CanI ask a serious question regarding the West's attitude towards the Middle east?

Question

Leaving aside my own point of view,would it not have been beneficial for the west,and in particular Bush and Blair to have left Saddam in control of Iraq.
We now have asituation in which Iran is trying to deveop neuclear weapons: Had we not invaded I'm sure the west would have provided Iraq with the money and weapons to stop Iran's advancement in neuclear capacity.
Surely what the west needs to do is sort out the Palastinian situation

Answer 1

I'm in Iraq at the minute and am working closely with the locals. We have had some good conversations ranging from the war to religion to politics and many more.

The general consensus here is we should have left Saddam in Baghdad. He was cornered there and could not really do anything. The Kurds have a stronghold to the North and if he had tried to move South he would have once again encountered Co-allition forces and been pushed back into his hole.

They are however happy that he is gone but do not know how to deal with freedom or democracy. They say Iraq needs another dictator to tell them what to do. They need fear in their lives to get things done (this is very apparent when working with them). When the dictator decides to introduce democracy in perhaps another decade then it may work.

As far as Iran and the Palestine go, these things would have been happening anyway and Iraq would have been such a threat that no money would have gone that way.

Answer 2

The West certainly do need to sort out the Palastinin situation.
However, leaving Saddam in control of Iraq was never an option. When Bush first came to power all he wanted to do was invade Iraq. Leaving Saddam in power was never part of the game plan. The US (and the UK, well Blair) want a foothold in the Middle East and see Iraq as a way of getting this. It's all about money and oil I am afraid.
Do you remember not so long ago 2 UK soldiers were arrested by the Iraqi police for trying to set off bombs against the colalition? This is called "False Flag" operation. I suggest you see the following link if you want to know what that is all about. As for Iran, it is well documented they want nuclear power for domestic use and this will take 9 more years to gain. We could guide them, however it is a done deal that Iran WILL be invaded by the US & UK - Why to you think Tony is hanging around?

Answer 3

In my opinion, the US Government's foreign policy prior to 9/11 was to support "stable" governments around the world. This was a holdover from the policy of containment that the US used successfully to win the so called cold war. After 9/11, the worst attack against America in the history of the country, the Bush administration was shocked by the attack into developing a new foreign policy for this region.

It is ironic that Americans were shocked. After all, the radical Islamic faction - fascists really - who bombed the Marine Barracks in Lebanon (and the French Barracks!), the first world trade center bombing, the USS Cole, etc. never tried to hide their envy and false grievance with the west. Read Hilter in the 1930's and compare to Hussein or Bin Laden and their ilk...the victimhood, the harkening back to a lost, pristine past, the whining about "outsiders" (Jews and the west), the open contempt for those who appease them (see Czechoslovakia & the Munich Agreement, Israel agreeing to retreat from the occupied territories, or UN "no fly zones.")...it's eery...and scary.

I think that the Bush administration felt that the old policy had failed and that the new enemies had to be confornted head on. The Bush administration feels that the Sunni autocracies that whip up anti western hatred, support the Islamic Fascist element, exploit the Palestinian situation instead of pumping their enormous Oil revenues into supporting a Palestinian state, to deflect popular discontent in their own countries can be best fought head on by promoting consensual government in the region.

Who were the greatest immediate threats as seen by the Bush Administration? Clearly, there was evidence that Afghanistan and Iraq were the greatest threats to the west. We now know that Hussein and the Baathists had hid their WMD machinery and were waiting for the UN (through pressure from France, Germany, and Russia) to drop its sanctions to restart these programs. Hussein also had a clear record of genocidal acts against any and all who he and the Baathists saw as enemies. Afgahanistan was a clear threat because the Taliban (clearly Fascists that Hitler would have been proud of...) was in control and harboring - at best - those who plotted against the west.

Iran is seen as a threat because of its crazy leader (Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth!) and its developing nuclear program. But, Great Britain and the US are really the only countries willing to stand up to these enemies of the west (although many western countries have supplied some forces for this war). You only have so many resources and you use them against the greatest threats first. It is hoped, that a democratically elected government in the heart of the middle east will influence these other governements that secretly or openly assist the the radical Islmaic Fascists. The real political struggle, radical Sunni Fascism that hates the idea of consensual government vs. one person/one vote is what we are fighting right now.

Answer 4

Eh? How can you compare your drivel to the real world? I don't mean to be nasty but Iraq is at the beginnings of civil war and has been for sometime. Nuclear advancement has been going on long before the "liberation" of Iraq in the region. The West supplying arms to the region has long been controversial and problematic.

The Iraq war or Iran have nothing to do with Israel and Palestine which is a whole different diplomatic mess for the West.

Answer 5

There is an element of truth in what you say but only an element! Much as there was infrastructure under Saddam, it only benefitted Sunnis, a smaller section of the population. Life for most was terribly repressed. People are now still repressed but at least someone (the US & UK) is standing up to Iran, because Saddam would likely have supported Iran's nuclear development. But the Palestinian situation should have been given more attention, I agree. In terms of life in Iraq it was a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation...whether Saddam or the US & UK were in control, life was going to be difficult due to the age-old racial and ethnic tension.

Answer 6

If the west had left Iraq alone, there would have been a lot of weapon manufacturers in the west and some middle east countries losing profits. Not only west trying too stop Iran nuclear development, unreported in this country asia pushing for it too. The surrounding countries with Israel are the only ones too sort Palestinian situation

Answer 7

Wow, pretty good question! As you know an easy answer to this is probably difficult to come by, and would largely depend on whether it was coming from a Democrat or a Republican, etc....
Sadly, I do not feel that I am in a position to intelligently answer your very well thought out question. I look forward to reading some of the other responses, and perhaps i will add something later.
Good luck finding the answers you seek!

Answer 8

Listen the Palestinian situation will never be sorted out. My country needs Israel there to threaten the middle eastern countries. Israel is a little america, its a little attack dog. Israel is the true terrorist nation in that part of the world, but no one wants to admit it in my country. We backed Saddam before and we couldnt do it this time, because his UN sanctions were going to be lifted and he would have sold oil to other countries not america.We need a pro US government set up before we leave. Iran having nuclear capacity is no more a threat than Israel, India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons.

Answer 9

One of two scenarios.
#1 America gives Saddam the means to keep Iran at bay...you get on Q&A and say America is helping terrorist.
#2 Saddam ends up supporting and carrying out terrorist acts...you get on Q&A and say America is helping terrorist.
Either way your gonna disagree.

Answer 10

The West needs none of the things people think it needs. It only needs war - war is the purpose of production. It is a continuous process; endless.

"Only the dead shall know an end of war" - Plato