Sorry, but Iraq is much worse off under US occupation than under Saddam

[Sara Beverley]

Just finished watching the NBC coverage of the aftermath of the assault on Fallujah and the coverage of the destruction and attacks in other major cities of Iraq. It was just devastating to see how we destroyed these cities and the homes and property of innocent Iraqi citizens. Saddam's regime was nothing like this and the Iraqi people know it. Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator but like most dictators, if you don't cross them they leave you alone. And Saddam didn't routinely tear up the country of Iraq, after all, he was an Iraqi and that was his homeland. Only a brutal occupier could and would resort to the waste and destruction of another's homeland. It looks much like Gaza and other Palestinian territories which have been similarly destroyed by the Israelis. Our military looks much like an occupying Nazi regime, I'm sorry, but I have to believe my lying eyes. If this is the face of democracy, then the world is better off without it!

[Sanity Claws]

1. Agree

The idiot in charge kept saying that the world is better off without him. Not one Democrat, or anyone else, came forward and talked about how that Iraqis were better off with Saddam than the chaos that has ensued.
Since the invasion, women have been afraid of going out, for fear of being kidnapped or raped. Little girls have been pulled out school for the same reason.
This was covered in the NY Times earlier this year but then the story just died.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I've been thinking

that the ordinary Iraqi citizen is sitting in a refugee camp or in their ruined home, thinking that at least under Saddam they were not in fear of kidnappings and destruction of their homes. I fear that the majority will say that if this is how democracy works, they want no part of it, and will elect another strongman, religious or otherwise. And what will it have gotten us? We'll be kicked out, no oil, and thousands of people hating us. The terrorists won't have to go out and recruit-volunteers will be lining up to join.

[MsConduct]

3. Don't be sorry about the truth! n/t

[RC]

4. Iraq is bu$h's version of democracy.

He is working on his version of a dictatorship for the US of A.
We can't have to much of a good thing here you know.

[Scrooge]

5. agree

Saddam was bad, but at least things were stable. People knew what they were dealing with with Saddam. With the US in charge, it is torture for them. We come in pretending to be their "liberator" and we bomb the shit out of them. God bless those poor people.

[radar]

6. No argument here...

Public utilities not working, car bombs, drive-by shootings, kidnappings; even the police are killed en masse.

Baghdad Burning
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Today In Iraq
http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/
Juan Cole
http://www.juancole.com/
Back To Iraq
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/
The Iraq Monitor
http://www.theiraqmonitor.org/text/view/2603.html
Falluja In Pictures
http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

[Ardee]

7. This is a losing argument Im afraid

While among like minded democrats who all oppose the Bush policies this comment may pass. Stated publicly this would soon be hooted down.
Hussein was a brutal dictator, under whose rule noone was really safe, but Ill bet he was no better or worse than any number of US installed and fostered brutal dictators who are our allies.

I remember a Bill Maher comment wondering if Bush had a list of brutal dictators who needed overthrowing and was starting with the H's.......

[Must_B_Free]

9. Notice that he kept it together too

He was dealing with other brutal people; could that have something to do with it?

And notice that Bush is far more brutal, and can't keep it together.

[Djinn]

10. Look at the death tolls

if the US stays in Iraq for as long as Saddam "we'd" out-kill Saddam CONSIDERABLY.

Saddam was a brutal dictator - anyone who think Allawi is a kind hearted democratic leader is serioulsy deluded (not alluding to you here Ardee :) ) he has shown in the past he's quite happy to kill innocent people to further a political agenda, he currently has all credible opposition voices shut down (arrest them, make their newspaper illegal etc) and he is no more the democratic choice of the Iraqi's than Saddam.

In short Iraqis now have to deal with all the SAME bad aspects of life as they did under Saddam plus the added benefit of no jobs (all taken by highly paid foreign mercenaries) bombs dropping on their heads, napalm like substances and other lovely weapons used against them, their infrastructure ruined and the emergence of religious fanatacism.

[eridani]

25. Stay out of politics, don't ever talk about him in public--

--and of course you were safe from Saddam. Can't find the link, but in a rare interview with a westerner he said something about always trying to figure out which of his associates wanted to kill him and killing them first. That's Tony Soprano, not Hitler.

Note that neighboring countries were trying to get Saddam exiled on the grounds that a war would destabilize the whole area, which they really didn't want. Ari Fleischer then gets up on his hind legs and announces that the invasion is on even if Saddam and inner circle go into exile! So this business of 'we had to invade to get rid of him' is just a pile of steaming horseshit.

[Must_B_Free]

8. Funny how I'm just about always right isn't it?

Recall how everyone jumped down my throat whenever I said this?

Let us not forget Saddam's contributions to Iraq:

Public healthcare, Literacy campaign, Western style legal system instead of Sharia, Religious Freedom.

[Columbia]

12. Saddam's contributions

Public healthcare - Healthcare where only Ba'ath party members could be doctors and the well-connected Sunni received real healthcare and everyone else had to settle for the leftovers.

Literacy campaign - How else are you going to indoctrinate the youth to the good deeds of Papa Saddam?

Western style legal system instead of Sharia - Worked real well when political dissidents disappeared and were exceuted without trial.

Religious Freedom - Yeah, as long as you didn't display it in public (i.e. Shia pilgrimage to Karbala).

[Sara Beverley]

15. I believe that you have swallowed the Kool-aid.

Healthcare was readily available to ALL Iraqis under the Saddam regime and even pointed to internationally as a model for other countries...UNTIL Desert Storm and the sanctions imposed by the US-led UN action. These sanctions imposed a heavy toll on the healthcare system of Iraq as well as the education system.

Under Saddam, the Iraqis held the distinction of being the most literate country in the ME (even including Israel) and among the top in the world. The Iraqi women were well educated and visible participants in the government (wheter you like the government or not).

Iraq was not the only country have "dissidents" disappear, including the US. All across South America thousands of dissidents were killed by US-backed dictatorships. Our hands are as dirty as Saddams'.

Iraq was a secular state but religion was practiced freely, it just was not supported by the state. It was probably more religiously free under Saddam than the US is now under the RW-taliban

[Columbia]

21. Is that so?

Healthcare was readily available to ALL Iraqis under the Saddam regime and even pointed to internationally as a model for other countries...UNTIL Desert Storm and the sanctions imposed by the US-led UN action. These sanctions imposed a heavy toll on the healthcare system of Iraq as well as the education system.

Yup, Saddam was so strapped for cash that he had to beg other countries to take oil vouchers worth billions for political favors.
Then he had to shift priorities from funding healthcare to building dozens of palaces and funnel away more billions to his private coffers for the public good.

Under Saddam, the Iraqis held the distinction of being the most literate country in the ME (even including Israel) and among the top in the world. The Iraqi women were well educated and visible participants in the government (wheter you like the government or not).

Like I said, how else are you going to indoctrinate the youth if they can't read the state-approved propaganda/schoolbooks praising Papa Saddam and how he heroically defeated the Persians and the United States in the great wars?

Iraq was not the only country have "dissidents" disappear, including the US. All across South America thousands of dissidents were killed by US-backed dictatorships. Our hands are as dirty as Saddams'.

Ah, the old "But Johnny was bad too, so why can't I be bad?" Sorry, Sara, that doesn't work for right-wingers justifying war-crimes against the Iraqis and it won't work for Saddam apologists justifying his human right violations.

Iraq was a secular state but religion was practiced freely, it just was not supported by the state. It was probably more religiously free under Saddam than the US is now under the RW-taliban

Ah, yes, they were so much more free when Saddam barred the Shia from making a pilgrimage to Karbala for 25 years and openly practicing devotion to their Prophet Hussein (no relation). Let me know the next time you get arrested going to Easter Mass, kay?

[eridani]

26. Ask the Christians who are leaving the country if things are freer.

Sure, the fundie Shias, no longer suppressed, are free to burn Christian churches and Christian-owned liquor stores.

[Columbia]

27. Did I say they were?

Maybe instead of reframing and attempting to rebut an argument I have not made, maybe you can respond to something I have.

[Djinn]

18. odd

given that Iraqi's had better access to healthcare than AMericans did pre-Gulf war, their infant mortality rates were better than many western nations.

This wasn't a SAddam/BAath claim either, it was widely acknowledged

[Columbia]

22. Quite a shame

That he invaded Kuwait then isn't it?

[Djinn]

23. you might want to get a bit educated on that one too

Saddam invades Kuwait - BAD

US invades Iraq - GOOD

Saddam not elected - BAD

Kuwaiti Royalty - GOOD

While I didn't support the invasion of Kuwait it's CONSIDERABLY easier to justify that invasion than the latest (in a long line of) US ones:

Students of the Gulf War largely agree that Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was primarily motivated by specific historical grievances, not by Hitler-style ambitions. Like most Iraqi rulers before him, Hussein refused to accept borders drawn by Britain after World War I that virtually cut Iraq off from the Gulf. Iraq also chafed at Kuwait’s demand that Iraq repay loans made to it during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Administration officials seemed to understand all this. In July 1990, U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad April Glaspie told Hussein that Washington had “no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait,” a statement she later regretted.

The National Security Council’s first meeting after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was equally low key. As one participant reportedly put it, the attitude was, “Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it’s just a gas station—and who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?”

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=120

It is also undisputed now that Kuwait was drilling into Iraq's share of the Rumaila oil field.

DId you beleive the "throwing babies out of hospital cribs" story too - that Kuwaiti princess was convincing after all.

Beleiving that Iraqi's are worse off now requires eyes and ears it does NOT require a belief that Saddam was a good guy - some of us beleived he was a violent shit long ago when the US still considered him an ally and continued shipping him weapons AFTER he gassed Halabja

[Columbia]

28. Yada yada yada

Undisputed slant drilling eh? Sounds like a lot like the undisputed WMD's to me. A lot of blustering excuses with scant evidence.

"Beleiving that Iraqi's are worse off now requires eyes and ears it does NOT require a belief that Saddam was a good guy..."

That sure doesn't sound like what people in this thread really believe. Saddam seems to be portrayed as a benevolent caretaker over an Iraqi paradise from the kind of heartfelt defenses of him I've seen.

[Djinn]

31. nice way to twist everyone's words

"Saddam seems to be portrayed as a benevolent caretaker over an Iraqi paradise from the kind of heartfelt defenses of him I've seen."

I havn't seen a asingle post that disputes he was a brutal dictator - that doesn't mean things are now better in Iraq.

They STILL have a brutal dictator in charge, they're risk of death is 100 times higher than even under Saddam most brutal purges, they have no infrastructure and their ersources are being sold to foreigners.

Please, if you can, make a case for why they're better off, don't repeat the Faux line that we all think Saddam was a flower child - it's got bells on.

[NickB79]

24. Quite a shame

Kuwaiti's were slant-drilling into Iraqi oilfields then isn't it?

[Columbia]

29. Right

And US troops have not entered Baghdad per the Information Minister.

[Ardee]

30. I am no defender of Hussein

But truth is still truth....For many decades Iraqi hospitals and health care were models of efficiency. In fact, folks from all over the middle east went to Iraq when needing care.......

[spanone]

11. I saw that report. EVERY building in Fallujah has been condemned?

Did I hear that Right. It is really pathetic what price these people are paying so that we can impose democracy on them.

[Bridget Burke]

14. I remember an interview with one of the attackers of Fallujah.

A general?

He explained that it was necessary to knock down buildings so they wouldn't provide cover for snipers. And they needed to be reduced to fairly small pieces, so aerial bombardment or heavy artillery were really necessary.

[leftchick]

13. US military officials are in denial regarding Fallujah...

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=12033

~snip~

Senior military officials acknowledge that insurgents have found refuge among Fallujah's displaced residents.


But they say people are only going to be allowed to return in controlled numbers, and the Iraqi government is going to register each person with ID cards in order to weed out rebels.


They also say they are confident Fallujah's residents will cooperate with US and Iraqi forces and turn suspected rebels in.


"The people of Fallujah don't want them coming back. We hope they'll identify these bad people when they try to sneak back in with them," marine Major Jim West told a press conference last week.


.... and you are right, Iraq is much worse off and I dare say bush* has killed more than saddam could have ever imagined killing.

[ecstatic]

16. Something Dems aren't allowed to say out loud

We're all supposed to add the obligatory clause about "the world being better off without Saddam." F*ck that! 100,000 dead in 2 years? We're all better off without Bush!!

[MidEastMan]

17. i agree 1000000%

[OETKB]

19. Don't get sucked in!

Sadaam is a criminal and always has been. We are suppose to deal with criminals by using legal means to apprehend them and remove them from public harm. Invading a country to accomplish this is illegal, pure and simple. Otherwise it is vigilante justice and can be used by any country for whatever motive. You talk about making an insecure world. The ends do not justify the means.

Further wars should be judged on their direct outcomes. We have not repulsed any invader here, but we have destroyed a lot of property and people. The appeal to show war's good effects is an oxymoron in itself. Rebuilding a school, a hospital, or helping in other ways are not products of war, but those more positive side of humanity are better accomplished, in fact, without war. We should not fall for the smoke screen that Sadaam's removal was somehow the path to peace.

It is also interesting that insurgents can resist the most powerful military on the face of the earth. Yet these combatants did little to try to remove Saadam from power. Doesn't anyone wonder about the irony of this?

[Sara Beverley]

20. Saddam wasn't as brutal to them as the US military. Plus, it's their

country. Most Iraqis didn't ask us to invade and liberate them from Saddam, only the exiles living outside of Iraq asked for the invasion. It's not ironic, it's simple human nature. Any nation that wants to overthrow a dictator can if they think the outcome is worth it. Castro is still in Cuba because the people there are suffering more from what the US has done to them by way of embargo and sanctions than what Castro has done to them. Same situation in Iraq. Only the Kurds who tried to overthrow Saddam favored US invasion and they bargained for the US to NOT destroy Northern Iraq in the process because it was their territory. They were living almost autonomously before the invasion and since Desert Storm. Their complicity with the US is reaping for them a more dangerous situation for the future. They should have worked with other Iraqis to overthrow Saddam internally. But you reap what you sow. Prejudiced is a bitch and that's one of the reasons why the Iraqis could never unite agaist Saddam successfully.