undefined | Better HN

0 pointsneuland7y ago0 comments

I'm not really sure how the 2nd Iraq War is a testament to American evil. It sounds to me like you're saying the invasion was unjustified?

But, is there really anyone who thought Saddam was a good guy? He was very obviously a brutal dictator. So, at the very least there's one fewer of those around.

Sure, WMD turned out to be a total fabrication and the Iraq War ended up being a misguided attempt at democracy building.

But saying that it shows America's inherent evil nature is very odd from my point of view. Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator, that seems like a good thing. Though, you could argue the cost doesn't seem to have been worth it looking back now.

I guess I'm failing to imagine how it could possibly be in the evil bucket and not just neutral or good.

0 comments

danharaj7y ago

> Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator,

Innocent people died, friend.

joejerryronnie7y ago

It's not as straight forward as this. Many innocent people died (and would have continued to die) at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime. So, was removing a ruthless dictator a good thing to do? On the surface, probably yes, but Saddam's removal left a huge power vacuum in the region, allowing even more extreme and violent factions to set up shop. So, in the end, would it have been better to leave a known genocide practitioner in place to maintain regional stability?

neulandOP7y ago

This is a very good answer.

It puts us in the situation of weighing the suffering and death of the war against the continued Saddam rule. That's an interesting debate where it is possible that the invasion was less good.

danharaj7y ago

Do you understand how bonkers it sounds to play calculus with millions of lives in the service of geopolitics?

1 more reply

sneak7y ago

Hundreds of thousands of people. Some estimates put the number at a million.

watwut7y ago

> Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator, that seems like a good thing.

It also empowered radicals and created perfect conditions for them to thrive. By radicals I mean terrorists, proponents of Islamic state and such. Guns and ammunition ended in their hands that would not ended there.

Regardless of results, calling it merely misguided honest mistake in search of democracy building is naive or a lie. The war was not motivated by altruism and so called mistakes were simply lies. There us such thing as too much of benefit of doubt.

That does not mean other countries leaders are less cynical or more altrustic through, merely they have less power.

gandhium7y ago

_Active_ WMD program turned to be a total fabrication. WMDs were a-plenty in Iraq: "American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...

AlexandrB7y ago

> But, is there really anyone who thought Saddam was a good guy?

Yes. The US, just 20 years prior during the Iran-Iraq war [1]. That's kind of the point. Since WWII the US engages in or supports wars (which kill lots of people) out of naked self-interest while trying to paint themselves as morally good.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2

botverse7y ago

I think it’s very idealistic to think that the war was for helping the oppressed people of Iraq. Iraq War costed $2.4 trillion[1], figure out who pocketed it and then you will have a picture closer to reality. That picture tells me that the intentions were more corrupt than pure.

[1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

shadowtree7y ago

I did not state my personal opinion, just asked a question.

I believe public forums are great to post facts and questions, but horrible to debate opinions.

neulandOP7y ago

I just was shocked to hear that anyone considered it was even possibly an evil thing and not just misguided.

So, I am actually happy to see another poster's short comment about civilian casualties, destruction, and other impacts of war.

That was kinda a perfect answer I think. You could see it as evil from a utilitarian standpoint because the suffering under Saddam was less than the suffering it took to displace him.

I have no idea how to weigh those two, but that's an area where I could see someone coming down on the side of letting the dictatorship continue is "less bad". Though I don't really agree with that position.

maxxxxx7y ago

I don't think evil is the right term. Arrogant is a better one. I think they really believed that the people in Iraq were waiting for the the US to liberate them and would become loyal allies immediately.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

danharaj7y ago

> Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator,

Innocent people died, friend.

joejerryronnie7y ago

neulandOP7y ago

This is a very good answer.

It puts us in the situation of weighing the suffering and death of the war against the continued Saddam rule. That's an interesting debate where it is possible that the invasion was less good.

danharaj7y ago

Do you understand how bonkers it sounds to play calculus with millions of lives in the service of geopolitics?

1 more reply

sneak7y ago

Hundreds of thousands of people. Some estimates put the number at a million.

watwut7y ago

> Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator, that seems like a good thing.

That does not mean other countries leaders are less cynical or more altrustic through, merely they have less power.

gandhium7y ago

AlexandrB7y ago

> But, is there really anyone who thought Saddam was a good guy?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2

botverse7y ago

[1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

shadowtree7y ago

I did not state my personal opinion, just asked a question.

I believe public forums are great to post facts and questions, but horrible to debate opinions.

neulandOP7y ago

I just was shocked to hear that anyone considered it was even possibly an evil thing and not just misguided.

So, I am actually happy to see another poster's short comment about civilian casualties, destruction, and other impacts of war.

That was kinda a perfect answer I think. You could see it as evil from a utilitarian standpoint because the suffering under Saddam was less than the suffering it took to displace him.

maxxxxx7y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse