ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape

[The Romulan Republic]

Channel72:

I am not arguing that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not better than Iraq now. While I have not done an in-depth comparison of all the differences between the two, I am inclined to believe that Iraq today is worse for most of its people and worse over all. I'm not sure that I've ever said anything to the contrary, and if you can provide evidence that I have, I will concede it. If not, shut the fuck up.

Here are some comments I've previously made on the subject in this thread:

If you don't think the life of the Iraqis under Saddam was massively better than it is now, then you are deluding yourself.

Better does not equal good.

I am not saying it wasn't better. Just that it wasn't good enough.

I don't think anyone is saying Saddam Hussein's Iraq wasn't better. Just that it wasn't good enough.

Also, I've never claimed that it's somehow absolutely impossible for there to be any outcome other than "brutal dictator" or "chaos" - just that given these two choices, the "brutal dictator" option is better, especially since this particular brutal dictator created a good life for many people. If you want to talk about how it could have been, that's another discussion.

Sure, given those two choices, you can argue the dictator is better. I'm not sure I've ever said otherwise.

However, if you're going to defend the dictator, as you did, its not enough to say that he's better than the chaos. You have to show that their was no option that was better than either.

That last one was directed at you, by the way.

I'll also note that Ziggy Stardust actually said that I acknowledged Saddam's Iraq was better in the quote you just fucking posted.

Edited to fix the quotes.

[Thanas]

Are you fucking dense?

If it wasn't fucking good enough, what was the better alternative, you dolt? Or is this another pie-in-the-sky moment from a delusional idiot?

[Batman]

Hint: Saddam's Iraq was a reality. The mess that currently exists is a reality. Claiming 'we kinda shoulda woulda and if we had it would all be better' does NOT constitute a viable alternative.

[Batman]

To elaborate: Both Saddam's Iraq and the current chaos are likely outcomes because both of them happened. All the people whining about Saddam have done is declare that he's not the best theoretically possible outcome (which is undeniably true-and hasn't been denied by any of the people declaring him the lesser evil either) without presenting a scenario better than that that's actually likely to happen.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you fucking dense?

If it wasn't fucking good enough, what was the better alternative, you dolt? Or is this another pie-in-the-sky moment from a delusional idiot?

The main reason I reposted the quotes you are objecting to was not to restate my belief that their were better options (though I'll get to that in a bit). It was to address Channel72's false implication that I was trying to refute that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was better than Iraq today. I wished to provide evidence of some of my actual thoughts on the subject. I should have thought, based on the context, that this was quite clear.

You and every other fucking clown in this thread seems determined to attack me for this position which I do not hold, so....

Get this through your head- the fact that I believe their were better options than either the present status quo or Saddam Hussein's Iraq does not mean that I am disputing weather Iraq under Saddam was better than Iraq today. Is that so fucking hard to acknowledge?

As to what specific alternatives existed besides Saddam's Iraq or the current status quo, I have already discussed a number of possibilities, including:

1. Channel72's "Iraqi Khrushchev" concept, i.e. a reformer from within the Ba'athists, which I commented on and more or less agreed with.
2. Forgo invading Iraq and instead attempt to persuade Saddam Hussein to enact reforms via a "carrot and stick" approach with sanctions.
3. Reach out to and support secular democratic reformers within Iraq.

You can argue over weather those are plausible/realistic alternatives. However, it takes an extraordinary degree of arrogance, in my opinion, to assert that their are only two possible systems of government that could have worked in Iraq and that disagreeing with this conclusion is delusional.

Truth be told, I think neither of our positions are entirely provable. You, if I understand you correctly, are arguing that Saddam Hussein's government was a positive for Iraq because no better option was possible. I am arguing that had things been done differently, better outcomes were possible, and that they are still possible if the right policies are enacted. Unfortunately, both claims deal with a hypothetical reality, not one that actually exists. We can say "This might have happened" or even "This probably would have happened", but we cannot definitively say "This would have happened".

You may take that as a concession if you wish.

And to everyone in this thread:

I am not arguing against the idea that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was, in general, better than Iraq today.

I am not supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

If anyone here wishes to accuse me of making either argument, post a fucking quote demonstrating that I did so, and I'll concede that I was in error. Can't do that? Then don't try it.

[Channel72]

I am not arguing that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not better than Iraq now. While I have not done an in-depth comparison of all the differences between the two, I am inclined to believe that Iraq today is worse for most of its people and worse over all. I'm not sure that I've ever said anything to the contrary, and if you can provide evidence that I have, I will concede it. If not, shut the fuck up.

Oh god, this is getting so stupid. Look, I don't think that you think Iraq is better now. I simply think you have this strange delusional idea that the mere possibility of a "alternate-universe potential better Iraq" is some kind of logical "rebuttal" to the claim that "actual Iraq < Saddam Iraq". I believe this because of your earlier post here:

However, if you're going to defend the dictator, as you did, its not enough to say that he's better than the chaos. You have to show that their was no option that was better than either.

WTF ???

[Metahive]

TRR, although I clearly spelled out what the problem with your line of thinking is, you're still clinging to the unstated assumption/premise

...that the West had the the duty/obligation to meddle with Iraq in the first place.

How about you actually justify that instead of repeating it as a presupposition every time you stress how Saddam was a very bad man?

[The Romulan Republic]

To elaborate: Both Saddam's Iraq and the current chaos are likely outcomes because both of them happened. All the people whining about Saddam have done is declare that he's not the best theoretically possible outcome (which is undeniably true-and hasn't been denied by any of the people declaring him the lesser evil either) without presenting a scenario better than that that's actually likely to happen.

I have discussed other possibilities. As for weather they are plausible... well, I accept that that's open to debate. However, history has seen the achievement of a great many implausible things because those who achieved them did not write them off from the beginning.

Supposing America had not invaded Iraq, but had worked to improve relations with Saddam Hussein and offered incentives to his government to implement at least some reforms? Would it not have been possible for Iraq to move in a more positive direction? I mean, if we can negotiate with Iran, and China, and fucking North Korea, why not Iraq?

Or, alternatively, suppose that upon invading Iraq, America had found a figure who was open to some reforms from within the ranks of the Ba'athists to replace Saddam Hussein? The aforementioned "Iraqi Khrushchev"? Suppose the Bush administration had not been run by incompetent donkey fuckers who failed to rebuild the country they invaded, failed to establish a functional government there, and failed to maintain the good will of the Iraqi people (okay, I admit a competent Bush administration is pretty implausible)?

In other words, rather than tearing down the existing Iraqi government and leaving only chaos, try to encourage that government to change into one which had at least a basic respect for the rights of its people while still maintaining order.

That said, I agree that the likeliest scenarios for Iraq were authoritarian rule or theocratic jihadi chaos, as sad as it is. At some point, however, even a long shot at something better has to be preferable to passive acceptance of such injustice as Saddam's Iraq as necessary.

Again, I'm not saying we should have invaded. It was a mistake. It was needless for America, based on false pretences, and incompetently conducted. And if we were going to do it, we should have done it a hell of a lot differently. However, we should at least be willing to consider the possibility that their were and are options for Iraq besides perpetual tyranny or chaos rather than defending a tyrant as the best option. Ito do otherwise is an insult to the Iraqi people, to think so little of their potential.

[Simon_Jester]

To elaborate: Both Saddam's Iraq and the current chaos are likely outcomes because both of them happened. All the people whining about Saddam have done is declare that he's not the best theoretically possible outcome (which is undeniably true-and hasn't been denied by any of the people declaring him the lesser evil either) without presenting a scenario better than that that's actually likely to happen.

As much to the point, the current chaos or something like it was a predictable outcome.

We could reasonably predict that the post-Saddam government in Iraq would be a shambolic mess, incapable of mobilizing and unifying the country. Sure, it would be nice if honorable, patriotic, competent people had taken over that government, but where would we have found them? Iraq is not an entity to instill much patriotism in its people, even under Saddam.

Given that the post-Saddam government was going to be a mess, and probably one dominated by the Shi'ites, one could (and quite a few did) predict that sooner or later the Sunni population would become easy targets for religious radicals, and we'd end up with another round of civil war in Iraq, which is what's happening now.

See, sometimes the outcome which actually happens really is unlikely. Or it's something that nobody could easily have predicted in advance, without benefit of hindsight.* But in this case, the outcome was predictable. People have been saying that invading Iraq, toppling Saddam, installing a puppet government, and then pulling out the troops after five or ten years would reduce Iraq to a state of chaos since before we invaded him.

So there is even less excuse for saying "if only we'd done the same thing we did, only better, things would be better somehow!" The process by which Iraq degenerated into its present state was fully predictable and well understood in advance, after all.
_________________________

*As a random example, who knew Japan was both crazy enough to deliberately court war in WWII and tactically competent enough to sink practically every fleet in the Pacific in the first couple of months of shooting? Not many people. Knowing that ahead of time you could have predicted the results, but people didn't.

[K. A. Pital]

Ethnic cleansing against Sunnis in Baghdad was ongoing, and very evident (up to being seen on satellite shots of Baghdad!) by in 2006, but the US aggressors and occupiers were too busy patting themselves on the back to notice or care. Indeed, why care when you have the Green Zone where dumbasses like McCain staged visits which can only be described as horrible political stunts.

So, the debacle was the very invasion in 2003 and immediate subsequent actions. The other sctions just kept making the issues worse, but they originated back with the decision to invade. It must be said, the choice between Saddam and alternatives is not a binary choice. But the choice between Saddam and/or his successors, whoever they could be, and the US aggression, invasion and occupation is a very much binary choice. Once the second option is chosen, most of the alternatives to "horrible mess" fly out the window very fast.

[Channel72]

There were certain things the US could have done that may have helped, if we take the 2003 invasion as a given starting point. For example, not dissolving the entire Iraqi army, and not "de-Baathifying" everything, which left thousands of competent Ba'ath party administrators, teachers, etc. unemployed and alienated. That at least, would have helped.

The US was so fucking concerned about Saddam loyalists, due to the (at the time) prominent resistance of the Fedayeen Saddam, that they overreacted and demolished the entire Ba'ath party and anything to do with it, which essentially removed the only organized power structure keeping the Shias and Al-Sadr followers from unleashing their pent-up wrath on the vulnernable Sunni population.

The two most widely predicted outcomes for post-2003 were, if I recall, either Iraq becomes a de-facto client state of Iran after the US withdraws, or (more likely) Iraq devolves into civil-war, becoming ground-zero for a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The actual reality of what happened is closer to the latter, but a few unpredictable variables such as the Arab Spring and subsequent Syrian civil war complicated the matter, so that most of the actual Sunni/Shia fighting is centered around Syria rather than Iraq. Also, nobody (before 2003) predicted that a single Sunni militia would become as successful as ISIS. But in general, the widespread fighting along sectarian lines and ethnic cleansing was utterly, depressingly predictable, and I'm really not sure there's any way to prevent it, given the starting point of a 2003 invasion, that doesn't involve a permanent US military presence in Iraq.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am not arguing that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not better than Iraq now. While I have not done an in-depth comparison of all the differences between the two, I am inclined to believe that Iraq today is worse for most of its people and worse over all. I'm not sure that I've ever said anything to the contrary, and if you can provide evidence that I have, I will concede it. If not, shut the fuck up.

Oh god, this is getting so stupid. Look, I don't think that you think Iraq is better now. I simply think you have this strange delusional idea that the mere possibility of a "alternate-universe potential better Iraq" is some kind of logical "rebuttal" to the claim that "actual Iraq < Saddam Iraq". I believe this because of your earlier post here:

However, if you're going to defend the dictator, as you did, its not enough to say that he's better than the chaos. You have to show that their was no option that was better than either.

WTF ???

Its really simple.

If I am making a "rebuttal" to the idea that Saddam's Iraq is better than present Iraq, presumably I feel that it is not, in fact, better. If, on the other hand, you accept that I feel Saddam's Iraq was better, why do you suggest that I am rebutting that position?

If you feel that I can simultaneously feel that Iraq was better under Saddam than it is today and be rebutting that position, then either you are being logically inconsistent or you are calling me a liar. Which is it?

As to the second quote you objected to, allow me to clarify:

I believe that to defend Saddam's regime, you have to demonstrate that it was necessary, that it was the best option, not merely that it was better than the current status quo is. That's it.

That is in no way a rebuttal of the idea that Saddam's Iraq is better than the current situation. You are conflating two separate issues.

Is that clear? Because it seems obvious to me and I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it. And to be honest, I feel that at this point, I am really giving you the benefit of the doubt by treating this as a misunderstanding rather than a lie.

[The Romulan Republic]

To all concerned:

I really have nothing more to say on this topic. I have tried to defend and explain my positions. If my explanations do not suffice, I am sorry. However, I'm not sure what more I can add. If you feel my efforts thus far are inadequate, take this as a concession.

Any inaccuracy or miscommunication was unintentional, and I apologize for it. If at any point I gave the impression that I felt Saddam Hussein's regime was worse than or equivalent to the current situation, I retract it.

Edit: I will, of course, post a response if told to do so by a moderator or administrator.

[Bernkastel]

Romulan Republic, you yourself admitted that good statesmen would be one requirement for a proper solution to the current situation. I agree. In my opinion, the same applies also to the original invasion. However, just getting such people in charge would be improbable, something reliant on extreme luck. So, neither the past event of the Iraq Invasion would have that or any future intervention will have that.

It is a possibility that decisions that could have resulted in Iraq being less messed up than it is now. However, a proper solution would depend on the highly unlikely event that the political elite of the US could either be replaced or convinced to radically change their opinions and attitudes before any invasion occurs. So, you are left with two likely probabilities in regards to how the US would deal with Iraq. One is that the US would do nothing, while the other is an invasion and occupation that would almost certainly be botched.

Anyway, you have decided to stop discussing this. For me, that's okay and I don't mind it. Thanks for trying, even if I don't agree with you.

[Channel72]

I believe that to defend Saddam's regime, you have to demonstrate that it was necessary, that it was the best option, not merely that it was better than the current status quo is. That's it.

That is in no way a rebuttal of the idea that Saddam's Iraq is better than the current situation. You are conflating two separate issues.

Is that clear?

No. It's not clear at all, it's confusing. You're confusing. Why do I need to demonstrate that something is necessarily the best possible option in order to defend it as being better than something else?

Because it seems obvious to me and I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it. And to be honest, I feel that at this point, I am really giving you the benefit of the doubt by treating this as a misunderstanding rather than a lie.

You're right, I'm lying. (???) You got me there.

Whatever, fuck off.