5 ms·

implicitly drawing an equivalence between Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad and the government of Ukraine is an absurd place to start an analogy, regardless of yo

by ouid 5y ago

implicitly drawing an equivalence between Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad and the government of Ukraine is an absurd place to start an analogy, regardless of your thesis.

unmole 5y ago
So, because Saddam was bad, the death and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people was justified? Saddam was terrible. But do you know who was worse? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
- krzyk 5y ago
  You can't predict the outcome. Good intentions can have bad results. Do you think that most Iraqi people were pro-Saddam or against him?
  - unmole 5y ago
    > You can't predict the outcome. Everyone from Henry Kissinger to Joe Biden is on record saying NATO expansion would lead to a confrontation with Russia. As for Iraq, it takes a special kind of wilful ignorance to think that deposing a strongman, leaving a power vaccum and excluding the existing power structure would lead to anything but chaos. > Do you think that most Iraqi people were pro-Saddam or against him? Either the people of Iraq supported Saddam, in which case the justification of liberating Iraq was BS. Or the majority did not support Saddam, in which case there is absolutely no justification for the suffering inflicted on them.
    - krzyk 5y ago
      Russia can GTFO from any country foreign policy. If they would control it how would it be different from the old soviet grip on East European countries? Russia has to beat into submission so it is no longer a threat. Just like it was done with Germany in WW2, Stalin did get away from that.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > If they would control it how would it be different from the old soviet grip on East European countries? Being different from that is exactly not the point.
        krzyk 5y ago
        so if I get the double negation (of sort) you suggest that it hasnto be the same grip on EE to make Russia happy? Well, that ship sailed thankfully and Russia can expect a strong fist from those countries. Hitler and WW2 Germany had smaller negative impact on those countries than Soviet Russia.
    - Sporktacular 5y ago
      Putin predicted it too. In fact he acted to ensure his predictions would come true. Don't downplay his agency in this. > Either the people of Iraq supported Saddam, in which case the justification of liberating Iraq was BS. Or the majority did not support Saddam, in which case there is absolutely no justification for the suffering inflicted on them. In fact it's the second one, Shia were a repressed majority. But how would the first justify their suffering? Saddam had nothing to do with 911.
  - blisterpeanuts 5y ago
    The Sunnis (about 24% of the pop.) supported Saddam. The Shi'ites (about 37%) opposed him. The rest (mostly Kurds, about 15%, plus Turkmen, Azadis, etc.) generally opposed him. The Sunnis dominated the country politically and militarily, until the Americans took out their army in 1991 and established autonomy for the Kurds, and finally deposed Saddam in 2003.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  The Kurds seem pretty happy about the Iraq war. Also, in the tables of moral calculus, incompetence in pursuit of noble goals ("depose evil dictator and establish democracy") is significantly less offensive than overtly evil goals ("overthrow democracy and install kleptocracy that rules the natives at gunpoint").
  - par1970 5y ago
    It looks to me that you are expressing a preference for democracy relative to autocracy. I assume this preference is based on a historical evaluation of the performance of democratic and autocratic governments? For example, Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union were autocratic regimes that killed millions of non-combatants in the 20th century, while America and the UK, both democratic regimes, did nothing of the kind in the 20th century? But then if you saw enough autocratic regimes not doing these things, (Singapore?), could you be brought around to preferring autocracy?
    - ouid 5y ago
      >I assume this preference is based on a historical evaluation of the performance of democratic and autocratic governments? What the fuck are you smoking? Are you arguing that there is no a priori reason to prefer democracy?
      - burrows 5y ago
        > Are you arguing that there is no a priori reason to prefer democracy? I suggest these definitions, but am open to revisions. def: a government is the smallest set of people with a (almost) monopoly of force in a particular geographic region. def: democracy is a government where the set size is at least 10% of the total number of people occupying the geographic region. def: autocracy is government where the set size is one. Presently, it is not clear to me how to make a persuasive and coherent a priori argument in favor of democracy. I believe you have a nomination for such an argument, please share.
        5y ago
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  Through starvation, incompetence, corruption, violence over the decades Saddam was responsible for waaay more deaths than Al-Baghdadi. You're only looking through one lens.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
guilhas 5y ago
The toppling of Saddam’s statue: how the US military made a myth https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/toppling-saddam-hussein-statue-iraq-us-victory-myth https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/toppling-sadda... > “Now, when I go past that statue, I feel pain and shame,” said Kadhim al-Jabouri in 2016. “I ask myself”: Why did I topple that statue?” He regretted the fall of Saddam’s regime. What came after, in his opinion, was a disaster: “Saddam has gone, but in his place we now have one thousand Saddams.” Kadhim even wanted the statue back. “I’d like to put it back up, to rebuild it,” he said. “But I’m afraid I’d be killed.”

by ouid 5y ago

implicitly drawing an equivalence between Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad and the government of Ukraine is an absurd place to start an analogy, regardless of your thesis.

unmole 5y ago

So, because Saddam was bad, the death and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people was justified? Saddam was terrible. But do you know who was worse? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

krzyk 5y ago
You can't predict the outcome. Good intentions can have bad results. Do you think that most Iraqi people were pro-Saddam or against him?
- unmole 5y ago
  > You can't predict the outcome. Everyone from Henry Kissinger to Joe Biden is on record saying NATO expansion would lead to a confrontation with Russia. As for Iraq, it takes a special kind of wilful ignorance to think that deposing a strongman, leaving a power vaccum and excluding the existing power structure would lead to anything but chaos. > Do you think that most Iraqi people were pro-Saddam or against him? Either the people of Iraq supported Saddam, in which case the justification of liberating Iraq was BS. Or the majority did not support Saddam, in which case there is absolutely no justification for the suffering inflicted on them.
  - krzyk 5y ago
    Russia can GTFO from any country foreign policy. If they would control it how would it be different from the old soviet grip on East European countries? Russia has to beat into submission so it is no longer a threat. Just like it was done with Germany in WW2, Stalin did get away from that.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > If they would control it how would it be different from the old soviet grip on East European countries? Being different from that is exactly not the point.
      - krzyk 5y ago
        so if I get the double negation (of sort) you suggest that it hasnto be the same grip on EE to make Russia happy? Well, that ship sailed thankfully and Russia can expect a strong fist from those countries. Hitler and WW2 Germany had smaller negative impact on those countries than Soviet Russia.
  - Sporktacular 5y ago
    Putin predicted it too. In fact he acted to ensure his predictions would come true. Don't downplay his agency in this. > Either the people of Iraq supported Saddam, in which case the justification of liberating Iraq was BS. Or the majority did not support Saddam, in which case there is absolutely no justification for the suffering inflicted on them. In fact it's the second one, Shia were a repressed majority. But how would the first justify their suffering? Saddam had nothing to do with 911.
- blisterpeanuts 5y ago
  The Sunnis (about 24% of the pop.) supported Saddam. The Shi'ites (about 37%) opposed him. The rest (mostly Kurds, about 15%, plus Turkmen, Azadis, etc.) generally opposed him. The Sunnis dominated the country politically and militarily, until the Americans took out their army in 1991 and established autonomy for the Kurds, and finally deposed Saddam in 2003.
stickfigure 5y ago
The Kurds seem pretty happy about the Iraq war. Also, in the tables of moral calculus, incompetence in pursuit of noble goals ("depose evil dictator and establish democracy") is significantly less offensive than overtly evil goals ("overthrow democracy and install kleptocracy that rules the natives at gunpoint").
- par1970 5y ago
  It looks to me that you are expressing a preference for democracy relative to autocracy. I assume this preference is based on a historical evaluation of the performance of democratic and autocratic governments? For example, Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union were autocratic regimes that killed millions of non-combatants in the 20th century, while America and the UK, both democratic regimes, did nothing of the kind in the 20th century? But then if you saw enough autocratic regimes not doing these things, (Singapore?), could you be brought around to preferring autocracy?
  - ouid 5y ago
    >I assume this preference is based on a historical evaluation of the performance of democratic and autocratic governments? What the fuck are you smoking? Are you arguing that there is no a priori reason to prefer democracy?
    - burrows 5y ago
      > Are you arguing that there is no a priori reason to prefer democracy? I suggest these definitions, but am open to revisions. def: a government is the smallest set of people with a (almost) monopoly of force in a particular geographic region. def: democracy is a government where the set size is at least 10% of the total number of people occupying the geographic region. def: autocracy is government where the set size is one. Presently, it is not clear to me how to make a persuasive and coherent a priori argument in favor of democracy. I believe you have a nomination for such an argument, please share.
      - 5y ago
Sporktacular 5y ago
Through starvation, incompetence, corruption, violence over the decades Saddam was responsible for waaay more deaths than Al-Baghdadi. You're only looking through one lens.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

guilhas 5y ago

The toppling of Saddam’s statue: how the US military made a myth https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/toppling-saddam-hussein-statue-iraq-us-victory-myth https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/toppling-sadda... > “Now, when I go past that statue, I feel pain and shame,” said Kadhim al-Jabouri in 2016. “I ask myself”: Why did I topple that statue?” He regretted the fall of Saddam’s regime. What came after, in his opinion, was a disaster: “Saddam has gone, but in his place we now have one thousand Saddams.” Kadhim even wanted the statue back. “I’d like to put it back up, to rebuild it,” he said. “But I’m afraid I’d be killed.”