Iraq falling apart?

[Razgovory]

Your argument is not even internally consistent Berkut.  And you seem to be defining "Stable" as something more then stable.

[Berkut]

Your Tribalism is getting the best of you Berkut.  The US was not obligated to do what it did.  No one put a gun to our head.  I don't think we had a defense pact with Kuwait.  It may have been the right thing to do, but it was our choice and our choice led to destabilization.  After two wars, a bunch of sanctions, and a no fly zone it's absurd to throw up your hands and say "Well, what ever happens to the Iraqis is their own fault".

Lets look at a timeline of Iraq under Saddam, this "stable" country you are talking about.

1979: Saddam takes power
1980: Saddam declares war on Iran.
1986: Saddam starts the An-afal campaign against the Kurds
1988: Height of the An-afal campaign. Saddam and his stable friends kill somewhere around 100,000 people
1988: War with Iran ends in stalemate, death toll: ~1.5 million
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.

From 79 to 90, is 11 years. During that time, the only time in which Iraq is not at war is about a year after the end of the An Afal campaign. And Iraq immediately starts yet another war with Kuwait, whom they owed tens of billions of dollars to as a result of the last decade of war.

The idea that Iraq was "stable" is like saying Hitlers Germany was stable while they were invading Poland, France, and Russia. Saddam was a classic military dictator who simply had no idea what to do other than attack. He never at any point did anything else, except when he *could not* attack anyone.

Iraq was not a stable nation state prior to GF1. It was a hyper agressive military dictatorship intent on war, and that is what they got. Blaming the UN for fighting that war is simply crazy. I have no doubt that had the world simply looked the other way, Saudi Arabia would be have been next. Saddam didn't know how to run a country except at war.

[Berkut]

Your argument is not even internally consistent Berkut.  And you seem to be defining "Stable" as something more then stable.

No, I am saying that stable means more than simply not in an active civil war. And even at that, you can debate whether Iraq was in fact stable by that criteria. How can you say it was stable when it was less than a year removed from trying to genocide a chunk of their population? How is the state dropping chemical weapons on its own people "stable"?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Berkut]

It's kind of amazing how little people understand the history of a conflict they appear to care very deeply about.

[11B4V]

I knew it.

[Neil]

Absent GF2, there is no reason to believe that Iraq would be in better shape today, or with a better opportunity for a stable future, than they have right now.

Sure there is.

[Razgovory]

Your argument is not even internally consistent Berkut.  And you seem to be defining "Stable" as something more then stable.

No, I am saying that stable means more than simply not in an active civil war. And even at that, you can debate whether Iraq was in fact stable by that criteria. How can you say it was stable when it was less than a year removed from trying to genocide a chunk of their population? How is the state dropping chemical weapons on its own people "stable"?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I know what the word means.  You are applying additional meanings to it.  "stable" and "liberal democracy" are not synonyms.

[Razgovory]

It's kind of amazing how little people understand the history of a conflict they appear to care very deeply about.

Actually I do not care deeply for the Iraqis.  I suspect few people actually do in the US.  I'm a Dem.  I was perfectly willing let the people languish under a murderous dictator.  Those who supported the war were perfectly willing to kill over 100,000 Iraqis to overthrow said dictator.  I think it's hypocritical for anyone to say they have the Iraqis best interests at heart.

[Razgovory]

Your Tribalism is getting the best of you Berkut.  The US was not obligated to do what it did.  No one put a gun to our head.  I don't think we had a defense pact with Kuwait.  It may have been the right thing to do, but it was our choice and our choice led to destabilization.  After two wars, a bunch of sanctions, and a no fly zone it's absurd to throw up your hands and say "Well, what ever happens to the Iraqis is their own fault".

Lets look at a timeline of Iraq under Saddam, this "stable" country you are talking about.

1979: Saddam takes power
1980: Saddam declares war on Iran.
1986: Saddam starts the An-afal campaign against the Kurds
1988: Height of the An-afal campaign. Saddam and his stable friends kill somewhere around 100,000 people
1988: War with Iran ends in stalemate, death toll: ~1.5 million
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.

From 79 to 90, is 11 years. During that time, the only time in which Iraq is not at war is about a year after the end of the An Afal campaign. And Iraq immediately starts yet another war with Kuwait, whom they owed tens of billions of dollars to as a result of the last decade of war.

The idea that Iraq was "stable" is like saying Hitlers Germany was stable while they were invading Poland, France, and Russia. Saddam was a classic military dictator who simply had no idea what to do other than attack. He never at any point did anything else, except when he *could not* attack anyone.

Iraq was not a stable nation state prior to GF1. It was a hyper agressive military dictatorship intent on war, and that is what they got. Blaming the UN for fighting that war is simply crazy. I have no doubt that had the world simply looked the other way, Saudi Arabia would be have been next. Saddam didn't know how to run a country except at war.

Irrelevant.  The US didn't become "unstable" from 2002-present.

[Ideologue]

The chain of casualties is what we left behind.

Irrelevant.  The US didn't become "unstable" from 2002-present.

Oh?

[DGuller]

Irrelevant.  The US didn't become "unstable" from 2002-present.

You can argue that it became somewhat mentally unstable, though.

[Berkut]

Your Tribalism is getting the best of you Berkut.  The US was not obligated to do what it did.  No one put a gun to our head.  I don't think we had a defense pact with Kuwait.  It may have been the right thing to do, but it was our choice and our choice led to destabilization.  After two wars, a bunch of sanctions, and a no fly zone it's absurd to throw up your hands and say "Well, what ever happens to the Iraqis is their own fault".

Lets look at a timeline of Iraq under Saddam, this "stable" country you are talking about.

1979: Saddam takes power
1980: Saddam declares war on Iran.
1986: Saddam starts the An-afal campaign against the Kurds
1988: Height of the An-afal campaign. Saddam and his stable friends kill somewhere around 100,000 people
1988: War with Iran ends in stalemate, death toll: ~1.5 million
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.

From 79 to 90, is 11 years. During that time, the only time in which Iraq is not at war is about a year after the end of the An Afal campaign. And Iraq immediately starts yet another war with Kuwait, whom they owed tens of billions of dollars to as a result of the last decade of war.

The idea that Iraq was "stable" is like saying Hitlers Germany was stable while they were invading Poland, France, and Russia. Saddam was a classic military dictator who simply had no idea what to do other than attack. He never at any point did anything else, except when he *could not* attack anyone.

Iraq was not a stable nation state prior to GF1. It was a hyper agressive military dictatorship intent on war, and that is what they got. Blaming the UN for fighting that war is simply crazy. I have no doubt that had the world simply looked the other way, Saudi Arabia would be have been next. Saddam didn't know how to run a country except at war.

Irrelevant.  The US didn't become "unstable" from 2002-present.

How is that remotely comparable? Who has claimed the US is unstable?

Fuck, why am I arguing with you again?

I am the unstable one.

[The Brain]

Whatever the stability status of Iraq before the 2003 invasion it was known to the US (a known known). Therefore it doesn't lead anywhere to blame today's problems on prior instability.

[Camerus]

You can make a compelling argument that the entire war was a mistake (although your strawman reasons for why the US went to war make your argument weaker), but that doesn't mean you can make a compelling argument that the US is responsible if Iraq cannot create a stable state.

The problems with Iraq today, to the extent that they exist, are intrinsic to the region and the people who live there - they were not created by the actions of the US. At worst, the US removed the temporary "solution" that kept a facade of stability in place as long as Saddam was willing to simply murder anyone who opposed him.

So no, the chain of casualty does NOT lead to the US, it leads to Saddam Hussein and those who supported him. Why would you stop the chain at GF2, rather than follow it back to GF1, and what started THAT war? Absent Saddam invading Kuwait, he is likely still sitting in one of his many palaces killing people who are trying to depose him.

Finally, if you want to call Iraq even pre-GF1 "stable", it shows a somewhat simplistic view of the country. Like all dictatorships, Saddams hold on the country was based on fear and war. He had a war with Iran that went on damn near forever, and left his country in debt to Kuwait to the tune of some $30 billion. He had wars with his own people. He manufactured claims to Kuwait, and invaded. The war with Iran ended just two years before the invasion of Kuwait.

Is that stability? A state the relies on being at war with its neighbours in order to keep its own populace in line, and when that doesn't work, it simply goes to war with its populace instead?

The idea that the US (rather the UN really, since it was a UN operation) should have just sat back and let him happen so as to not be responsible for what might happen in Iraq some 20+ years later is rather...well, crazy. Hell, the Brits were the first to tell Iraq to back off from Kuwait back in the 60s when they threatened to take it over. Guaranteeing the integrity of Kuwait was not some crazy idea thought up by the crazy Americans.

The "chain of casualty" that ends in Iraq today goes back much further than GF2. Absent GF2, there is no reason to believe that Iraq would be in better shape today, or with a better opportunity for a stable future, than they have right now.

Firstly, claiming that the regime change argument that was advanced as justification for the war is just a "strawman" that I happened to make up is simply risible and mind-numbing in its dishonesty. 

Secondly, the chain of responsibility for the US for the current situation does begin at Iraq 2, because (a) everyone knew the situation was fucked up in the first place, and (b) the US decided to take it upon itself to manufacture a war there in 2003.  Stating that, "well, there was instability there in 1980!" may be true, but it is irrelevant, because the US completely voluntarily intervened in 2003 and overthrew the existing order. As such, it then assumed considerable responsibility for the ensuing order. 

Notice how nobody (except perhaps a lunatic fringe) holds the US responsible for instability in say, Nepal, because the US has no meaningful involvement there.  The same can't be said for Iraq.

[Razgovory]

How is that remotely comparable? Who has claimed the US is unstable?

Fuck, why am I arguing with you again?

I am the unstable one.

You were the one making connection between warfare and instability.