Reddit reviews Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition

Soviet training for Iraqi internal security forces from Wikipedia. Original source is from Kanan Makiya's Republic of Fear

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Republic-Fear-Politics-Modern-Iraq/dp/0520214390

"As a result of this internal uprising Saddam Hussein sought a secret agreement with KGB head Yuri Andropov late that same year, which led to a close relationship that included intelligence exchange, Iraqi training in KGB and GRU schools, a thorough DGS reorganization under the advice of the KGB, equipment for surveillance and interrogation, and Iraqi embassy support of Soviet agents in countries without Soviet relations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_General_Security#cite_note-6

> The truth was he smothered jihadis in their cribs

No... he smothered everyone who he decided he didn't like for any particular reason that day. He was a complete lunatic

He took the most repressive elements of both Stalinism and fascism and fused them into an authoritarian state with all the trappings of a personality cult.

Here is just one example of the kind of things he was doing:

>Saddam convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on 22 July 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped,[40] Saddam claimed to have found a fifth column within the Ba'ath Party and directed Muhyi Abdel-Hussein to read out a confession and the names of 68 alleged co-conspirators. These members were labelled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one and taken into custody. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty. The 68 people arrested at the meeting were subsequently tried together and found guilty of treason. 22 were sentenced to execution. Other high-ranking members of the party formed the firing squad.

Read this book, written by an Iraqi who fled the regime if you want to know more

I believe it is referred to in this book, though I might be wrong,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520214390/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i1_r?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0PNENVRTHBWAWQBV1FWS&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop

In the same lecture Hitchens recommends Kanan Malika's "Republic of Fear".

>I don't recall stumbling, though I do recall the chore of responding to someone who was being needlessly belligerent. As to why I indicated that the US was waging aggressive war, I did so because it is, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, neither the Taliban nor the Ba'ath party, declared war or initiated military hostility against the US.
Now we can say, "sure, but they were doing lots of naughty things the US didn't like," but that means very little in a world in which the one of the countries most actively engaged in doing non-war things that other countries do not like is the US.

Certainly you have a point in that overt military hostility was not probably apparent although it could be contested by the Taliban support of ALQ I would say the case there is much stronger than in regards to Iraq even if they were targeting the UN Jets in the north at the same time.

But again this here dichotomy arises in your argument you level against me: Either you fully support all US motives and rhetoric or you are against it all and the implications.

Its simply a false dichotomy: You can't say that someone must have been for Vietnam if they were for a post-Saddam Iraq in 2003. Therefore they are morally abhorrent. Its just frivolous reasoning.

Geneva convention states: Acts of genocide once evidence is found for must be prevented or if impossible punished. This is not some arbitrary reasoning to impose hegemonic rule. No one forced the US to sign the Geneva conventions yet they were in flagrant violation of it for leaving Saddam in power.

This is why Turkey and other nations allied do not want to admit to the Armenian genocide for instance because it opens up possibilities and obligations of litigation against the perpetrators who were a part of the official government.

You can decide for yourself which case is stronger--righting a flagrant wrong in reinstalling Saddam Hussein who was in direct violation of UN treaties and conventions. Or maintaining the status quo

>Interesting that when discussing whether or not the US should have invaded you get all realpolitik and suggest that the casualties of the war don't matter because the goals were worthy, but suddenly when actually detailing the direct known consequences of that same war, you want to pretend that the US has no or little responsibility for them.

Well if you want to have comfortable talking points of the likes of "Most casualties are caused by Coalition forces" you would simply be wrong its not to excuse or justify any criminal violence by stating facts of the matter.

And to the contrary the goals do matter because of the casualties of the disastrous policy before it which you have not taken into account.

"Estimates of excess deaths of children during the sanctions range from 100,000[7] to over 500,000.[8]" - Wiki

Those are only the numbers from the period where UN sanctions were leveled on the Iraqi people while Saddam built kingly palaces in the 18 provinces from 1991. Add al-Anfal and the Iran-Iraq war and you have well over a million dead Iraqis...

How many lives is it worth to waste to not reverse policy and intervene in a situation the US created? How many until you feel compelled to just say "Stop okay! You cannot murder your own citizens! People in the government before may have sat idly by but that time is over"

It's a personal answer but maybe you will see where I'm coming from

>I don't have to justify anything with my criticism. You've yet to support your initial claims

Well okay... I hope I've listed some reasons for my initial thoughts above

>You seem to misunderstand. You argument are not emotive because they are gruesome in detail, or because they are false, but because they seek an emotional reaction while explicitly failing to put that reaction in full context. If I went on and on about the children lying in hospitals with no limbs because of bombs dropped by US planes, without detailing the context of why that bombing took place and why that outcome might be preferable to the alternative, I would be making an emotive argument. You would be right, in that case, to set aside your emotional response to a maimed child who has been walking on their way to school when their life was destroyed by a "carefully targeted" bomb in favor of an analytical approach to exactly why the children were maimed and what would have taken place without the maiming. I'm only asking that you support your arguments, that isn't a lot to ask for.

Well since you think the Baath party and a well known dictator and criminal Saddam should be given the benefit of the doubt that's on you. I'm in no mood to have to force feed you well known information and history for you to see my point. I could kind of see how Halabja was analytical and can be contextualized... But that's only really through racism against Kurds :/

>This isn't how debate works. If you don't understand that the burden of proof is always on the individual making the claim, we can't build any kind of substantive discussion. Until you can at least acknowledge this very simple and widespread principle of philosophy and logic, I can't proceed.

Well of course you are correct on the burden of proof. But to me it's like arguing with a creationist who refuses to go to a natural history museum for his proof. I could try and bring the 'museum' to you but I think it will be disheartening if the only objection you can come up with is that the invaded regime's were simply being misunderstood and not "contextualized" enough against western hegemony. Not to sound rude but sometimes a spade is a spade :/

Edit: Recommended reading Republic of Fear (1989)

Sigh... sorry man. I want to keep going with this but you just don't know what you're talking about. You're just repeating "anti-war" rhetoric. My point is that if we had taken the "anti-war" route things would be worse for the Middle East.

Anyway, read "The Bomb in my Garden", or read this review of it. Or read Republic of Fear if you actually want to know something about Iraq.

Because Saddam Hussein. If you agree that WW 2 was necessary to stop the holocaust against the Jews, you must accept that Iraq was necessary to stop cleansing of Shia and ethnic cleansing of Kurds. I've yet to meet anyone that has argued or would argue that the US and allied forces should not have gotten involved to stop the holocaust.

The exact extent of the murders in Iraq is still not fully known. The records were destroyed. However, the number of mass graves we've found proves demonstrably that mass killings took place in the hundreds of thousands, and there is no way to know how many we've missed. 1 million would be conservative based on all available evidence.

If you don't understand how Iraq was necessary, then you need to study the history of Iraq starting with the rise of the Baath party with the help of the CIA and the foolishly abandoned Gulf War. That war should have been fought--to the end--back in the early '90s, and Hussein should have met his fate at the hands of an international court for crimes against humanity.

Read this and make up your own mind. But Iraq was necessary, and the only types of people that could claim otherwise are sociopaths and the ignorant.

https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Fear-Politics-Modern-Updated/dp/0520214390

Read this then tell me Iraq wasn't a hellhole. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Fear-Politics-Updated-Edition/dp/0520214390