Thursday, October 20, 2011

Qadhafi is dead

Haha. The talk in the US media is a lot about the killing of Qaddafi, and a US drone was involved, according to Lawrence O'Donnell. Many commentators on MSNBC are comparing it to how the US acted against Iraq. It is a valid comparison, but they don't go into how Iraq and Libya were very different. It is interesting how some Republicans are reacting - they're playing down American involvement, don't want to give too much credit to Obama.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Rachel Maddow is portraying it as a "Responsibility to Protect", as in protect civilians. America will "work with others" and liberals are praising the way Obama has conducted his foreign policy. It is impressive, even though he doesn't have to deal with major civil war in Libya.

I wonder how different Iraq would have been if the US had helped Iraqis kill Saddam. It would have taken serious help, and the US should have done it in 1991, after bombing the shiite out of the place.

Anyway, it is always good to see a dictator go down. I hope Libya becomes a progressive democracy!

20 comments :

Anonymous said...

I hope Libya becomes a progressive democracy!

you mean like iraq? afghanistan?
egypt? tunisia?

Anonymous said...

Libya will become Somalia 2.0

Anonymous said...

Next stop: Syria

idit said...

What is your opinion on similar operation in Syria?

madtom said...

" if the US had helped Iraqis kill Saddam"

IF, what do you mean, "IF"?

What about, If the US had not gotten saddam, there would be no Arab Spring today, no dead qadahfi, no ben ali, no mubarack...

Iraqi Mojo said...

I mean if the US had helped Iraqis kill Saddam without bombing the holy shiite out of the country and then imposing 12 years of sanctions and then bombing the country again.

Iraqi Mojo said...

I would would like to see the US and Europe help Syrians overthrow Bashar al Assad. I wonder how the Arabs would react to such help.

Iraqi Mojo said...

There would have been no Arab Spring if Saddam hadn't been overthrown? madtom, have you been talking to Ahmed Chalabi?

"On the day when President Obama announced that all U.S. troops are finally coming home from Iraq, I called the man who helped put them there in the first place — the wily Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi, who was the most effective lobbyist in favor of the 2003 U.S. invasion.

You will not be surprised that Chalabi offered no apologies for a war that cost many thousands of U.S. and Iraqi lives, and more than a trillion dollars. Quite the contrary, he lauded the U.S. for its role in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and said the 2003 war in Iraq was a precursor to the “Arab Spring.” '

Iraqi Mojo said...

'Chalabi, though he was famous for his links with Republicans such as President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, had flattering words for President Obama. “I think Obama’s foreign policy has been good,” he said. “I think his approach to Libya was wise and careful.” '

Maury said...

Mojo, you continue to labor under the misconception that Iraqi's would have been better off somehow if Saddam had been killed in '03. How exactly would they have been better off? Would Uday have been kinder and gentler?

Even with Saddam captured, and Uday and Qusay killed in 2003, Sunni Arabs put the country through sheer hell for the next five years. And that was with 100,000 US troops and an Iraqi Army operating under a newly elected government.

Sure, a bullet could've killed Saddam earlier, but it wouldn't have changed Sunni determination not to share rule with anyone. More likely, it would have just brought genocide for Shia and Kurd alike.

Maury said...

"that Iraqi's would have been better off somehow if Saddam had been killed in '03."

Make that 1991.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Iraqis most certainly would have been better off if Saddam & sons were overthrown or killed in 1991.

In 1991 the Sunni Arabs were divided on Saddam. The Gulf Arabs saw him as an aggressor. Usama bin Ladin volunteered his forces to defend the kingdom. It had been only four years since his mujahideen stopped receiving aid from the USA. There would have been no Saudi suicide bombers in Iraqi markets. The sectarian violence would have been limited to attacks by hardcore Baathists. By March 1991 all Iraqi Shia and Kurds were united against Saddam. Even some Iraqi Sunni Arabs were against him in 1991.

Instead of helping the rebels, the USA allowed Saddam to fly his helicopters. These are facts.

Google "iraqi mojo helicopters helped rebels"

Of course Iraqis would have been better off if Saddam was overthrown in 1991, whether by Iraqis or Americans.

Iraqi Mojo said...

These days the US & Europe don't let the dictator fly helicopters. They help the rebels.

March 2011: Libya's rebels await the arrival of Nato helicopters in Misrata

Iraqi Mojo said...

Actually the mujahideen may have still been receiving US aid in 1991.

"Mujahideen forces caused serious casualties to the Soviet forces, and made the war very costly for the Soviet Union. Thus in 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew its forces from Afghanistan. Many districts and cities then fell to the mujahideen; in 1992 the DRA's last president, Mohammad Najibullah, was overthrown."

Maury said...

"Of course Iraqis would have been better off if Saddam was overthrown in 1991, whether by Iraqis or Americans"

You've gone from "killing Saddam in '91" to overthrowing his regime. Big difference. Basically, you're saying the invasion and subsequent occupation should have come earlier. I somehow doubt that Sunni attitudes towards sharing power were any different in '91. Even without suicide bombers, the country still would have been ripped apart.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Overthrown or killed, by Iraqis or by Americans, Iraqis would have been better off without Saddam & sons.

Even if Sunni Arabs had continued to rule, Iraq would have been better off without Saddam in charge. Anything would have been preferable to Saddam & sanctions.

madtom said...

Sort of re writing your history. The way I remember it the Saudis and the rest of the coalition would not go along with ousting saddam, they only wanted him out of Kuwait and refused to go one step more...If you write your own history, you can make any case.

I will agree with you that Iraq without saddam would have been better regardless, but maybe not for the French or the regions other dictators..

Iraqi Mojo said...

Yes I did not mention the Saudi role. But is that rewriting history? Was the US not in charge in 1991? Was Bush not in charge? Or were the Saudis in charge of Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf?

I admit the Saudis must have been quite influential. They were paying for the war, after all, and we know how American politicians are moved by money:)

David All said...

It was definitely a mistake not to have supported the Iraqi rebels in 1991. At least the US and the Coalition forces should have enforced a no-fly zone for Saddam's helicopters as well as his planes. That would have given the rebels a good chance to win.
And if the Iraqi rebels had overthrown Saddam in 1991, perhaps the Arab Spring would have happen then.

As for Qadhafi's demise:
"Ding dong,
the wicked witch is dead"!

"On the day of Victory,
no one is tired"

madtom said...

" the rebels"

The rebels, you mean the shi'a and everyone was afraid of the Shi'a taking over, they wanted the Sunnies to take out saddam.