Um...Ok.
The Iranian 'revolution' was a surprise to most, including the Iranians. Carter didn't cause it.
Iran/Iraq war wasn't our problem, or fault. Regan getting involved and backing Saddam ended with atrocities and the US/Iraq wars to remove him later...should have let Iran do the dirty work.
Panama was a lease, which ran out. You think we should have gone to war with Panama and stolen it? Oh man.
We should have let the soviets 'take' Afghanistan, otherwise known as the graveyard of empires. We certainly should have stayed the hell out of there ourselves. Often invaded, never held, that's Afghanistan.
I'll just ignore the rest of your post. It needs no reply....except to note that your attempted insult of 'peanut farmer' (a noble career itself) ignores that he's also a Nuclear Sub Executive Officer/commanding officer AND designer.

During Carter's single term in office, Iran became a fundamentalist terror state, Saddam began his coup that led to the Iran-Iraq war-Hostage crisis?? Hello?? He gave the Sandinista cash for their fun-in-the-sun-OH-He gave away the Panama Canal, right? Claimed that the Soviets were no longer a 'threat' and they marched right on into Afghanistan. He set-up foreign policy for the next wave of presidential failures and shills for the assholes who really run the show, you know them by their smell, the richest gadjillionaires in the world, who have stolen humanity's hope for anything but anarchy or global fascism and world-government control and surveillance-state, in the form of what the world is fast-becoming. Yeah, the old peanut farmer was was a real piece of work.

Wake up people, the United States presidency has been a ruse for close to fifty years.

I disagree. A-10's do fly low, often below AA capabilities to shoot, or even radar's ability to 'see' them.
They are designed to be tank busters, so not really the ideal equipment against militia, but would actually be useful against Iran and N Korea (after we smart bomb their AA emplacements and radar...just in case) which both have tons of older tanks, the kind the A-10 is designed to destroy. They worked great against Saddam, and he had the largest tank army in the world and plenty of AA (at the beginning)!

EDIT: Since no one else did, I'll have to mention my favorite thing about the A-10, which is that it's 'gun' is so powerful that it must be used in small bursts, because it significantly slows the plane down and could cause it to stall! That's just awesome!

I'm fairly conflicted.

The issue with having an assassination program with virtually no oversight, run by a government whose people are all too willing to ignore the collateral damage it brings to foreigners is pretty obvious. You could argue that terrorists target the US because of genuine grievances (past blowback particularly from intervention during the Cold War motivated largely by opposing a communist threat over any moral considerations). From there you could argue that if only the US avoided foreign intervention, in time it would no longer be a terrorist target and have no need for such morally questionable action as using drones with significant civilian casualty risk.

I'm sceptical of this argument. For one I think the espoused goals of many terrorist organisations are often a sham. They may start as violent reactionaries to some genuinely held grievance. But mature organisations initiate a conflict with the US because notoriety brings financial support and more fighters which in turn improves their ability to project power, which is their ultimate goal. So I don't see US disengagement as a solution because terrorist attacks and beheadings of its nationals will continue to politically galvanise the US into action. At that point having being disengaged beforehand (lacking intel, ability to target leadership with drones) is just a disadvantage.

I also don't see a government other than the US capable and willing to rally a group of nations and take a leading role against a group like ISIS. It's fair to say that the US invasion of Iraq was largely responsible for destabilising an authoritarian government under Saddam that would have prevented the emergence of a Sunni group like this. But then, imagine if Saddam was still in power in reaction to the Arab Spring and the result was a situation like Syria today. It is all too possible that a similar group would have emerged in a power vacuum not caused by US intervention.

My point is, I agree it is horrible to see civilians being killed by drones and having to live under the constant terror of attack but I don't see a better solution. In fact it seems that drones are probably the solution with the least risk of civilian casualty. There is a reason why the Yemeni/Pakistani government tacitly support them even while publicly disavowing them.

Of course I would like to see them used more judiciously but I am sceptical that this is feasibly possible. I do not doubt that the CIA/Pentagon who run the program are familiar with blowback and the risks of inciting attacks on the US through the killing of innocents in these strikes. It is possible incentives for 'results' may lead to their overuse at the expense of civilian lives and the long term cost. Maybe more openness would be best. Then again more openness would serve as a rallying cry for existing terrorist organisations.

Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had an integrated society, with different religions inter-marrying, and different religions working in government.
After the U.S. took over, people were chosen for state work according to religious quota (something new to iraq), and religion became a 'big deal' in regards to putting food on the table.
General dislikes turned into conflicts.

The "Shia v Sunni" thing is more hyperbole for western audiences, than it is a matter of recent history.
Saddam mostly oppressed areas rife with insurgent groups. Conflict festers and spreads. People die, their families/friends become militant, then they die, and their families/friends become militant, etc, etc, etc. Families/friends live near each other, so it spreads geographically. Eventually you find cities or regions that have managed to upturn.
Like any city/region, similar people tend to live together. So you in effect have groups/cultures vs government.
Hence why the internal conflict was by city/region (just like it is/was in Syria), and why it had a cultural flavor.
Granted, there is always some backlash that spills into a community at large, when a portion of it is identified as a 'problem'. Point is, there was not some eugenic ethnic/religious conflict going on.

The real 'oppression by religion' is happening today.
Neighborhoods have become mono-religious. Minorities have left their neighborhoods and fled to regions that are mostly 'of their own kind' - because nobody wants to stick around to see if they become the next target.

Best thing that can happen now is what happened to Syria after WW2 : Some other power steps in, chops up the country into smaller pieces, and populates each piece with a particular culture (eg. Syria was taken by Britain and France, split up, and became Syria + Lebanon + Jordan - granted the post ww2 split of Syria had more to do with the the last gasps of colonialism, and less to do with stabilization. 'Fun' note : It's the Syrian expulsion the French colonial rulers in the 1970's, and the subsequent French 'black eye', that set the tone for why France is so happy to support whoever wants to overthrow the Syrian government.).

-scheherazade

Indeed, however with small exception I thought we were being fairly civil. That said, we all know what to expect from the 'little f*#king thing'. It's why the admins are constantly on his ass, and he may be banned again.

My point about veracity was that one has to trust the 'reporting' by others who may have an agenda to further. Without first hand knowledge, it's difficult for some (like me) to give full trust in ANY reports. I tried to read the first link you provided, but it started with a 'letter' to Saddam and I admit I didn't go farther.
As I recall, the numbers were more in the 1-300K dead from the ethnic cleansing (I have 175K in my head, but I don't know if that's right). I was old enough to watch the reports live when it happened in the 80's-90's and worry I might be drafted. I have not intended to imply Saddam wasn't terrible, only to imply he was not as bad as possible.

What I've seen so far from ISIS were hundreds if not thousands of 'prisoners' marched to their execution after surrender, even after swearing allegiance to ISIS, reports of mass rapes, village destruction, 'warnings' to all those not in line to leave or die, takeover of 1/2 the country in weeks (or less), all by 5000 people. Reports are that they are gaining members, allies, and massive amounts of money and arms. For their size, they appear to be worse than Saddam, who had hundreds of thousands, if not millions at his disposal. If you multiplied the videoed crimes of ISIS in just the last week by 200+, you would understand my point that they seem worse than most weeks of Saddam's rule....when you consider their respective sizes.
I'll hope you are correct, and ISIS is soon to be wiped out, but it's certainly not happening yet. No matter how it plays out, you are certainly right that ugly times are ahead for Iraq.

@newtboy,

Who'd of thought our back and forth would wind up the civil portion of the thread?

On veracity, accuracy and demonstrable evidence please note I twice provided external links beyond my own day so. The last being to a thoroughly researched and documented account from Human Rights Watch. The only claimed verbatim quote I included was italicized to make clear what was quote versus a shorten in my own words summary. I included a link to the full document so anyone questioning my summary is very to call me out on specifics. Thus far the only in accuracy in aware of has been corrected. If you believe I'm in any other way mischaracterizing events as HRW documented it ask you to point it more specifically or failing that cease insisting that my account is anything less than very thoroughly backed by very well evidenced research.

By way of declaring lesser evils, I would ask you to be specific about worst ISIS has done that you feel so trumps the million dead of the Iran Iraq war and Saddam's multiple genocidal campaigns.

Lastly on ISIL, I don't think they are specifically the ones to stay up at night over anyways. Nouri Al-Maliki's credentials as a brutal thug are underestimated quite widely IMO and I very much expect the real nastiness will come from his crushing of Sunni Iraqis in the guise of stopping ISIL. Ugly times ahead, but I fear the guys your worried about are going to be taking it more than dishing it out, sadly leaving more Sunni Iraqi civilians dead than anyone else.

No, it does not.
You cited Saddam's 'records' as a source, records which are notoriously exaggerated. You misquoted HRW and editorialized much of it. It sure seemed like a bad cut and paste job, but now you seem to indicate you simply wrote it yourself, badly misstating the facts (typos). Your 'reports' are as verifiable as mine, and more easily discounted since you site Saddam's records as a source, while the one's I reference were video records made by ISIS themselves. HRW may be a better source for both of us, but again your point is moot.

Once again, you are fighting a straw man...no one said Saddam wasn't horrible. I have and continue to say that the reported and recorded actions of ISIS are worse (for the amount of power and men they have) than Saddam was, and their stated goals and methods of achieving them are also worse for the people involved AND us.
It's interesting to me that you had nothing to say about my thoughts on 'removing the bad man' from power, from my viewpoint the actual topic of this conversation.
I think that about sums it up, no?

From the reports so far (no clue to the veracity of them, just as there's no clue to the veracity of your 'reports') a group of about 5000 have so far, taken nearly 1/2 the country and 'informed' the populace that if they are the wrong sect of Muslim they must leave (or be killed)...they have massacred, raped, punished, tortured, and on...publicly and proudly (which makes them more dangerous, because they don't consider what they do is wrong, Saddam did but did it anyway). EDIT: they are gaining in numbers and power FAST...if they reached the level of power Saddam had and follow through on their 'promises', there will be millions killed and far more displaced.
Fuck you with your insulting BS, because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I know full well of the atrocities committed by Saddam, repeatedly, over decades, with and without our support and acceptance. You, on the other hand, claim Saddam was as bad as Hitler and Pol Pot, so I'll parrot your insult and say YOU must be ignorant of history. I repeatedly said gassing was not the only crime Saddam committed, but was obviously the worst SINGLE crime...genocides are multiple crimes over time, gassing is a single act at a single time, and the worst one he did. Understand now?
I would not accept Saddam's records to make your arguments, he was a well known insane liar.
for instance, which is it...4500 villages, or 7500 villages destroyed? Your 'information' claimed both, perhaps you should READ the information you cut and paste before deriding others for 'being ignorant of it'?
When you are forming your opinions ABOUT American policy, it makes no sense to ignore American policy.
I don't share your view about removing 'the bad man' from power because it never works. Without a reasonable, well liked, popular, intelligent government to 'take over' for the despotic leaders, and few if any zealots willing to destroy everything if they can't control it, you always end up with smaller despotic leaders fighting over the power or civil war, which has nearly always been worse (at least in the short term) than the despot. Because it never happens that the reasonable replacement government is ready before the expulsion of the despot, or that there are no zealots grasping for the power that's suddenly up for grabs, simply removing despots is usually worse than leaving them in power.
If it were done thoughtfully and thoroughly, I would support replacing them, but it's not done that way. At best, it seems the follow up is an after thought, which usually leads to disaster.

Please do give us a closer look at ISIS is doing. Massacres, torture, rape, collective punishment and on, correct? Maybe killing what, 100 people at a time in the worst instances? That doesn't distinguish them from Saddam. Within Saddam's rule those crimes are what guys like yourself colloquially referred to as Saddam's 'firm' hand. They are his, so to speak, lesser and more routine crimes. I'd left them beneath mention thus far.

If you must insist on parroting your ignorance of Saddams al-Anfal campaign I'll resort to posting excerpts as evidence that the gassing was but a small part of it.

4,500 Kurdish villages were destroyed by Saddam, that's entire villages turned to rubble.
182,000 dead civilians by counts gleaned from Saddam's own records of how many Kurds his forces had succeeded in eliminating.
The concentration camps Saddam ran were pretty clearly modeled after Hitler's:
With only minor variations ... the standard pattern for sorting new arrivals [at Topzawa was as follows]. Men and women were segregated on the spot as soon as the trucks had rolled to a halt in the base's large central courtyard or parade ground. The process was brutal ... A little later, the men were further divided by age, small children were kept with their mothers, and the elderly and infirm were shunted off to separate quarters. Men and teenage boys considered to be of an age to use a weapon were herded together.

The conditions within the camp were terrible and torture, abuse and beatings were routine. The men of fighting age though were sorted for the express purpose to later drive them out into the desert by bus or truck for mass execution. This is how Saddam carried his genocide of the inhabitants of the 4,500 villages he'd destroyed.

Anyone interested in more or questioning the veracity of the above account can find more and endless references and evidence here:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/index.htm#TopOfPage

As for American policy, I don't quite see where I suddenly bear personal responsibility to clean up the world if I choose to form my opinions on world events independently of it's 'fit' to American policy.

I don't care much if it was Bush or Putin that took Saddam out of power aside from hedging on which would leave a better Iraq, either would be tough not to be an improvement from Saddam. Similarly for Sudan or the Congo, I'd be rather glad if world powers finally cared enough to try and spare the people there suffering under brutal military repression and endless war crimes. I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't share such a view?

Gassing them was considered the worst part of what he did by most, agreed he did evil for decades, and that equated to more than a single (or campaign) of gassing, but as far as single events go, it was the worst.
As I said, just give ISIS time, they are more hard line and eager to kill than Saddam seemed, and on the rise fast. If YOU want to champion ISIS as a lesser evil, you should bother to study what THEY are doing now, with an insanely smaller group and less power than Saddam, if they gain power and people, I see them as likely being worse.
American policy should concern anyone who's discussing it, which is what we've been doing. If American policy doesn't matter to you, why are you not on your way to the Sudan or Congo to remove those dictators that are committing genocide yourself? When discussing what America's military did and does, American policy matters.
All Iraqi's live in fear today, as do their neighboring countries.
Saddam wasn't 1/10th the 'evil dictator' Pol Pot or Hitler were, and was never a threat to anyone but his neighbors. If you really think he was (1) I must assume you spent the 90's in Iraq trying to assassinate him, right? and (2) you really need to read some history.

I don't think you actually read up on the Al Anfal campaign if you wave it away as just Saddam gassing his own people. That was the least of the horrors he inflicted on the Kurds. If you don't care I can't make you, but I'll not idly ignore your ignorant claims it was less than what it was. ISIS hasn't even come close to it yet, and they'd need an incredible increase in their abilities and support to even try.

If you want to champion Saddam as the lesser evil, at least bother to study what he did more closely first. I'd also ask your opinion on Abu Ghraib and Fallujah.

As for American policy, I repeat my complete lack of concern for it when forming my opinion of what is good or better. I don't care whether America is some white knight or not, I care that Saddam gone is better than Saddam in power. My assessment of that doesn't depend on why America claims to have done it, nor on America's post actions or dealings with Saddam. Saddam gone leaves Shia and Kurdish Iraqis no longer leaving under fear of genocide(better than 60% of all Iraqis there). It leaves Saddams neighbouring countries no longer fearing another war of expansion and aggression from him.

And your on the right track with Hitler and Pol Pot when classing Saddam. Read about all he's done and you'll find they'd be right at home with him.

From what I've seen so far, the current 'insurgents' (ISIS) are even more hard line, and more ruthless than Saddam was. They have not yet had time or power to commit the genocide he did while we supported him, give them time. They certainly seem to be working hard on it from my viewpoint.
I knew full well about him gassing his own people, I did reference it in my post. I'm making the assumption that, if they gain the power they're seeking, ISIS will be worse, I make this assumption because they already have shown their colors with the limited power they have, I would expect worse if they gain real power.
My point about the US supporting Saddam does not mean I don't see the evil of his acts, it means I don't see how we, as a nation, can really complain about them now when we gave him the arms and put him in power, and kept him there after he committed atrocities, nor can we use them as 'reasons' to remove him from power...since we supported him at the time.

Should I assume you do not agree with the sentence...Saddam was not at bad as.... Hitler...Pol Pot...etc. Perhaps you should go read about WW2 before attacking the viewpoint that Saddam was not the worst possible leader...I suggest there have been worse than him.

Saddam was not as bad as.....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Go read about the Kurdish genocide before you start a sentence like that.

I know it sounds profound and educated to observe that America was friends with him at the time. Ponder that comment further though and it looks uglier and uglier. Does American approval, or lack of condemnation some how change how awful you see any act to be? If it does, that explains a lot but for myself I reject for the stupidity it is. I don't give two craps about American policy when assessing genocide and prevention of genocide, I'd strongly advice the same to all others.

Agreed, Saddam was bad, I'm just saying he's not as bad as it can get
(and seems to be getting). If recent reports are to be believed, I expect another genocide to follow, and numerous wars.
Most of the 'evil' he did was with our blessing and support, so I have a hard time now acting like he wasn't our proxy in those wars, or at least still our 'buddy' even when he gassed his own people...only when he went off script and tried to 'annex' Kuwait (screwing with 'our' oil) did we decide we didn't 'like' him in power, but did little about it.
I don't have a good answer of what to do now, but if asked I would have suggested we stay out completely from the start, it's like we learned nothing from our disastrous involvement in Iran.