Comparison Saddam v Qadaffi

**T_igger_cs_30** · 25 Mar 11,, 13:37

In 1991 (Gulf 1) the then POTUS made a decision to end the job and leave Saddam alive. This decision was made even though some coalition members wanted to complete the job and remove him.

Fast forward to 2003 (Gulf 2) The POTUS of the time made a decision to go back and finish the job. (for whatever reasons).

There does seem to be some reluctance to remove Qadaffi, so........

Who was the worst dictator?

Do we really have to scale attrocities to determine who should be removed and who should not?

IMO one attrocity against people is enough.

**Double Edge** · 25 Mar 11,, 14:25

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

Who was the worst dictator?

No way to answer without a qualifier. More worse for WHOM also changes the texture of the reply and is why the question of regime change within an international context will always be controversial.

Depends on what is feasible and how much intl & regional support there is or not for the idea. There wan't support for regime change in Saddam's case but it still happened.

There is a distant possiblity of an amendment to 1973 which was mentioned in passing in the HoC debates. Early days for that though.

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

Do we really have to scale attrocities to determine who should be removed and who should not?

]IMO one attrocity against people is enough.

Exactly.

**Mihais** · 25 Mar 11,, 14:36

Define atrocity.
Who reports it and why?who commits it?Are we supposed to go after each of them?Are we hypocrits for not doing it?

**Double Edge** · 25 Mar 11,, 14:38

Originally Posted by Mihais

Define atrocity.
Who reports it and why?who commits it?Are we supposed to go after each of them?Are we hypocrits for not doing it?

The bolded bit was answered thus - just because you can't do everything isn't an excuse to not do something.

Why tidy up my bedroom when the whole world is a mess

**dave lukins** · 25 Mar 11,, 15:44

Originally Posted by Mihais

Define atrocity.
Who reports it and why?who commits it?Are we supposed to go after each of them?Are we hypocrites for not doing it?

Examples of atrocities include the mass murder of people by the Nazis and their cohorts..The Rwandan Hutu and Tutsi massacres was an atrocity, because we stood by and did nothing about it. I think the time to 'go in' is and when humanity demands it. And yes, there are many times when we are hypocritical but it is impossible to Police the whole World. Sometime sanctions, rather than bullets work, sometimes not.

**NeilE** · 26 Mar 11,, 21:39

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

Do we really have to scale attrocities to determine who should be removed and who should not?

IMO one attrocity against people is enough.

Unfortunately it never is that simple. No one can ever predict with certainity what the consequences of direct intervention will be and consequently any such intervention needs to be considered very carefully. America's neoconservatist adventure in Iraq for example had the effect of dramatically increasing atrocities in the country and completely unbalancing the region. The conflict brought Syria and Iran closer together which dramatically increased Hezbollah's power (as Israel found out in 2006), created huge shia/sunni tensions in the region (the result of which is still being played out in the atrocities in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain), accelerated Iranian plans to develop a nuclear weapon, increased recruitment for terrorism groups worldwide and damaged America's reputation throughout the world.

Libya has the potential to be a lot worse than Iraq was. It borders Sudan from which you can reach countries like Eritrea and Somalia. It is also directly beside Egypt (far from stable right now) which is beside Israel. Libya, if handled badly, could be the match stick that lights up the entire region. Better the devil you know than the devil you dont.....

I would say the difference in response in Libya to that of Iraq has nothing to do which dictator was worse per se. The difference in the response is primarily due to the conflict ocurring in the post-Iraq world rather than pre-Iraq world. If what is currently unfolding in Libya had unfolded before the lessons of Iraq then I have no doubt that America would have gone in all guns blazing.

From what I can see however, Obama has reverted back to off shore balancing that proved so successful for America in the past. In my opinion its the right option.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 26 Mar 11,, 21:52

No one can ever predict with certainity what the consequences of direct intervention

You would never have made a sniper NeilE you are always so far off the mark..........

I did not need that lengthy response regarding the potential in Lybia....... I know it..have been fighting it in other threads for a couple of weeks now .............

My point was,

IMO one attrocity against people is enough

Any one man, group, nation or government who commits an attrocity (even one)against other human beings..that is enough for "direct intervention" IMO.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 26 Mar 11,, 22:29

Originally Posted by Mihais

Define atrocity

(noun) the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane

As Dave pointed out,
There were many atrocities committed against women and children during the war.

Other examples;

Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge regime)
http:///en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields

Just so you are aware I have not forgotten about Kosovo, which you reminded me of in another thread.
BBC News - New mass grave 'of Kosovo Albanians' found in Serbia

Lockerbie;

Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie bombing

Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Double Edge** · 26 Mar 11,, 22:45

Originally Posted by NeilE

America's neoconservatist adventure in Iraq for example had the effect of dramatically increasing atrocities in the country and completely unbalancing the region. The conflict brought Syria and Iran closer together which dramatically increased Hezbollah's power (as Israel found out in 2006), created huge shia/sunni tensions in the region (the result of which is still being played out in the atrocities in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain), accelerated Iranian plans to develop a nuclear weapon, increased recruitment for terrorism groups worldwide and damaged America's reputation throughout the world.

Will agree that adventure give the Shia's a bigger profile than they had earlier, its certainly increased their access to power in Iraq.

Bringing Syria & Iran closer though, i don't think came out of this conflict. It had roots much earlier. Syria & Iraq had a doctrinal difference in the particular brand of arab socialism they practiced which ultimately resulted in Syria being the only arab country to suport Iran in its war with Iraq. It's funny how pan arab brotherhood sometimes works. That Saddam was deposed by the US was a favour to both Syria & Iran.

Originally Posted by NeilE

Libya has the potential to be a lot worse than Iraq was.

This is the other point, i don't think it is and is why it was relatively easy to get that resolution passed in the UNSC. Arabs had no objection, the African union otoh is a different story. Gaddafi is much more isolated than doing the same to say Syria. No border with Israel either.

Originally Posted by NeilE

It borders Sudan from which you can reach countries like Eritrea and Somalia. It is also directly beside Egypt (far from stable right now) which is beside Israel. Libya, if handled badly, could be the match stick that lights up the entire region. Better the devil you know than the devil you dont.....

Libya has a population of 5 million to Egypt's 70 million. Not much threat to the Egyptians with a professional army.

Originally Posted by NeilE

I would say the difference in response in Libya to that of Iraq has nothing to do which dictator was worse per se. The difference in the response is primarily due to the conflict ocurring in the post-Iraq world rather than pre-Iraq world. If what is currently unfolding in Libya had unfolded before the lessons of Iraq then I have no doubt that America would have gone in all guns blazing.

UK went to Iraq as well, would they not have learned the same lesson too ?

I think this intervention is a direct result of that principle of Responsiblity to protect that Blair came up with in 1999 as a result of Kosovo. That was its first test, this is the second.

**NeilE** · 26 Mar 11,, 22:51

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

My point was,

Any one man, group, nation or government who commits an attrocity (even one)against other human beings..that is enough for "direct intervention" IMO.

I suppose my point is that, owing to the potentially unforseeable and volatile implications of direct intervention in another countries affairs, intervention should absolutely only be used in the worse case scenarios (as cold as that sounds).

**T_igger_cs_30** · 26 Mar 11,, 22:58

Originally Posted by NeilE

I suppose my point is that, owing to the potentially unforseeable and volatile implications of direct intervention in another countries affairs, intervention should absolutely only be used in the worse case scenarios (as cold as that sounds).

Define "worst case scenario"?

Is the mutilation of one human being any less horrendous than the mutilation of one million? because if you believe that then you scale atrocities.................. and I bet you any amount of money you want ...... if one of yours was in that million you would want blood.................. prove me wrong!

**Double Edge** · 26 Mar 11,, 23:02

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

Lockerbie;

Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie bombing

Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of your MP's (Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) had this to say, in addition to...

Warrington, Manchester, Canary Wharf, Bishopsgate, Enniskillen and Warrenpoint, and on the Shankill road in Belfast, where the weaponry that Gaddafi supplied to terrorists was used to bring to an end the innocent lives of British citizens.

S2 · 26 Mar 11,, 23:06

"America's neoconservatist adventure in Iraq for example..."

Hardly an adventure. Consider the upside- removal of the baathist regime, removal of Saddam, end of Iraqi irridentism (as evidenced against Kuwait and Iran in Iraq's recent past), liberation of shia plurality and Kurds, removal of Iraqi WMD ambitions for the foreseeable future and the implementation of a democratically-elected government.

Quite a laundry list of accomplishments.

"...had the effect of dramatically increasing atrocities in the country..."

Please identify the atrocity (or more) equating with the chemical attacks upon the Kurds or the subsequent mass graves uncovered near Basra approximating 30,000 bodies. Please identify who caused the near-complete up-rooting of the kurdish population post-DESERT STORM such that Operation Provide Comfort was necessary on the Turkish border.

Nonsense. You've best possess some outstanding examples to equate with Saddam's legacy.

"...and completely unbalancing the region..."

Who was unbalanced beside Saddam's baathists?

I sense a deeply-held belief in bullsh!t. Do bear in mind that no peace accord was signed following 1991 and that Iraq had subsequently committed multiple violations of the truce accords, any of which were sufficient to justify re-newing the conflict.

S2 · 26 Mar 11,, 23:19

There's no comparison remotely equitable. Iraq's strategic locale, population, military potential, demonstrated irridentist ambitions and established WMD use make any comparison to Gaddafi/Qaddafi moot.

What's unfolding in Libya is a charade by comparison...

**T_igger_cs_30** · 26 Mar 11,, 23:22

Originally Posted by S2

There's no comparison remotely equitable. Iraq's strategic locale, population, military potential, demonstrated irridentist ambitions and established WMD use make any comparison to Gaddafi/Qaddafi moot.

What's unfolding in Libya is a charade in comparison...

With respect Sir, if you are comparing size then I agree, however in regards to atrocities commited by the order of the two men ( and I use that word loosely to describe them) it is far from moot. And to many British and European people Lybia is far from a charade.

Thread: Comparison Saddam v Qadaffi

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Comparison Saddam v Qadaffi

NeilE - response

NeilE Reply

Comparisons

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

M14-Draganov comparison?

Comparison: 7.62NATO rifles

Radar Comparison

Comparison of forces

Comparison of Mass and Displacement

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions