Is Iraq better off now than with Saddam ??? If so, how?

[kentuck]

After all, we have killed almost as many Iraqis in one year as Saddam reportedly killed in 30 years. And Saddam destroyed nowhere near as much of the infrastructure as we have destroyed. But, the Iraqis will exercise their right to vote at the end of January...But they voted under Saddam also. So what's the difference?

[ArkDem]

1. They had more freedom under Saddam.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. Is this sarcasm or genuine confusion regarding the word "freedom"

Knowing your usual M.O., I'd guess sarcasm.
MKJ

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I'm not sure

and apparently many Iraqis are asking the same question. The Christians in the country cannot celebrate Christmas, something they were able to do under Saddam--wonder what Pat Robertson thinks about that?

[katinmn]

11. I heard two Iraqi men speak in July at a public event

one was a former soldier who had fought against Saddam.

Both said then that the country was worse off under the US occupation.

One said his mother couldn't get the medicine she needed and would surely die.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. They're probably the wrong kind of Christians anyway,

at least from Pat Robertson's perspective, so they don't really count.

They need American fundamentalist missionaries to go and convert people before there will be anyone there that Pat would think worthy of worrying about.

[latteromden]

3. What Bush really means when he says that is

"They WILL be better off, a little, once we're finished, maybe, I think."

It's kind of like "Some things are relatively peaceful in most of the country."

[babylonsister]

4. Come on! It's 'hard work' but we're

liberating everyone for democracy!

[xray s]

5. Pictures tell 1000 words

How can anyone look at these pictures and say things are "better"? The horror has assumed a different form, but the horror remains none the less. (warning very graphic and disturbing images)

http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

[IndianaGreen]

6. Iraqis no longer have to fear being killed or tortured by Saddam...

Iraqis no longer have to fear being killed or tortured by Saddam or his goons. In that respect, Iraqis are better off.

Unfortunately, Iraqis are now being butchered and tortured on a scale that dwarfs Saddam's evils. In that respect, Iraqis are S.O.L.

[manic expression]

7. No.

You are right about the points on infrastructure and elections. Under Saddam, there was semblance of order, instead of the chaos which is going on now. I've heard a number of times that Iraqi malnutrition is twice as bad as before the war. Iraq usually got over 20 hours of electricity a day, and now there is very little. Clean water is difficult to attain. Unemployment is as high as 60%. Hospitals, schools, museums (with priceless artifacts) and mosques have been ruined, pillaged and/or destroyed either by looting (due to lack of security and order) or US military attacks.
This is ignoring the fact that there are many dictators as bad or worse as Saddam was. Many of these dictators receive strong US support.

[quaoar]

8. It'll take a few years before this question can be answered

Yes, if the violence subsides after the election, the country holds together and democracy takes root.

No, if the violence gets worse and a civil war ensues.

Yes, if the country is peacefully partitioned.

No, if the country is left so weakened that it falls under the influence of Iran.

No, if the government that eventually emerges from elections institutes sharia and suppresses dissent and opposition.

[Karenina]

25. Is Iraq better off NOW?

Absolutely not. The only ones "better off" are American war profiteers.
NO ONE whose life has been touched by this clusterfuck is better off.

Plants do not take root where the soil has been salted.

The violence is increasing DAILY.

No amicable political solution can be implemented with an American presence in the country.

Ah, IRAN. The next BOOGEYMAN! BOO!

Currently it seems that the American military is doing all it can to supress opposition and dissent, turning THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS into bloody, rotting Hackfleisch while FAILING MISERABLY ANYWAY.

Quaoar, please don't take this response personally.

[sonicx]

9. in the long term, maybe. but the point of the war was to protect the US

the war didn't do that. The 'liberation' excuse came after it was obvious no WMDs would be found.

[Chipper Chat]

10. Fundie friends still tell me the 80s picture of Rumsfeld & Saddam

is photoshopped. They say it is a "liberal lie." We are never going to convince the ultrarightwing that the US was once in bed with Saddam. "He is evil and well worth the cost of getting rid of him. Just wait - the Iraqis WILL throw those flowers!" "And if you dont believe us - just listen to Sean Hannity. HE KNOWS!"
.
Let us pray.

[quaoar]

15. Do they also think

that all those satellite reconnaisance photos we gave Saddam of Iranian troop positions during the Iran-Iraq War were photoshopped?

[LynnTheDem]

23. Tell them to check out the United States National Security Archives

For not only the photos, but the actual US government documents showing that yes indeed the USA was very much in bed with Saddam Hussein's government.

And if they think Reagan & bushI governments were "liberal lies", then you can REALLY laugh at them. :D

[Chipper Chat]

28. See no evil...hear no evil...speak no evil....

of Republicans.

[jellybelly]

13. wait four years

They were better off under Sadaam as of today. If a democrat takes the seat of presidency in 2008 then the Iraqis will be better off period. They have to wait four years for true freedom.

[kentuck]

14. What will this "true freedom" look like ?

How will it manifest itself?

[tedzbear]

16. How would I know? Why don't you ask some Iraqis?

eom

[Pepper32]

17. No. Just look at the pictures, showing the destruction

Correct me if I'm wrong but * has killed more than Saddam. I guess he kills them better, so he thinks he's "liberating" them. :shrug:

[tamtam]

32. Yup he is killing them better

It is always better to be killed under old glory.

I'm with you, since when do you liberate people by dropping bombs on their heads?

[rfkrfk]

18. should 'Iraq' be partitioned?

{asking for opinions, not trying to start a flame war}

Iraq is a arbitrary creation, put together out of
'leftovers', was done in 1920, by the British.
The three groups, Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, don't
like each other so much. These people need to
get a divorce. I don't hear a lot of people saying
that Virginia, or British India, etc, should be
put back together, what is the big deal with 'Iraq'.
To me, there is nothing magical about
1920, the pre-67 border, or other arbitrary timings.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Who told you they "don't like each other much"?

Coz in fact, they marry each other, they share many of the same tribes, and many of the same families. They've lived and worked and governed together for many years. They've never fought against each other in civil war.

I know bushCartel & the US State media constantly say they hate each other, but that isn't what Iraq's history shows, nor is it what the Iraqis say.

As none of us would believe either of those 2 "sources", bush or our MSM, who's the believable source telling everyone in the USA that Sunni, Shia & Kurds hate each other?

[rfkrfk]

27. poison gas, is customarily thought of, as unfriendly

'Iraq' is essentially three city-states, glued together.
What would be improper with, partition, with the provision that
the new entities would be allowed to re-unite, by mutual agreement?
...
Arab culture is uncomfortable with the 'country' concept,
I'll leave that discussion to another thread.

[LynnTheDem]

29. It was a war

Between IRAQ and IRAN. The Kurds were and are and always have been aligned with Iran. Choice of weapons don't mean squat. Our bombs sure aren't whistling "Hello Dolly" to the Iraqis.

The Shia and the Sunni were NOT at war with each other & never have been.

The Arab culture is not "uncomfortable" with the "country concept". Nationalism is why they're fighting the foreign invaders.

"Iraq for Iraqis" as the Iraqis say.

[leesa]

36. It was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds. Just a technicality since both

sides were using it. Survivors reported an almond odor which came from the type of gas the Iranians used (cyanide). The Iraqis had a different kind without an odor.

It pales compared to incinerating people with white phosphorous and napalm and contaminating the entire region with uranium. Don't ya think?

[0007]

35. That is up to the Iraqis not the U.S.

[Califooyah Operative]

19. I'm sure some are.

but the majority wont be free until this war is over and some sort of democracy is set up.

[radar]

20. YES!!!

...Because more Americans know how to spell Iraq without a K and - find it on a map.

As the center of the universe - everything revolves around us.

* But to answer the question - no. In a simple black & white universe, that is. The concept was nice - remove a ruthless dictator and let the people under his thumb profit in freedom, safety, and riches - however, execution by the idiots in charge has ruined the state of nirvana for all involved.

Everybody is losing now.

[joanski01]

21. The people of the United States

are certainly not better off because of bush*. Well, maybe the rich ones.

[Pepperbelly]

24. is Saddam running?

That would be interesting.

[Tinoire]

41. Haha. They should just write-in Saddaam... n/t

[Orangepeel]

26. Is democracy better than other forms of government?

that's a philosophical question. If the answer is "yes," then, long term, the Iraqis may be better off.

There were "elections" under Saddam, but they weren't real elections. He never had any opposition and always won with 99% of the vote. If (and that's a BIG if) they really do become a democracy, the rights of all groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurds, women, etc.) protected, then in a generation or two, they might be better off than they would have been otherwise.

I don't know how anyone with eyes and half a brain could think they were better of NOW. Obviously, they are not (except, perhaps, the people who were actually IN prison when we invaded). Many, many people are dead, the infrastructure is in shambles, and malnutrition and disease are rampant.

It's also not the most basic question. Prior to the question of whether or not the Iraqis will be better off long term if a democracy takes root, are the questions of:

1) can democracy be successfully imposed by a third party? Successful revolutions generally have third party support (as in our own history -- thanks, France), but I'm not sure it works without the revolution (although the Kurds did try to revolt, I believe, when Poppy encouraged them to and then left them high and dry).

2) if democracy can be successfully imposed, is Iraq where we should have imposed it? Frankly, if we are going to go on humanitarian military missions (is that an oxymoron?), I'd pick some countries in Africa in which to intervene first. For example, are people in Sudan better off before or after the invasion of Iraq?

[rman]

30. but is it really democracy?

democracy only works when the people are well informed about the issues. that's what the media are for. that's why the media need to independant, which they aren't.

what we have is enormous concentration of economic power, political power and media power in the hands of a small group of wealthy influential elites, mixed in with the religious right. even elections have been privitized. that's not democracy.

[paulk]

31. the most commonly accepted number for people killed by Saddam

is 300,000 in 23 years. This doesn't include the 1.5 million killed in the eight years of the Iran/Iraq war or those killed in the invasion of Kuwait.

[OETKB]

33. Diversionary tactic

Sadaam is not the relevant issue. The real question is whether any country is better off being invaded for illegal reasons. Sadaam stands as one among many as a criminal and time will determine his fate. One person can not stand as the be all for all that is wrong in that region. That is the reasoning of the neocons. They feel a strategic removal of person X will suddenly solve your problem, no matter what the cost or the consequences. We must not get lulled into their faulty logic.

[lojasmo]

37. Not better off acording to a Johns Hopkins study.... N/T

[Q]

38. Iraq Sunnis fear bombs not bin Laden on poll day

Iraq Sunnis fear bombs not bin Laden on poll day
Tue Dec 28, 2004 02:51 PM GMT

By Lin Noueihed

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Plagued by violence and fearing reprisals, many of Iraq's Sunni Muslims say they had resolved to stay at home on election day long before Osama bin Laden said anyone who voted was a infidel.

With only a month to go until Iraq's first free poll, many Iraqis in the Sunni north and west said they would not vote while U.S.-led troops remained on Iraqi soil anyway. Even those who once dreamed of casting their ballot now say they are too busy trying to stay alive to think about the January 30 poll.

"It makes no sense to put your life in danger to vote when the Americans will put whoever they want in power anyway," said Mohammed, a Baghdad resident who refused to give his full name, on Tuesday.

"Whatever Bin Laden says, people had already made up their minds not to vote. I didn't even register." --- http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=645634

[maxsolomon]

39. i suppose they don't have to live under uday or kusay after saddam dies

but other than that...

[blackangrydem]

40. The soccer team no longer faces torture if they lose