how the US invasion transformed Iraq from a secular westernized advanced country into a theocracy

[jamahir]

If Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, thereby creating suspicions throughout the ME, then maybe Iraq would not be a theocrazy.

Lesson for the all the despots out there: Stay inside your borders.

yes, blame the victim.

1. iraq's invasion of kuwait may not have been correct but why should that give usa military the excuse to slaughter iraqi soldiers on the "highway of death" and vulgarly claim that those soldiers had been throwing kuwaiti babies out of hospital incubators ??

2. who gave usa military the right to dictate to the world's progressive societies ??

3. where did syria and libya invade other countries ??

 

[ifesvr]

You interpret events your way. I -- my way.

Lesson for despots: Stay inside your borders.

The world would be a lot better and peaceful if the US stays within its borders. That's for sure.

 

[northeast]

US is the biggest dictators supporter and weapon provider.How many ME dictators are under US's protection？They always do things they think fit their profit.It's always profit，not some dumb exuse like democracy，that is just merely a way to persuade some US dumbo people to support the war.Only morons believe in that.

 

[livingdead]

Its better in long run to have secularism coming from society than imposed by a dictator. Iraq at this moment is worse, but saddam was also ruling against will of shia majority.

 

[Steve781]

If there's a golden rule of Middle Eastern policy it should be this:
Always back the guy with the moustache over the one with the beard.

 

[ayesha.a]

The failure of democracy to take roots in the ME means the people there are not capable of democratic principles, not the failure of democracy in itself.

Yes, I agree. And yet, the USA bungles into those places in the delusional attempt of bringing "freedom and democracy" to those places. USA, Iraq, and the world would have been better places today, if USA had not embarked on the Iraq misadventure in 2003. It was a colossal, criminal blunder to invade Iraq out of the blue, on the pretext of bringing democracy to them.

 

[jamahir]

Its better in long run to have secularism coming from society than imposed by a dictator. Iraq at this moment is worse, but saddam was also ruling against will of shia majority.

it is not the question of "majority vs minority" but of "right vs wrong"... not every shia in iraq was brainwashed by khomenei and his followers

If there's a golden rule of Middle Eastern policy it should be this:
Always back the guy with the moustache over the one with the beard.

a few good ones were clean-shaven too.

but yes, any sudden growth of beards in a society must be questioned, and it was not questioning this by syrian and libyan governments that led to them being invaded.

even tariq ali, the british perhaps-socialist-but-maybe-not writer, says of libya in 2006 in ( Tariq Ali · Diary: Libya during the Cartoon Controversy · LRB 9 March 2006 )...

It’s not uncommon to see hijabed women wearing tight-fitting tops and jeans. In such cases a display of hair might well be thought a distraction. But my companion is shocked. ‘It was very different when I left for Montreal several years ago,’ he said. ‘Only a minority covered their heads and most wore skirts. And at least half the people in this café would have been women.’

the hints towards reactionary thought in libya and syria were not taken seriously and later regretted.

 

[[Bregs]]

Iraq was a modern country in Saddam's times and US as usual has left the country in mess with civil war raging around

 

[jamahir]

Iraq was a modern country in Saddam's times and US as usual has left the country in mess with civil war raging around

one of my uncles worked in iraq until the 1990 nato/coalition invasion... he said that saddam time iraq was a great time.

That is the angels' problem.

yes, usa military is the angel... joke of the century.

The failure of democracy to take roots in the ME means the people there are not capable of democratic principles, not the failure of democracy in itself.

does usa itself have true democracy or is a dictatorship of two parties who in their own ways try to keep the banks afloat even if it means injustices towards americans themselves ??

the "occupy wall street" movement declares the citizens' opposition to the illusion of usa brand of democracy.

true democracy is true communism.

Because despots do not stay in theirs.

many would say that obama is the despot.

Saddam yes was secular but Iraq wasn't advanced in his days at all.

advanced enough, and it would have bettered if not for 12 years of sanctions after 1990 and then the invasion of 2013... my uncle stayed there and said the place was fine... this was until the 1990 "gulf war".

may i ask, what was your age in 1990 ??

Saddam destroy the country with his cowardliness.

on the contrary... his mistake was invasion of kuwait.

how was he cowardly ??

Today his gangs still spreading chaos in cooperation with the others to bring back the rule of minority something will never ever happen.

ah, that fable again... ba'athi component in isis.

may i ask, what does your user-name refer to ??

 

[livingdead]

it is not the question of "majority vs minority" but of "right vs wrong"... not every shia in iraq was brainwashed by khomenei and his followers



a few good ones were clean-shaven too.

but yes, any sudden growth of beards in a society must be questioned, and it was not questioning this by syrian and libyan governments that led to them being invaded.

even tariq ali, the british perhaps-socialist-but-maybe-not writer, says of libya in 2006 in ( Tariq Ali · Diary: Libya during the Cartoon Controversy · LRB 9 March 2006 )...


the hints towards reactionary thought in libya and syria were not taken seriously and later regretted.

there was little argument with saddam, he is alwas right.
what about his wonderful kids.

 

[jamahir]

there was little argument with saddam, he is alwas right.
what about his wonderful kids.

well, uday was supposedly off-track, but you may remember how usa military killed him and his brother.

 

[livingdead]

well, uday was supposedly off-track, but you may remember how usa military killed him and his brother.

yeah, they did not kill in cold blood, killed in airstrike. in any case saddam was cruel, and his population(shia majority) would have replaced him if they had chance.

 

[jamahir]

yeah, they did not kill in cold blood, killed in airstrike. in any case saddam was cruel, and his population(shia majority) would have replaced him if they had chance.

the sons' refuge, a fortified house, was surrounded by tanks and helicopters, and fired upon... this is what i remember.

the so-called "shia uprising" was some shia whose shia identity was more important to them rather than being just muslims or iraqis or citizens of a internationally-involved strong country.

let us remember that the irani socialist movement, "mujahideen-e-khalq", was supported by saddam's government during the iran-iraq war... many of the mek would have been shia born.

 

[livingdead]

the sons' refuge, a fortified house, was surrounded by tanks and helicopters, and fired upon... this is what i remember.

the so-called "shia uprising" was some shia whose shia identity was more important to them rather than being just muslims or iraqis or citizens of a internationally-involved strong country.

let us remember that the irani socialist movement, "mujahideen-e-khalq", was supported by saddam's government during the iran-iraq war... many of the mek would have been shia born.

how do you explain people welcoming americans, destroying saddam's statues etc. majority surely hated saddam, whatever might be the reason. I dont think iraqis inspite of terrorism will want to go back to saddam rule (majority shia + kurds).. only sunni minority and bathists will want him back.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Saddam was very close to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas though.

He had no love lost for the Brotherhood or Hamas, he may have supported them simply as tools against Israel but the movements themselves could not operate openly in Iraq. Saddam was not an Islamist or Secular, he was an opportunist dictator that did not like being challenged. Yes he did keep the religious extremists in check something which the NATO and USA had failed to realise(perhaps they knew but after all their plan may have been destabilising Middle East rather thing bring democracy lol) before invading Iraq.