Obama says ISIS is a direct consequence of our 2003 invasion: "Which is why America should aim before it shoots"

Source please

Here you go. Go nuts. This page links to a number of reputable sources, including, like I said, the Iraqi Body Count project (the source which places its estimates around 150,000).

Wow, thousands? You won't even give him hundreds of thousands? We can get into the millions if you want to count the Iraq and Kuwait Wars. Honestly dude. I haven't seen someone more sympathetic to Saddam by saying he killed THOUSANDS

You're being pedantic. I didn't argue the figure you put forward, and I've admitted more than once in this conversation that Saddam was a monster.

that it's their responsibility to get rid of him

Also it seems like you are anti- Iraq war, but you are also anti-economic sanctions. So while Saddam is committing genocide, aiding+housing terrorists, and invading and annexing parts of Kuwait's territory--what exactly is your plan of action of here?

The Iraq War wasn't fought to remove Saddam from power. I mean, sure, it was a nice pretense to launch a war (along side the WMDs, fighting "terror," alleging that Iraq was affiliated with the Saudi-led attack on 9/11, etc.), but it wasn't the primary goal of the Iraq War by any measure.

With regards to a plan of action, assuming I was in charge; first, I'd not have put a murderous dictator in power. Second, assuming someone before me did put a murderous dictator in power, I'd stop doing everything I could to keep him in power (even throughout his worst atrocities). If Saddam's regime hadn't received constant U.S. support (again, even throughout his worst atrocities), I have no doubt that, before long, he'd have been overthrown by the Iraqi people he'd been brutally subjugating. Leaving the democracy-building to the Iraqi people has an upside of 1) avoiding genocidal sanctions that killed far more people than Saddam ever did, and 2) avoid a brutal decade+ long war that killed far more people than Saddam ever did.

Yea, if you want to look at Iraq's economy as a whole it is 'fine'. The Iraqi economy under Saddam isn't as black and white as you portray it. Saddam used a good portion of government revenue on his family. As the poor died in ditches and drank sewer water, Saddam used gvt money to build new statues and palaces. As Saddam siphoned all the oil from Kurdistan's Kirkuk, the Kurds suffered in the desert with nothing to eat. That is NOT an economy. It is a corporation that operates under providing for the royal family.

Yes, this is more or less accurate, but the picture you're describing is more accurate of Iraq under brutal U.S. sanctions than it is of pre-1990s Iraq. Just as an aside, show me any country, and I'll show you a nation whose political-economic system that inordinately benefits a small population of elites.

Except I'm not arguing that Iraq isn't terrible now. I know there's conflict as a direct result of the war. I'm arguing that it is better off than it was under Saddam. And if you knew the atrocities he committed, I think you would too.

Iraq is better in some ways, and it's far worse in others. All the U.S. has managed to do is swap an oppressive, murderous dictator for an oppressive, murderous occupier, and rearrange the sectarian conflicts (with an added bonus of razing most Iraqi infrastructure, economically gutting the country, and leaving massive gaps for radical Jihadist groups to fill).

Ultimately, I'd argue Iraq was better off under Saddam, and from what I can gather, the general population of Iraq would agree.

/r/worldnews Thread Parent Link - rt.com