It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If the War in Iraq is Illegal does that make Saddam the Legitimate Leader?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:23 PM
Many people say the war in Iraq isn’t just immoral but that it’s also illegal.
But if it’s illegal then why? And what are the implications?

I think it’s illegal because…

1. (In simplicity) Resolution 1441 said “get rid of you’re WMD’s or face serious consequences”
But Saddam had got rid of his WMD’s; so how were the “serious consequences” justified?

2. Iraq was disarming itself of conventional long range missiles just 3 days before the war was about to begin (co-operation).
Quote: March 17th 2003

Amid the seemingly growing likelihood of war, officials say Iraq is scheduled to destroy two more al-Samoud 2 missiles Monday, bringing the total number of missiles destroyed up to 72.
They are also expected to destroy other missile components.

3. Worse; despite America’s alleged abuse of U.N weapons inspectors
Saddam NEVER kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq


“U.N. personnel, including about 60 weapons inspectors, 75 support staff and nearly 200 humanitarian workers, began leaving Iraq early Tuesday.
• Saddam, in a statement read by an anchor on Iraqi television, reiterated his stance that Iraq has destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction.”

So we can’t say Saddam said he still had WMD’s

A Brief Summary of the Events
So (just as in 1998) it was us (and not Saddam) who kicked the weapons inspectors out;
and on both occasions we did it because our bombing campaign was imminent.

This is contrary to propaganda in the press which pretends Saddam kicked the U.N weapons inspectors out:

Part 2
Ok so we kicked out the WMD inspectors out because our leaders (notably Bush and Blair) were publicly, literally anxious to start bombing their country…. (Interesting link (apparently) shows the White House had been considering manufacturing a U.N violation to cause the current Iraq war 2)

We were anxious for war despite having found no WMD’s, and in spite of the regimes insistence it had unilaterally rid itself of them (according to the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement).

Now I Ask…
“Saddam’s Presidency: Legally Legitimate?”

Here is the Official State Biography of Saddam Hussein…
(P.S Highlight the text to make reading it easier).

(Using the above source) here’s a shortened version focusing ONLY on Saddam’s rise to power within the Ba’th party…

Joined Ba’th party 1956
1958-9 arrested for his political activities against the regieme
1959 Tried to assassinate Abdul Kassim, the military strongman and prime minister who had seized power the previous year. Saddam received a bullet wound in the leg, and dug it out; Abdul received several bullet wounds but also survived. Abdul later boasted he had survived 29 attempts to kill him.
1960 Saddam was arrested and sentenced to death but he escaped from prison and fled to Syria
1963 Returns to Iraq following Kassim’s downfall after the “Ramadhan revolution”
1963 Elected as a member of the Ba'th Party Leadership in Iraq
1964-6 Was imprisoned again, from 1964 to 1966, “for plotting against the regime”.
1965 Although still under arrest he was elected as a member of the Ba'th Party's Pan-Arab National Leadership.
1966 Elected Deputy Secretary General of Ba'th Party Leadership in Iraq.
1967 Escaped from prison to resume leadership of the Ba'th Party
1968 (July 17) Leeds a group of Ba’th party revolutionaries who overthrow the new dictatorship. This was the 23rd military coup in Iraq since 1920.
1968 (July 30th) personally put in charge of an operation to purge (from power) old regime figures who co-operated with the Ba’th party for “tactile” reasons.
1969 (Constitutionally) elected Chairman of the Revolution Command Council

1972 Begins the process of nationalising Iraq’s oil; a process which involved removing western oil companies who had owned a monopoly on Iraq’s oil as a legacy of Britain’s colonial occupation. Saddam uses the extra revenue to initiate massive economic and social programmes; subsequently gains popularity-prominence with ordinary Iraqis.
1976 rises to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces.
1979 (July 16th) forces al-Bakr to resign and formullaly assumes the presidency

As you can imiagine Saddam did a lot of social networking both within and outside the Ba’th party. For more on this see:

So Saddam had broken Iraqi law by participating in a banned (pro-western) political movement. He had broken Iraqi law by leading a group of revolutionaries who overthrow the dictatorship.
However regarding his rise to power within the Ba’th party he broke no law other than to be a member of a banned political organisation (pre July 17th 1968 that is).

And he broke these laws under a dictatorship which had no legitimate claim to power other than the power of the gun. If Saddam’s government was illegitimate then surely the same arguments apply to the previous government being equally illegitimate?
We may think (morally) that Iraq’s new government is legitimate because it’s supposed to be democratic (even though this means a Muslim fundamentalist country; eager to side with its Iranian neighbours-brothers as soon as our back is turned).

But as Saddam was internationally recognised as the head of Iraq, and since he met the U.N demand’s; then how he has legally been deposed?

P.S For a really detailed history of Iraq read…

So what do you think ATS? Is Saddam legitimately the head of Iraq? (In spite of it obviously being politically impossible to restore him).
After all if our actions (done in the name of the U.N) to remove Saddam Hussein weren’t legal then how can his removal from power be legal? What is the legal mechanism to justify it?

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:20 PM
As far as Im concerned, Iraq would be better off with him in charge.

When he was in charge, he sat on and crushed the religous idiots and prevented them from killing each other. Its the only way to really stop sectarian violence in Iraq is to have a vicious dictator.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 09:04 PM
Too right Skadi_the_Evil_Elf; but Iraq will have a vicious dictator and his name will be the: “Disciple of Ayatollah Nuclear”. Because with wonderful, wonderful democracy on its way the 60% of Iraq’s population who are Muslim Fundamentalists have been liberated, and will be free to build ever closure relationships with Iran.
This really does bugger all for us; let alone The Holy Sand (that is of course the state of I Steal).

Or so it would seem; according Britain’s ministry of defence support for us being in Iraq is pretty dismal:
Bear in mind that this poll was done about this time last year.

But with (then) 45-65 percent of Iraqis believing attacks against our troops are justified and 82% “strongly opposing the presence of our troops” I think it’s pretty clear that most Iraqis have long wanted us out their country.
Yet the Iraqi government has yet to kick us out. Democratic? Wait to the next elections; does anyone seriously think they the politicians can win over the people with arguments? (Just try not to stand on any soap boxes otherwise you might get shot at).

The (once) multicultural Iraq is separating along ethnic lines; literally as well as politically because people need to move to areas with people like them just for basic security (if you can call it that).
Yet the government has yet to decide whether to commit genocide against ether the Secular Sunni (who I like) or the 60% percent of Iraq’s population who are Fundamentalists Shiites.

Democratic? Wait till the next election. (Personally I think the Fundamentalist Shiites will win; it is after all a democracy!!!)
I reckon the best way to avoid genocide is to split Iraq up (we could call them “bite size revision pieces” for Iran-Syria). Alternatively we could unite the place with a Saddam (and they would need to be very like Saddam in order for us to trust them).

Saving Saddam…The Plan…

1. Basically the Americans (who have Saddam in their custody even though he’s been tried by a supposedly Iraqi court) need to rule that the Iraqi court is c**P. Which with the death of 3 of Saddam’s lawyers, the resignation of one judge, and expulsion of another, and the deaths numerous witnesses (mostly on Saddam’s side; but reassuringly also on the other sides) the court surely is rubbish?
2. The Americans need to transfer Saddam to an International Court where he can be tried safely without the deaths of anymore (innocent) witnesses. This may even give the current Kangaroo Court better credibility as it would be effectively abolished.
3. The International Court finds Saddam guilty of doing exactly what we would have done, and almost everything we wanted (including getting rid of his WMD’s)

4. However because for this grave offence Saddam would surely be put to death in Iraq; the Court rules that at this stage “it is not possible to return Saddam to Iraq”
5. This means that Saddam gets to live in a cell with General Pinachia. But this isn’t a punishment; instead it’s a room to negotiate how to get him back in power.
6. Meanwhile in Iraq with the American people getting ever more angry about having their troops being shot at, and with the Israel loving Coalition of the Willing political elite ever more anxious to keep them their (because they know Iran is watching the country all the time), a mysterious coup is underway.
Yes you guessed it; we were just doing exactly what the public wanted (withdrawing our increasingly kicked out troops) when the Ba’th party (probably backed with CIA money like before) claims power.
7. Negotiations to return Saddam to Iraq without the death penalty being executed are concluded. Unlike before (with a bunch of Iran loving, Israel and Western hating mix of various Muslim Fundamentalists in charge) we are now sure Saddam will not be executed.
8. Then wow, big, big surprise; this newly formed “Ba’th Party the Second” regime in charge of Iraq, not only puts Saddam in prison; but also releases him after a few days-weeks behind bars. They will do this because they still need CIA money-support, Saddam will rise in power through the Ba’th party because they like him, because Saddam is a Ba’thist and because he’s smart.

Problem solved; mission accomplished (our war would have verified no WMD’s exist).

Saddam would be good for Israel because even (if like many other Arab regimes) he still persists in throwing bread crumbs to the Palestinian terrorists (and question if he would be stupid-unpractical enough to do that is somewhat big); Saddam will at least help us rule the Middle East through a holy principle called “Divide and Rule”.
Because if Iraq is not split between Iran and Syria then both are weaker.

If a Ba’thist regime is strongly influenced by Saddam then we can be sure it is exactly what it says on the tin (a pro-western, secular, violently anti Iranian, and stable regime).

Saddam is (depending on how you look at him) a descendant of ether God or the Devil. But sod which one that is because logic dictates we should trust him. Of course you could try and find someone else to be a Saddam; but since we’ve surely infuriated the forces of chance-reality so much, I think he (whoever he is) will back stab us. A gut instant (even stronger than my liking of Saddam) (and that is strong) tells me this is inevitable, and surely I will be vindicated?
One things for certain a re-elected Iraqi government will back stab us (or at least do what the Iraqi people says) (the two are the same thing).

Of course there will be a certain irony about history repeating itself but isn’t that what it’s supposed to do? Isn’t that how the internal community helps keep control of the world; and makes it the nice place that it is.
And at the end of the day the U.S arms industry won’t have lost out thanks to this Iraq war; perhaps it even brought us some much needed economic benefit? (Look at any chart tracking the major markets and you will see the Iraq War marked a turning point.

So perhaps on those grounds alone it was justified? Bush and Blair are heroes, but economic ones, not regime-regional, international ones.

To All Beyond ATS…
Currently; the damage that has been done to our interests in the Middle East means it would be far better if we had, had an economic recession (and yes I'm not talking about the man on streets point of view here).
And speaking on that note I am vaguely aware of the Zionist plan for the whole of Middle East to become one big Israel.
But let’s face it, it’s not going to work is it? This is partly (but no means completely) due to the fact that God invented germs, man, and surrounded Israel with men capable of using germs. Yes in the 30’s and back to the Victorian times it could have physically worked but not politically, now with your control-influence over western governments it could politically work, but not militarily make sense (not until you can cure all man of germ disease) (whatever that may be).

My thinking advice to those higher up on the fringes of government is to forget it; even if it could work, it would cost so much it’s not worth it.
My thinking is that a weakened Iran and Syria, and a stable Iraq is far better for Israel. Iraq can be used as a platform to get to Iran (especially under Saddam; like last time).

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:08 PM
Well said. People dont realize, that democracy only works when the people want it.

One can not still choose to follow backwards religous beliefs as guiding prinicipals for a country and do democracy. The two are diametrically opposed.

With removing Saddam, we removed perhaps the last truly secular leader of the middle east. The plug that was keeping the toilet from bursting its raw sewage everywhere.

With 60% Shias and their helpful neighbor Iran, look to civil war, dissolution, ect.

Israel screwed themselves too. By taking out one threat, Saddam, they have fed a more rabid one.

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 07:55 PM
I dont think that bringing back Saddam would be the correct fix. I think that if Iraq is to survive as a country the quality of the Iraqi security forces improves drastically and there needs to be more goverance at the tribal/provincal level. One problem that even Saddam cant fix is that the people of Iraq only care about there tribal loyalties they dont want to defend anyone elses home. Now IF I was defending New Zealand I would defend someones home In Auckland as much as I would my home In Christchurch.

How could anyone oppose the actions of the Bush admin and yet advacate putting Saddam back into power ?

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:53 PM
1. You can train and arm the Iraqi security forces all you like, but when Shiite are killing Sunni when they do it in the most disgusting way, destroy each others most holy buildings, and when this problem isn’t localised “kill a few people every week” northern Ireland style terrorism, but a nationwide infection so great (that just for where figures are available) (i.e. Baghdad and the nearby neighbouring provinces) over 7000 people die in less than two months its hard to put the fire out. You can try to introduce screening but if it takes years to take effect to tackle something like racism in the police force in U.K and U.S then god help Iraq.
2. Of course you’re right that Saddam never fully solved the sectarian violence in Iraq. In fact no leader in the 6 or so thousand years of the Iraqi people has ever been fully able to end tribal and religious violence. And any leader who does is ether the Antichrist or son of god.
But Saddam did rise in conditions (although admittedly somewhat milder) not too dissimilar to the ones we’ve put ourselves in today. There had been 23 military coups in Iraq since 1920 but only one regime change in 30 plus years of Saddam (Operation Iraqi Liquidation). And even the end of Saddam rule (despite widespread poverty caused by unnecessary U.N sanctions) you had a stable, multicultural Iraq. Even the economy was looking up (before the war).
People had been living next to each other for decades; in fact Iraq was so stable it took literally ages for the violence to pick up (there were very suicide bombers in the first few months of the occupation, and most of these were directed against the coalition (rather than Iraq’s fellow citizens) and once more many of those terrorist probably really did come from abroad. How things have changed?

3. So what did Saddam do right?
The answer isn’t simply brutality; Iraq’s brutal (is in truth) (in rates of deaths) far more than it was under Saddam. The answer isn’t simply a vicious security force that can torture and kill people; because Iraq has various security forces which are raping, killing, torturing people, and which once more are vicious.
And it’s really simplistic to just say “stability” because stability isn’t something you can make in a factory and obtain from Halliburton (otherwise we would surely have it by now) (really; even if it was ordered by Halliburton).

Saddam basically had the right ideology as the foundation for just about all his interactions with the Iraqi people. This ideology is amazingly complex and it can be found in better detail than I care to describe in the masters own (little publicised) serious works of literature.
But one of the founding principles pre-dates Saddam (in terms of its date of creation) as the Arabs own aspiration to model the Arab world on America (in a word that’s all called the Ba’th party movement; which has its origins in the very early 1950’s). Now we all know why America objected to this ideology but the reasons why America objected to it (namely an additional global power, and once more one capable of fighting Israel) are irrelevant to this little task of analysing Saddam’s own effectiveness (inside Iraq).
Basically Saddam believed as I do in authoritarianism for the authoritarian, negotiation for his enemies the remnants of which (where logical-practical, applicable) to be cleared up by extreme brute force. I’ll elaborate: He believed in Iraqis being allowed to go about their own business providing it does not threaten the (imposed-assured) secular course of all Iraqis (i.e. his own regime).
That Was Just the Ideology…

Once you’ve got a great ideology like that (and again I suggest Saddam himself for more detail, and ways of doing things) you then have to implement it. Saddam did; he made sure Iraqis who believed in it where in charge of the strings of government which went about their business.
To be fair he also put peasants, and sheepish, and sometimes also treacherous people in positions of government; but that’s irrelevant; their were enough people within his regime who believed in his vision of secular government, to make that vision a reality.
Iraqi democracy (with Iraqis in there current form) cannot possibly provide that concentration of these people. In fact, in Saddam’s government; more important than ether the believers (or indeed) the self-serving sheepish characters who joined his regime, was the absence of the others like (the Muslim fundamentalist) who hold to their chest emphatic views which run directly counter to Saddam’s own (adopted-or sometimes more like created-pioneering) ideological pillar stones (i.e. things like Iraqi woman should be free of the veil if they want to, can get a job, or drink alcohol).

To make Iraqi government work you need a few believers, the usual sheepish characters, and the more or less total absence the illiberal, authoritarian Muslim fundamentalist.

Once you have such a government (with the weight of x number of ideological secular believers, firmly in secularism favour; you can then do things like have great propaganda (so that the thick Muslim fundamentalist can be kept confused with their TV in their one hand, and their Koran in the other). Once you have such a government with secularism in secularisms favour you can do things like have a brutal police force which tortures and kills enemies of peaceful, liberal secularism (I call them “traitors”).

To the Present…
Of course right now things are firmly in fundamentalisms favour. The trouble is that (almost by definition) fundamentalism will never be satisfied with tolerating secularism.
This is in contrast to secularism which can tolerate fundamentalism in almost any shape or form providing it remains strictly within peoples lives (i.e. their beliefs, ways of dressing, and other ideas in their heads).

Hence Saddam tolerated these people (any other wise & sane leader would have done the same). Where practical-necessary fundamentalist ideas can be better attacked (in the long term) through education (providing the conditions for this secular education are in place) (something only a secular society can provide).

I mean what is the point in being a secular fundamentalist? Is there anything more contradictory than that? I guess it would have been nice if Saddam had; as it would meant that we would have had a nicer stay in Iraq; but then again it would also mean Saddam would have had to wipe out about 60% of his peoples population.

Of course for fundamentalism there is nothing illogical or wrong about that (well in the true fundamentalist own short sighted eyes anyway), I mean if someone doesn’t worship god in the right way, and can’t be persuaded with a few family abductions; then of course they’ve got to die.

Hence Iraq is in perpetual war; but eventually (right now) it will end after thousands or quite conceivably millions of deaths. It will take time (a few decades perhaps) but if Iraq stays both united as a territory, and on its current coarse; then it will finish with almost no one daring to follow anything but the most extreme (and therefore popular-somewhat safe) fundamentalist ideology. After all what are the two bakers in two different suburbs going to do? They’re going to follow (publicly) the safest form of ideology; what are the peoples little children going to hear in the food shop, or at school? (This same form of ideology).
Now in Iraq it might be that these two different suburbs have two opposing ideologies, but in Iraq because fundamentalism is biggest, and because by being so intolerant of other peoples views (as well as in creed-ideology) fundamentalism is expansionist; fundamentalism will win.
Like (I said before) there are only two ways to prevent this. One is to divide Iraq up (and therefore create political as well as literal boundaries between the two forces); I call this “the salvage operation” as it doesn’t actually do anything against fundamentalism or creative, it’s rather like cutting and chucking the infected branches of a tree on the ground.
The second (far more useful option for Israel and the West) (trust me it’s the humanitarian and Western bits which attracts my personal interest in Iraq most); is to put a secular government (like Saddam) in charge…
1. I say like Saddam because let’s face it; democracy in Iraq is hardly healthy grounds for healthy secularism.
2. I say like Saddam because if we are to have a dictator we need to know he “does exactly what he says he does on tin” (to use a common advertising phrase).
3. You see when finding a suitable dictator it’s not just enough to know he personally believes in western style “liberal” secularism (and therefore won’t back stab you), but that he is also capable of carrying it through.

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:36 AM
Liberal1984 your wearing rose coloured glasses at best.
Even if your plan went ahead do you really think that Saddam would last five minutes outside of a prison cell ?
I didnt say that stability could be ordered or would come with great ease.
Saddam didnt rule Iraq with good goverance see the link below for the methods he used.

The Anfal campaign, which began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, is said to have cost the lives of 182,000 civilians in the mostly rural areas of Kurdistan, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

The campaign was headed by Ali Hasan al-Majid, a cousin of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, concentration camps, firing squads, and the chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".


Dont bother with the argument that Saddam didnt gas the Kurds aside from the fact its a differnt topic those must have died somehow.

Creating a situation where the region known as Iraq would take years and a change of thinking but the result would be worth it the small central government would almost act like a council whos job it would be to coordinated border security amogst the tribal regions and negotiate trade deals e.t.c

An overall security force would still be needed to prevent the likes of Iran from interfering with the political process.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 01:43 AM
If Saddam was to return to power i think he would be a target for assination by other parties in Iraq

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 05:02 AM
Hi Liberal, great posts... although I disagree, it's nice to see some original and penetrative thinking on the board.

I think you're right on some things. I was shocked to realise that, yes, if this war is illegal, then Saddam is, in theory, the legal ruler of Iraq! However... practically speaking, although I also agree that Iraq was better off before the invasion (and better off before Saddam was tricked into invading Kuwait by April Glaspie), he was nonetheless a tyrant, and one who has generated rather a lot of resentment. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I'm inclined to think that a policy of partition will be implemented which will leave the Sunnis with nothing and will allow the Kurds to get the oil and be ripped off by the multinationals in exchange for their own homeland at last. (Although my historical research indicates that the policy was always to deny the Kurds their homeland for precisely the reason that it left them sitting on much of the oil.) Turkey might even be pleased if they can encourage their own Kurds to leave... I wonder if a little subtle ethnic cleansing might take place, to which the West will close its eyes and ears?

One thing that did pique my interest came from the biography of Saddam you put in your first post. Now, obviously, the man's achievements are going to be exaggerated in an official biography, but this caught my eye:

Played the principal role in formulating and implementing the Autonomy Law for Iraqi Kurdish citizens on March 11, 1974.

HUH? So I thought I'd do some digging and here are some preliminary results...

According to this library of congress report, the Barzani tribe leads the Kurdish independent faction.

For some years, Kurdish dissidence in Iraq was led by the Barzani tribe, which comes from a village approximately 60 miles northeast of Mosul. Their storied chieftain, the late Mulla Mustafa Barzani, founded the Kurdish Democratic Party during a period of exile after World War II. He returned to Iraq in 1958, and soon became the focal point for the Kurdish rebellions against Baghdad. After some vacillation, he rejected the Iraqi government’s declaration of Kurdish autonomy in 1974, and launched a new revolt, which collapsed in 1975 when neighboring Iran withdrew its support for the Kurdish militia. Barzani, granted asylum in the United States, died in 1979, and leadership of his party ultimately passed to his son Masoud Barzani. In the meantime, some years earlier, a younger, more urban and left-leaning group under Jalal Talabani began increasingly to challenge Barzani’s leadership and broke with Barzani in 1964; later, in 1975, Talabani founded a rival group, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Since then, the KDP and the PUK have been the leading voices of the Iraqi Kurdish movement, although other smaller Kurdish groups have appeared as well.

One has to wonder why Barzani rejected the offer. I've looked at Baath party documents but they're too full of socialist propaganda to be worth much, frankly, and in fact are not informative on the details of the issue.

But Saddam does seem to have offered the Kurds independence. However, other reading indicates that one of the reasons the Kurds were denied their autonomy for many years (reaching back to the "British mandate" (you know, we in Britain are simply not taught in school that we were occupying Iraq all the way from the beginning of WWI) was the presence of the oil in their lands, and there was a policy of "Arabization" in place for many years - the oil companies hired in Arabs to work the wells, and this policy was supported and reinforced by successive Iraqi administrations.

So why would Barzani have rejected the Baathist offer? Perhaps he didn't like the lands suggested as the Kurdish area? Perhaps it was a covert effort to move the Kurds out of the oil-rich areas?

I need to do some more digging.

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 04:07 PM
1. I know I'm looking at the world with rose coloured glasses when I say we should restore Saddam himself to power; although if anyone knows anyway of modifying my “How to Save Saddam” draft plan, then that would be great.
What we actually need is someone who is 99% like Saddam but a different person (DNA cloning) (Joke!).
Yes in my personal view it would be best if we restored Saddam himself to power (not least because we know what we’re getting); but I accept with rich23 yourself (and most people) that expecting this to happen literally is pie in the sky.
After all getting Saddam beyond anywhere other an advisor level would be difficult; and the public political contradictions would be too huge (Saddam the physically same is after all too huge admission-sign of how stupid America and Britain actually were, to do this whole war thing).

2. I know all about the Anfal Campaign; and I don’t dispute many people died, just as I don’t dispute (that separately) many Shiite Muslim fundamentalists died in graves dotted all over Iraq.
However I don’t know what Saddam was supposed to have done differently with the Kurds…
He did (sincerely try) to negotiate a peace with the Kurds first (I think back in 1972 to be precise), he offered the Kurds autonomy (but not full blown independence) in their own section of Iraq, along with numerous other things (social protection ect).
The trouble is that (evil-ideological) Iran decided it would be a good idea to carry on arming, and bribing Kurdish tribal leaders just the same.
Iran’s motives were primarily disputed territory (legacy of colonial times) (and later on) also the fact that Saddam was a pro western leader, allied to America. It’s also notable that Anfal campaign took place during the Iran-Iraq war; it’s significant because the Anfal campaign is when the most Kurdish blood was spilt.
(Excluding the last year) (not too much happened then) 1986-89 was a time Saddam’s Iraq was fighting a war (in which America supplied arms to both sides to prevent an absolute victory). This (along with the natural draining nature of any serious war) meant Saddam’s military (probably like any military in a similar situation) couldn’t afford to be “nice” to the Kurds; especially when they’re a fairly well armed tribal people, often openly siding with their Iranian “allies”.


Quote: originally posted by xpert11
the small central government would almost act like a council whos job it would be to coordinated border security amogst the tribal regions and negotiate trade deals ect

The central government will do no such thing as long as it is a mix mash of seculars and Muslim fundamentalists (they’ll betray-snub each other at least, and kill each other at most). And there is no way it will behave fairly with a minority of people being secular.
Perhaps (if out of proportion to their population) a majority of people were secular then it would work; but the trouble is Iraq now has too much violence, assignations ect; to let the waters settle.
I think the government of Iraq has to be pure secular’s; I have no time for fundamentalists unless they’re not really fundamentalists at all (just people who pretend they are to win votes). And the reason why I have no time for fundamentalists is because a. they want to impose their beliefs on others, and b. because they aren’t very inclusive towards people unlike themselves. And until they can be more inclusive there’s precious little point in including them (especially as Iraq-Afghanistan’s hardcore type of fundamentalists; is almost exclusively our self-declared enemy in the war on terror (and so of course is in Iraq).

Quote originally posted by Sth Hemisphere
If Saddam was to return to power i think he would be a target for assination by other parties in Iraq

Maybe; but if you gave a centimetre for every time someone had tried to assonate Saddam you would probably have something as tall as you or me (and that’s so true).
In addition to his early history, it happened a lot when he was in power, not least during this last war, and various times during sanctions. He seems to have a lot of good luck or whatever it needs to be assassination proof. Of course luck can always run out so it’s a fair point.

Quote originally posted by Rich23
So why would Barzani have rejected the Baathist offer? Perhaps he didn't like the lands suggested as the Kurdish area? Perhaps it was a covert effort to move the Kurds out of the oil-rich areas?

Because the little bastard was being bribed by the Iranians (and no doubt other foreign enemies). The Kurds could have had the peace they wanted way before the Anfal campaign ever took began (history should have been different) (but unfortunately money speaks).
I learnt this from the guy who convinced me the Iraq war was wrong; he used to be high up in the Ba’th party. What amazed me is that he claimed asylum in the U.K back in the 80’s because Saddam killed his cousin for political reasons. He himself had only avoided death because he happened (by chance) to be in the U.K on a business trip at the time. In spite of this my friend (won’t say his name unnecessarily) still supports both Saddam; and the Ba’th party. The reason for his near death experience was because he had been wrongly “painted out” by other Ba’th party “colleagues” (betrayed). However he is still a believer; and so am I as the pro-western secular Ba’th party is about the greatest Arab political movement I’ve ever heard of.

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 03:05 AM
Related article.

AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.

The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month’s congressional elections amid signs that sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces are spiralling out of control. The conflict is claiming the lives of 100 civilians a day and bombings have reached record levels.

The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”.


We can only hope that who ever is elected in 2008 heeds the advice of the Baker commission.
Cheers xpert11.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:03 AM
Ok so they’re going to cut Iraq up into three bite size revision bits for Iran; whilst that’s one massive improvement compared with the current situation; I have a question…

1. Does it mean we can have a Saddam back in at least one of these regions? (Say in the Sunni bit’s where as one of them Saddam himself was popular).

2. My next question is why can’t we have a Saddam in the Shiite bits? Sure they are going to hate him; but why have a Iran linking, Muslim, fundamentalist they’ll love? (and who will also no doubt turn out to be equally undemocratic; ruthless even).

3. The Kurdish Question: A Saddam Just Isn’t Practical Here…
So what are we going to do about the Kurds? As Saddam and the Kurds didn’t really get along well (at the best of times), I guess it’s fair we leave that region free of Saddam’s. This is also because their brand of religion hasn’t caused the backward internal infighting you get in the other (formally) more multicultural areas of Iraq.

Frankly I think we should make the Kurdish region a full blown independent state. For security (against Turkey) the West should build a few big military bases. This will be a great idea; because if the Kurds ever get any ideas about being against Israel, or upsetting us in anyway whatsoever; then it will save us money to close our military basis.
This means we can then put pressure on Turkey to do something about the troublesome Kurds, or simply go from a protector to someone putting ideas in the Turks heads.
This should go very well because both Turkey and the Kurds are our allies, and providing Turkey doesn’t unnecessarily attack the Kurds, and the Kurds don’t go anti us (in any significant way whatever); then things will indeed work out well.

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Liberal1984
1. Does it mean we can have a Saddam back in at least one of these regions? (Say in the Sunni bit’s where as one of them Saddam himself was popular).

Well elections should be held in the differnt tribal regions once Iraq has been partitioned . It is very possible that the people in these regions could elect a Saddam type clone. Note I have said that the Coalition of the Willing shouldnt put Saddam or a clone back in power I didnt say that a Saddam clone wouldnt come to power in Iraq or the regions.

Once the geographical area known as Iraq has been partitioned as it should have been 80 years ago democracy should be given a chance what people do with that chance is up to them.

3. The Kurdish Question: A Saddam Just Isn’t Practical Here…
So what are we going to do about the Kurds? As Saddam and the Kurds didn’t really get along well (at the best of times), I guess it’s fair we leave that region free of Saddam’s. This is also because their brand of religion hasn’t caused the backward internal infighting you get in the other (formally) more multicultural areas of Iraq.

I agree with your comments concerning the Kurds the coalition of the willing would be responsible for the Kurds security for the simple reason they created this mess.

Related article

Partitioning: The Way Out of Iraq
Ivan Eland | October 11, 2006
President Bush has so badly lied himself into a corner that he now needs the bipartisan “Iraq Study Group” -- headed by the Bush family's fix-it man, former Secretary of State James Baker -- to tell the American public that things are rapidly going south in Iraq. According to the New York Times, one commission member anonymously acknowledged, “There's a real sense that the clock is ticking, that Bush is desperate for a change, but no one in the White House can bring themselves to say so with this election coming.” But media reports of the situation on the ground in Iraq should tell the American people that the Bush administration is lying to them about the prospects for success there. Yet, unlike the Hungarians, who have repeatedly put tens of thousands of protesters in the streets to try to oust their prime minister for lying about the Hungarian economy, Americans seem apathetically resigned to their politicians' conviction that lying is just good, clean fun.


You cant prop up goverments with military force its like like building the roof of a house before adding the walls and foundation. In the best case scenario partitioning Iraq will allow the foundations of government to be laid. Coalition forces could then be withdrawn or redeployed. The worse case scenario would see a bunch of saddam clones come to power. Either the way the people would determin there future and there would be a way out of this no win situation.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 11-10-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:52 PM
I agree with most of what you say; except the idea of letting the Shiite elect their own leader. This to me is madness, why do we want another version of Iran? I mean the whole point of even considering putting a Saddam the 2nd in power; is to prevent the election (or rise) of some “Disciple of Ayatollah Nuclear”.

So what’s your solution for stopping fundamentalists elect Muslim fundamentalists?

Or are you saying its ok? (That it’s better than installing a Saddam) to let the Shiites (in their own way) glue to Iran, and become violently anti Western? And never mind the fact they’re only 60% of the Iraqi population? Or the fact they’re both a lot poorer and more brutalised than those in Iran (and hence more commonly extremist).

In fact if someone put my “military coup idea” into practice I would make Saddam the leader of Shiites before all other areas.
It’s pragmatically ironic because though this is the area where Saddam would be hated most; it’s also where he would be most effective in suppressing radical Islam.
Once this is done you can build a better economy, and then attack it through other means like universal (knowledge based) education. This is what Saddam was doing pre-1991; and it’s what any sane Western Minded person would do again.

Of course I'm not sure if it’s possible for a western minded man to rule the Shiite South without the support of more secular areas (just like Saddam had). However if anyone could do it; it would be Saddam himself (or really a virtual clone) (one we could trust to aspire to the living ways of the West).

But as far as Shiite democracy goes; why don’t we just save a whole lot of trouble by finding Osama Bin Laden and putting him in charge? Or (if feeling more moderate) we could just offer the place to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad directly?
Because Shiite democracy can only lead to one of those two things.

And if you did any Shiite poll; today (or even a year from now) that’s exactly what you’d find. Of course with Iraq now being the kind of place where speaking your mind (or even just being in the wrong place) can get your head cut off; I doubt the “fear factor” would let many people express their views freely.
I mean if I were a Shiite Iraqi I would have no way of knowing if the man at the polling station was drawing up an execution list. And even if it were done by the U.N I might not want to put trust in the prospect of the data not falling in the wrong hands.

Hence even if you could conduct safe and fair elections; the views you will really be expressing, are those of the militias (as for Iraqis if they’re in your area then there's nothing much wrong in voting for whatever they say).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 12:52 AM
If the Shiites want to elect extremists to office then thats there choice after all thats what the coalition of the willing wanted to bring to the people democracy. The people of the geographical area of Iraq have alreadly voted in spite of of it all. So I dont see why the people of differnt tribal regions wouldnt do the same.

The other tribes may elected more moderate leaders in there regions. Assuming Islamic extremists are elected in one of the tribal regions the other regions would get assitance with the likes of border security should they need or want it. Should Iran and the extremist region continue to intefer with the other tribal regions the answer is simple bomb the crap out of them.

Any aid beyond security measures would hinge on the adaption of democracy. By aid I dont mean making Hailburton richer. For example if the local cement works cant provide enough cement you upgrade the local cement works rather then bringing hailburton on board.

The next Saddam clone who would rule would suit US interests for now but just like Saddam its only a matter of time before he no longer suits US interests. Another point of interest is that none of the people who support blindly following a bad course of action have posted on this thread.
Could it be that this thread would bring them to close to reality ?

[edit on 14-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 14-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 14-10-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:08 PM
Ok so if the Shiites (or whoever) elects an anti western character as their next leader that’s their business is it? Maybe; but I think it’s against our interests and therefore a ridiculous policy to sit back and watch (let alone propel).
If (or when) the Shiites elect an ideological twin of Osama Bin Laden (same theme, different beard) as their leader is all your going to say is: a: it’s their right to do it, b: therefore its ok and c: mission accomplished (let’s go back home?).

What your proposal is ignoring is the dire need for a secular, pro western, leader capable of holding Iraq together (even against it’s will). The “division option” merely creates “bite size” “revision pieces for Iran”.
Now you might think this is a good idea but I do not, I think it’s a really, really bad idea (unless we’re just talking about the Kurdish part).

Revision Bits…
Now the “revision bits” we could (soon) be creating are not simply “bite size invasion chunks” (that’s an extremely frightening (hypothetical) thought if you’re in Israel by the way).
Ignoring that threat, these “revision chunks” are still Heaven on Earth for creating any terrorist who wants to target western interests in the Middle East (or merely western infrastructure and civilians worldwide). We already currently have “a theory” that Iran “might be” funding-arming Iraqi terrorists. To what degree this theory is true is irrelevant (I mean without Iran it would surely still be people in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else where wealth can be transferred from willing peasants or millionaires).
What’s relevant is the fact that Iraqi terrorists are still in the “genocidal stage” of attacking each other to establish control. This phase might continue a decade (in fact even two if our intelligences were to prolong it) but in the end it can only finish with an order that tolerates the odd few loose canons. This order will constitute a mega Al Qaeda and will of course be united against us (it happened towards the end of when the British last invaded the place).

An Iran from Scratch Even If There Where No Iran
Even if Iran did not exist (say someone had already wiped it of the map) the political conditions you are proposing are capable of creating a Iran type state from scratch.] We have the poverty, we have the fundamentalism, even the location is perfect (Iraq could hardly be any closure to Iran than its border) (a lot of this used to be in-with what’s Iran not too long ago in history) (last century in fact).
But Iraq also has something that Iran doesn’t: lot’s and lot’s of self perpetuating violence. In fact the violence is so self-perpetuating that even if (hypothetically) all the local oil-wealth disputes we’re solved, violence would continue self-retaliating on: ethnic, regional, nationalistic or religious grounds.
Oh guess what? Iraq and Iran’s histories are quite similar as far as both having brutal but effective American backed dictatorships. Before the Iran revolution it was a king, in Iraq it was Saddam, only he continued a little longer so in the end it was “stupid” us (and not “stupid” religious fundamentalists) who got rid of him. The point is that in both cases the consequences are pointing in exactly the same direction.

“Clone” Saddam, kill the fundamentalists who persist driving the country apart, let these authoritarians lie in their mass graves (they are after all from the pages of history). In stall a secular government, with unity at its heart, and a pro western agenda. Internationally this would be great for us.
As for domestics: The Shiite and Sunni could be at greater peace if no maniac pointed a gun and told them how to live their lives. Membership of terrorist groups would decrease, and the Middle East would soon become a safer place. Pies that Iran (or its ideology) could possibly put its fingers in would decline, first in membership then in number. The nightmare we have unleashed would slowly, yet surely pass.
Perhaps we could return to the pre 1991 Saddam conditions? 92% literacy, 93% access to free healthcare, and lots of western infrastructure (accompanying similar living standards). It’s looked impossible before; just look at Iraq’s history (pre Saddam Hussein that is).

P.S Xpert11: You say it would only be a matter of time before we fell out with a new Saddam again. I guess it’s really a question of giving History a higher place on our school curriculum? (Recent as well as ancient). What we had in Iraq was near perfect; and what we did to Saddam (and his regime which protected most of those left standing in Iraq) was appalling. It’s actually extremely disproportionate (reminds Israel over Lebanon anyone?).
Obviously the best way to minimise an “unintended” fallout with a new Saddam would be to seek someone as close to real the thing as possible. (Smiles at that) (Although I accept that political reasons a political compromise must do).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:39 AM
Well if the Shiites elect a Bin Ladin clone there are a lot of ifs and possibilities .
You could argue that the extremists would be in a central location it may be eaiser to keep track of them and if needed kill there leaders. If a tribal region posed a geniune threate the best approach would be to get some accurate intel and assassinate the relvant persons. The other more moderate tribal regions would be a balancing factor.

If Iraq had been partitioned along tribal lines 80 years ago much of the factional violence would have been avoided.

Liberal1984 how would you prevent your choosen Saddam clone from keeping up the pretense that he is pro western until coalition forces leave Iraq ?

What happens if your Saddam clone is assassinated ?
Iraq would be back at square one.

Why repeat a mistake that has alreadly been made ?
Supporting Saddam type leaders thou out the Cold War has come back to haunt the US. IMO it would be foolish to knowingly create a future enemy.

How would a Saddam clone rebuild Iraq ?
A Saddam clone cant change the state of Iraqi industry.

How would your Saddam clone remain in power once coalition forces leave Iraq ?

Well at least you plan cant damage the US governments credibility the tank is empty in that department.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:30 AM
Hussein was a dictator, all dictators all illegitimate, de facto. They only remain in power so long as they can mercilessly crush any opposition to it. They're illegal authorities.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
then how he has legally been deposed?

Via war. Which is still legal. The UN hasn't outlawed War.

Is Saddam legitimately the head of Iraq?

Of course not, he was overthrown.

(In spite of it obviously being politically impossible to restore him).

If the war was illegal and hussein was and is the legal president of Iraq then the UN would be forced to sanction the US and send in peacekeepers to break hussein out of jail, put him back in power, and fire on any US troops trying to capture him.
If the UN is too scared to do this, then the UN itself is illegitimate.
[qoute]After all if our actions (done in the name of the U.N) to remove Saddam Hussein weren’t legal then how can his removal from power be legal?
The war was legal.

What is the legal mechanism to justify it?

Military defeat.

Recall what Pompey said, uponentering a city that was rebelling over legal issues 'Why do you quote laws when we bring swords'.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:09 AM
Nygdan Saddam was overthrown ?
I guess that depends on how you define overthrown in that context anyway onto more important matters. Assuming the that the war was illegal I doubt that the UN would take any action. The UN couldnt run a cake stand little alone enforce international law. Even if the UN grew a spine and for some insane reason decided to send peacekeepers to free Saddam I dont know who would be laughing more the US government or the insurgents.

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 09:17 PM

If the war was illegal and hussein was and is the legal president of Iraq then the UN would be forced to sanction the US and send in peacekeepers to break hussein out of jail, put him back in power, and fire on any US troops trying to capture him.

Nygdan The U.N isn’t in a position to force the United States to do anything. If only because it’s a permanent member and all five English speaking nations (along with almost all of Western Europe) is it’s ally.

If the UN is too scared to do this, then the UN itself is illegitimate.

Sane, rational or pragmatic would be my choice of words. Though (that withstanding) one could call it weak, incapable or incompetent.

Xpert1 I liked your reply very much for those very challenging questions. Well here’s my answers anyway…

1. Leader Loyalty?
There is no way to be sure you have a Saddam unless you have Saddam. The same applies to everything we think we’re getting from Iraq’s current PM or whoever else we put in.
However (unless someone is specially trained) it is quite possible to determine whether they believe what they say with a passion. So if a new Saddam wants to explain his ideas to the camera, and if the Pentagon wants to get an experts opinion on their body language, wants to put it into context with what we know about them; then that’s a big help. Next stage is finance-assistance.

2. “What happens if your Saddam clone is assassinated ?”
Well because he is from a political movement someone from within it should take over. However like with any assassination of anyone it’s hard to speculate who you’ll be getting next at least until the day the assassination happens.

3. “Why repeat a mistake that has alreadly been made ?”
Well Saudi Arabia works out quite well. Iran was a disaster but it only happened because the king in charge was an oppressive idiot, as opposed to someone who is open to listening to his peoples concerns, as well as the measures needed to deal with his enemies.
I think Saddam was almost a complete success as he did almost everything we wanted him too. He kept control of the place, removed his WMD’s. He even offered to pull his troops out of Kuwait if we would give him another 6 weeks (in which to make it look like he choose to do it himself) (something we would not agree to). Overall I think Saddam was quite reasonable…

His attitude to Israel wasn’t good but compared with most Arab leaders it wasn’t exceptionally bad ether. The main problem with Saddam is he wanted to spread the Ba’th Party ideology outside his own country through peaceful or violent means. This would make the Arab world rich, and in turn put in a much better position to would threaten Israel.

Easy Questions…
4. “How would a Saddam clone rebuild Iraq ?”
A Saddam can change the state of Iraqi security. The problem with Iraqi security is that it’s infected with reactionary backward ideologies (i.e. religious fundamentalism in various (conflicting) forms). A secular government which is ideologically secular can negotiate with almost anyone who is reasonable; whilst removing-oppressing the rest. Here’s an example…
If you or me were in the Iraqi security forces and someone said “lets execute the boss because our prophet Mohammed said so” I for one would think “lets have you arrested because my brain-conscious says so”.
If on the other hand you’re a religious fundamentalist you’ll probably show more interest and say “no really? Prophet Mohammed said kill boss? Why’s that? Please show me that upside down bit of paper your reading”

This is the big difference.

Doesn’t matter why the prophet “says” the boss should be executed; I mean it might be because she is a she without a veil. Or it might be as serious as being a she who spits on the Korean every morning before eating its rice paper pages for nutritional value in Iraq’s food poor society.
Ether way secular people aren’t going to get too worked up about this. Because of this they can lead a fair and stable security service capable of creating the conditions for a fair and stable society. Fundamentalist people just can’t. Because of extreme indoctrination they are guaranteed to be a stick of dynamite at the best of times and exploded one at worst

Trouble Is: How to keep fundamentalists out? And my answer is to get Iraqi seculars to select them. That is to say starting with Iraqis who believe Iraq can only be stable in a completely religiously and ethnically tolerant society.
Saddam did it also by managing tribal loyalties, I'm no expert on this but I guess you would be a fool not to exploit this phenonorium in a place like Iraq.

5. “How would your Saddam clone remain in power once coalition forces leave Iraq ?”

Well security is everything. I know many of the people who used to be in Saddam’s intelligence service are now dead-abroad but any willing to help out would probably be on the pay roll.
With religious fundamentalism out the security apparatus (as explained in question 4) the next stage will be to eradicate it everywhere else. Ironically the Mosque will be one of the last places for eradication otherwise too much action in a country like Iraq would be like a social-nuclear bomb.

The main requirement for basic success is a believer in freedom of religion and capitalism. The second need is someone willing to impose these beliefs on others no matter how much they may dislike you for it.
Freedom of culture is also very important providing it does not contradict the previous.

Other factors…
1. Not really giving a stuff about Israel: Firstly this is rare in Middle East (but that’s a fact that applies across all options) (least of all my own mine). Secondly (in the Arab world) it’s probably more likely to be symptomatic of someone lacking morals than an unusual opinion. This is bad news all round as people who don’t really care about what Israel may do to other Arabs are unlikely to remain stable within themselves. At the very least they are likely to prove highly treacherous to Israel or Us if not now then perhaps in the long-term due to persistent populist political pressures.
However people who don’t really care about Israel will inevitably push themselves up the list. That said what we really want is someone who cares about Israel-Palestine but knows where to draw the line (obviously many potential reasons for this).
As I originally said the invention of the camera, interviews and study of body language will help do the trick. Even so the Middle East being what it is will make finding someone of leadership quality with too good an attitude towards Israel is probably extremely challenging to say the least (even so it is our best hope).

2. Liking Saddam (Ha)
3. Wanting to be like him (Ha)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in