blame the US or Wikileaks for exposing these regimes, or for running a couple of covert support operations, but it also takes a huge part of the people to actually do the uprising The US is not the main reason the people were willing to rise up, but US action unquestionably influenced when and how they rose up. If you change your original sentence I quoted to "the regime may well have collapsed over the past twenty years," I think we're in agreement.

gridlockd 6y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily in favor of any of these foreign interventions. I just don't accept that the US gets so much blame just for being involved at some level in a conflict that they have some strategic interest in.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  We're talking about the Iraq War here, they deserve far more blame than they get.