egafd.com

No, you said things are WORSE (you used capital letters to emphasise this).

If you are going on the body count alone, then you may be right. Fact is, Saddam controlled the press and TV. People in the know were routinely killed so little news got out of what really was going on. Things may look worse now because the killing and violence is out in the open rather than in secret death camps and unmarked graves in the desert. When Saddam did most of his killing, we didn't have foreign journalists reporting it, 24 hour news channels and social media. Saddam never put videos up on Twitter showing his execution squads.

The Document Centre for Human Rights in Iraq estimate that Saddam executed around 600,000 civilians during his time as leader. Human Rights Watch reports that he killed an estimated 100,000 Kurds during the Anfal and another 500,000 people were killed during the Iran/Iraq war. You are free to blame Saddam, at least in part, for the estimated 730,000 Iranians that died in the war between the two countries too. That's nearly 2 million deaths overall. Then there are the 1000+ Kuwaitis killed during Kuwait's annexation what we all agreed was worth going to war over.

So, the death toll during Saddam's leadership is actually higher than the death toll from 2003 till now. Of course, I'm comparing the death toll over about 11 years compared to the death toll of Saddam's leadership of 24 years. He killed twice as many in about twice the time, so the killing is pretty much the same.

The difference to everyday life of Iraqis may just be a little brighter though. Well, at least for the Kurds. How long that lasts with ISIS on the borders, I don't know. But ISIS was born in Syria....a place we largely kept out of. And it isn't a given that Saddam's army would have fared better at dealing with them given how quickly his regular army surrendered to us. The trouble with living in such an evil, murderous regime is that people will jump sides quickly to anyone they think is the stronger. Principles don't come into it.....it's all about survival and backing the favourite. It is not outrageous to think a Saddam army would have run away as quickly as the western-trained Iraqi army did when faced with ISIS raids from Syria. Especially if they'd found out what ISIS were doing to Assad's army. Now, Saddam's Republican Guard wouldn't have messed about. They'd have slaughtered ISIS. Downside is, if ISIS were holed up in some village, using the people as cover, the Republican Guard would have just flattened ISIS, village and villages outright. I'll leave you and others to work out if this strategy would be worth it.

I've said before and I'll say it again......this is a generational thing. We won't know the effect of removing Saddam for 2 or 3 generations. It was a republic of fear where your neighbour or friend from school could be a Ba'athist spy. Saddam divided and conquered to stay in power and made sure Iraqis hated and mistrusted fellow Iraqis. It is no wonder they turned on each other first chance they got. They've been programmed to do this and adding religious sectarianism into the mix just makes it a whole lot worse.

I'll leave you with this: I've read on here numerous times about how our governments want to take away our freedoms and justify these things in the name of national security and keeping us all safer. Yet these same people think it was a good idea leaving a murderous tyrant in power exactly for those same reasons. It seems these people think their own liberty is far more valuable than an Iraqi's. I think that is a shame.

Max, they haven't gone away you know...

Here is Martin McGuinness, former IRA chief and now Deputy First Minster of Northern Ireland, making a blunder when he accidentally mixes up his words in a debate in the Stormont parliament in Belfast. He corrects himself at the end, and his final sentence in this short clip is inspired by Gerry Adams' famous comment that you have quoted. McGuinness says the opposite to reassure people:

I've read all of your comment, you seem quite knowlegable on this issue - more so than me. Iraq seems to be an awful place to live now, just like it was an awful place to live under Saddam - just awful in different ways. I feel sorry for the average citizen who has to live in that place. Regarding us getting rid of him, it seems most people would have supported ridding the country of such a monster, but those supporting such an operation in the West would surely have wanted us to leave the country in a reasonably good state, instead the regime was toppled and there have been massive problems ever since - the civil service, army, Police, courts system, etc, was dismantled and not replaced with something solid but instead with something quite flimsy. A better job could have been made of building the country after Saddam was toppled than what we and the Americans made of it.

I also wonder why we were so keen to just topple him when there are other nasty people in the world doing terrible things to their people and we do nothing - Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is an example, and we have not ousted him. Part of the problem with sectarian issues in Iraq is a legacy of Empire, we the Brits forced three different peoples there to live under one administration and there have been big problems ever since that day, Iraq was created by Britain out of the old Ottaman Empire. We did the same thing when we created Nigeria, three peoples having to live under one administration and there have been massive difficulties ever since - including a civil war there 7 years after independence, in 1967, which cost millions of lives. Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia as it was called years ago, is another mess we created - the same thing as Iraq and Nigeria, different peoples forced to live as one and difficulties have ensued daily ever since we put the borders in.

Yes because Martin McGuinness has led such an innocent, unblemished life that we all believe him...

Yes, well, I'm not going to defend empire, but I'm not sure it's fair to say all the middle east's problems were due to the British coming along and just drawing arbitrary lines on maps. Before the British 'acquired' the land in the middle east the borders had been in flux for the past 100-600 years due to the expanding and decreasing Ottoman empire under the caliphate founded by Turks. What is modern-day Iraq was slowly eaten up between 1512 (Selim I) and 1683 due to a Sunni caliphate in a majority Shia region. This might explain the hatred Iraqis have for one another and constant bombing of each other's mosques since the fall of the Ba'athist regime.

We're fleeting visitors in a religious war that's been going on for 1000 years.

Max, Max , Max, who on heaven`s earth do you conclude that GB as a
nation-state is under any obligations to the Americans ? Stop this line of
thinking immediately !

In the world of realpolitik, the cunning schemes of diplomats and men in
the corridors of power, nothing is done for nothing. Long term goals aimed
at securing advantages of power for your country OVER ALL OTHERS - is
what its all about.

American foreign policy has been designed to destroy the British Empire ever
since the USA was first born. It is a nonsense of politicians like Thatcher,
wishing to bolster UK pride and her own ego, to argue that there is a special
relationship. Churchill for the same reasons as Maggie (and he was at least
half-American by birth), created this total myth.

The USA tried hard to keep itself completely out of WWI until the Zimmerman
Telegram and the possibility Mexico might invade on Germany`s side forced
Woodrow Wilson to declare war in 1917. Meantime American companies grew
fat supplying weapons, ships, planes, food and raw materials to Europe,
especially GB. This was not a free gift. It cost us zillions.

Lend Lease and all the help the USA gave us in WWII came at a huge price so
that food was rationed more 1945-53 than during the war we were all so
poor afterwards. Meantime in the 1920s America turned inward while
planning to invade Canada and trying to destroy our Empire by covert means.
In 1956 the Americans similarly prevented the Anglo-French Suez invasion
force from achieving their goals (upto that point going splendidly) in Egypt.
Why ? Simply because the USA did not want a powerful GB or France being
top dog in the Middle East with all that lovely oil !!

American Foreign Policy is based on a) being No 1 b) specifically keeping
Britain weak or in debt etc etc. There is NO special relationship other than
a shared language, though when you visit the USA you might have doubts
about that too !

The legacy of Empire is certainly not a good one in many regions of the world. Maybe we withdrew too hastily, the 'winds of change' (was it Anthony Eden who dismantled the Empire and said that famous statement?) perhaps kicked in too quickly. The pull-out should have been managed better, instead we just cleared off, and many of these nations subsequently fell apart. There was much keen-ness for us to go in the 50's and 60's, I think some inhabitants of our former colonies probably, in hindsight, wished we hadn't gone. You've only got to look at how many of these countries have had problems since, and also at how many people from those places now want to come and live here - in their former 'mother country'.

I read all of your comment. It was interesting, and disturbing aswell as to how America apparently wanted to break our Empire and to more or less make us their poodle.

It was Macmillan who said "winds of change".