IS the world better off without Saddam Hussein in power?

[kentuck]

Just saying something does not make it so. The Repubs have renewed their attacks upon Sen Kennedy for saying the war was a fraud. And they say matter of factly that the world is better off without Saddam in power. But are we really better off?

We had control of two-thirds of his country before the war. We had him in a box. And there were not any fundamentalist revolutions in the workings that anyone knew about. American troops were not dying in Baghdad. The UN had not been discredited by our nation. The stories about mass graves and torture chambers have not altogether been proven true. So who are they trying to convince when they say, "We did the right thing in Iraq." Us or themselves?

[meegbear]

1. One could argue ....

the world was a better place before *, so yes.

[bryant69]

2. One question

The stories about mass graves and torture chamges have not altogether been proven true? Have they been disproved? I thought they had found pretty strong evidence that mass graves existed and so on. I could be wrong though.

I think their point is that the Iraqi people are certainly better off--which may not be true today, but in the long run may be true.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kentuck]

4. Many of the mass graves were found to be post Iran/Iraq war

and many from the First Gulf War is what I have read. But, how would they know where all the deaths are from? Surely they would have a witness? Surely that witness would be on TV? Surely they had families and cousins that would be willing to talk?

[bryant69]

7. So in other words,

The fact that you didn't happen to see Iraqis on TV talking about Mass Graves or Torture chambers implies they don't exist?

[kentuck]

8. No. I'm saying it doesn't prove they do exist.

Unless you believe the intelligence of the US government that told you about WMDs, nuclear materials, imminent threats, etc? They would never lie.

[GainesT1958]

3. Yes, clearly...

But--equally clearly--NOT in the manner in which it was done, nor in its aftermath! x(

B-)

[kentuck]

5. How so, clearly?

??

[leftynyc]

6. I think the Iraqi people are certainly better off

Sadaam and his two sons were brutal animals. They enriched their own pockets while many of their citizens went hungry and without medical care. The UN sanctions were only party to blame for that...I didn't see Sadaam suffering as a result of the sanctions.

You can believe or not believe the stories about the woodchippers used to punish their enemies and the stories of random rape committed by his sons but I think it's a mistake to think these animals are victims. I didn't approve of this war and I dislike this administration as much as anyone but I will shed no tears that Sadaam is no longer in power and his two sons are dead. If there is a hell, they're burning for sure.

[kentuck]

10. There is evil in every society...

And I do not doubt that there was evil in Iraq. But was that a legitimate reason for us to go to war? Was it worth the money we are going to spend to rebuild Iraq and the lives we are going to lose in the process? It is not really about defending the righteousness of Saddam and his sons, it is about defending the righteousness of George Bush's invasion of the country.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. really, so tens of thousands of Dead and wounded Iraqis .....

are better off when they were alive? How about their families, are they better off too?

[DrWeird]

14. Yes, brutal animals.

The same people who told me that Iraq was about to launch WMD told me that. Therefore it is true.

The Iraqis are clearly better off now that we killed thousands of them and put Chalabi in power.

[joshdawg]

9. Iraq might be better off, but

the world??? Puhleeze!!!

[soleft]

11. That's like saying are you better off without gangrene on your foot

after your entire leg was removed to get rid of it, the result of which is now your life is in danger.

[Solomon]

13. To answer your question Kentuck,

Hell no the world is not better off. This is one of the grand propaganda lies that rankles me to no end. And no, I am not pro-Saddam. I just think he was over demonized like we do everyone we don't like.

Did Saddam go door to door searching his citizens up the ass? No.
Are we killing more Iraqis now than Saddam was doing at the time of his removal? Yes.

I'm so full of american bullshit right now I don't know what to do. This lie ranks up there with it's better to fight them there than here in america. All of it, rank, utter, bullshit.

Americans have an endless capacity to delude themselves. Its disgusting. I'm embarassed for our country right now, I really am.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Where are the fucking embedded reporters now? You know damn well we are absolutely brutalizing the Iraqis. How could we not be? Not knowing who's who. Just shoot first and find out later. I wish the reporters were still there to report on the brutalization. And don't flame me because I'm not saying its intentional. After all. Putting 18 and 19 year olds in the hot desert with no friends around is a recipe for brutalization.

We will pay for this for years to come.

[BigBadVodoDaddy]

15. Not so far!

As for the future, me balls no longer tell me anything!

[Jacobin]

16. In the short term, no

Just look at the bedlam and killing in Iraq.

In the long term, if they really do get to choose their leader, it will undoubtedly be an ayatollah of some persuasion, in which case women will become property.

If Smirk gets his new boy to be ruler, it will be a dictatorship, just like Saddam was.

[ewagner]

17. Glad we're discussing this:

This needs an airing because it is becoming a repub "irrefutable truth" about the invasion.

Remember that George I left Saddam in power after Gulf War I. He even said that occupation wasn't a good idea. (There was a great post on his exact words earlier today but I can't find it). But others, including myself were pretty certain that George I had another idea about Saddam.

Namely, we needed Saddam to prevent the spread of Islamic Fundalmentalism in a large, important country in the region, further, Saddam needed to be militarily viable to prevent Iran from spreading its influence over the rest of the Region. This was a pretty smart policy if, and only if, Saddam behaved himself. By behave, I mean

1. Didn't go around invading other countries.
2. Didn't make his severe repression of minorities too public.
3. Didn't oppress women too obviously.
4. Didn't screw up the flow of oil in the region.

In short as long as Saddam was brutal to just his own people, he met our requirements rather nicely.

Now, of course, we are seeing the instability that results from creation of a power vacuum. The Iraqi people are better off in the sense that they won't be brutalized by a dictator, at least not until our hand-picked dictator wants to consolidate his power, but the region is less stable now than it was before.

In addition, American security itself has been badly breached by the removal of Saddam. If the Islamacist think they are going to be devoured by the Great Satan, then they have nothing to lose by attacking him.

Its a mixed bag....and no sound bites, or one-liners come to mind to counter the repub spin machine.

[kentuck]

19. I agree, ewagner....It is becoming an "irrefutable truth"

And they will keep repeating it until it is so. We know how they handle propaganda. Just like they keep bringing the right-wing judges back up for appointment.

But you make an excellent point. I recall that the discussion after and during Gulf War One was that we shouldn't kick Saddam out because we could not be assured that the replacement would be better. Saddam was considered the counterbalance to some of the fundamentalist regimes in the area. How soon we change?

[library_max]

18. Don't forget the degree to which the U.S. has been discredited

There are those of us who believe that the U.S. and the west in general are, at least potentially, an engine for good in the world. Now we're edging closer and closer to a twilight battle with Islam that can never be won by either side. I don't blame Iraqis for being glad that Saddam is gone (although not all of them are, by any means), but the big picture is pretty bleak even if the rosy scenario works out (eventually) in Iraq.