Would you prefer if Saddam were still in power?

[civildisoBDence]

In hindsight, would you prefer the current situation in Iraq and the Middle East, or would you prefer to have Saddam still in power and the status quo ante in the Middle East?

Republicans will be asking that as a rhetorical question during the next two national election cycles: "Would you rather have Saddam still in power?"

For the purpose of electing anti-war Democrats, the savvy answer should probably be, "Of course not. But, we would have run the war differently and avoided the mistakes made by the Bush administration."

But in all honesty, it seems to me that the real answer should be a simple and resounding, "Yes."

Yes, both the United States and the Middle East would be better off if this invasion had never been attempted. Yes, 2600 American lives wouldn't have ended prematurely and senselessly. Yes, as many as 130,000 Iraqi civilians wouldn't have been killed.

Yes, our reputation around the world wouldn't have been severely and irrevocably damaged. And yes, radical Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't be exerting substantially more influence in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the occupied territories (not to mention England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Indonesia, etc...)

Maybe a better question would be, who would be better off if Saddam were still in power?

Sure, Saddam would be better off. But so would most Iraqis (the Kurds excepted,) so would most Middle Easterners (radical Islamists excepted,) and so would the US (Halliburton and other war profiteers excepted.)

The neocons become more and more shrill as the magnitude of their mistake becomes more and more apparent. We shouldn't let them deflect the condemnation they so richly deserve by asking a simplistic, irrelevant, manipulative question.

News and commentary, left to right

[wakeme2008]

1. Ask Riverbend I sure most Iraqis would like electric 24 hours a day

:shrug:

[Monkeyman]

4. And Iraqis have said they would take him back and kick us out

[Igel]

8. But they didn't have 24-hours-a-day electricity before.

Only the important ones did. I.e., much of Baghdad. Tikrit. A few other places.

But much of the country had less than it receives now. It was the same in many other countries; parts of Pakistan are just getting electricity for the first time ever. Even in the Soviet Union, the 'center' got all kinds of things the boonies wouldn't even waste time dreaming of.

[TankLV]

17. FEWER people have basic utilities NOW than they did BEFORE.

That's a fact.

Things are WORSE that they were under SADDAM.

[BootinUp]

2. Would the Middle East be more stable

with Sadaam in power? Yep.

[babylonsister]

3. Welcome to DU, civildisoBDence; thanks for this great

commentary. Yes, Saddam was better for everyone compared to what's happening now, with no end in sight for anyone.

[OwnedByFerrets]

5. Knowing what I know now

AND knowing what I knew then the answer is a unequivocal YES!!!!!

edit: and I would bet a years paycheck that all those dead Iraqi's would take him back also, if they could be alive again.

[liberal N proud]

6. What would the Iraqi people prefer?

It is their country and their decision.
But NO! we* had to force our beliefs on the rest of the world.

We being the United States and that includes us who were forced to eat the bu$h war on Iraq.

[azurnoir]

21. Thank-you

Many people don't seem to realize just how arrogant on the part of the US this "Operaration Iraqi Freedom" BS was, as if..........

[bronxiteforever]

7. Don't forget Afghanistan and how Iraq intervention has lead to disasater

there. Also would I rather have 320 billion dollars and our army strong now instead of being UNABLE to field enough men.

[unschooler]

9. We need to reframe the debate: Is this worth the lives of 2600

American soldiers?

Could we have protected ourselves from terrorists (if, indeed, we have) without sending 2600 American soldiers to their deaths and ten times that number to a life of permanent disability or disfigurement?

Was Iraq more likely to spawn terrorist attacks against the U.S. before or after our intervention there?

Did Saddam really have the capability of attacking U.S. soil? (no) Pretending he could, was there a way we could have deterred him without sending 2600 American soldiers to their deaths.

We have now lost more (by November, this will likely be true) Americans in Iraq than we did on 9/11. Has the result we've acheived been worth it?

We're not choosing between a magic wish to get rid of Saddam and a magic wish to keep him in power. We're talking about a tragic, unsuccessful war that will keep us in debt for generations, allow the Taliban back into power in Afghanistan and put us in more danger than we were on Sept. 10, 2001.

[Tigermoose]

54. Right on! We must not let the Repubs frame the question!

Once the question has been framed, we have lost no matter what our answer.

[silverweb]

10. Absolutely!

Democracy cannot be imposed. It must come from within and be born of the people's true desire for freedom.

Saddam was a bastard, to be sure, but was really no worse than many other dictators we've supported when it suited us. The majority of the Iraqi people were certainly better off for the most part with Saddam in power than the survivors of American "liberation" are now.

[civildisoBDence]

18. Remember the neocon response

when critics said it would be impossible to establish democracy in Iraq?

They said that was a "racist" attitude.

Imagine being called a racist by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

News and commentary, left to right

[ldf]

23. we never had any intentions of imposing democracy

we wanted two things.

to control the oil fields, and

to install the government of OUR choice in iraq.

that would allow us to be in complete control and have the much desired "regional ruling power base" in the middle east, per pnac plans.

all the rest of the hype is just that. hype being fed to "the most uneducated and most entertained people on the planet".

us americans.

and most of us swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

[silverweb]

32. "Spreading democracy" was PURE hype.

It was the back-up excuse fed to Americans after the WMD ploy fell apart. Like you say, most of our people swallowed it whole.

However, it is not and never was a valid reason for the invasion. That was precisely my point.

[OwnedByFerrets]

33. If I remember correctly,

spreading democracy was NEVER used as an excuse to invade. IT was always WMD's and the threat of TERRA. Only after that caved in, was the freedom crap used. And the 30 percent are still to farking stupid to get it.

[silverweb]

37. I believe you're correct.

They're still using both "terra" and "democracy" -- alternately and/or simultaneously -- as excuses.

My point remains the same, though, and I guess it's because I'm also thinking back to Vietnam and the attitude then of "giving them democracy if we have to kill them" or some such line that was in vogue at the time.

[rzemanfl]

11. No, I'd prefer it if Clinton was still in power. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

12. My answer

I would prefer whatever the Iraqi people would have preferred. Other than that, it's not my business.

If we're talking about true democracy, one of the choices should be "Back the way I was, please."

[sandnsea]

13. Who says he would be?

We've gotten rid of lots of dictators without invading and overthrowing them. Who says we couldn't have squeezed Saddam out, and who says we wouldn't have had more support squeezing out Ahmadinejad, or gettng international support in southern Lebanon or a whole host of things that would have turned the ME around. There's terrorists in over 40 countries in the world and getting bogged down in Iraq ust means they are free to proliferate in other places.

[babylonsister]

19. Ah yes, the big picture. Thanks for

reminding me what could have been instead of what is. I just hope it's not too late to get it right.

[azurnoir]

31. People forget that

We have done that many times, any one remember Salvador Alleinde'(sp) that would be Chile in the '70's, there is also the fact that prior to Gulf War1 I have heard that Saddam's "right hand man" was in reality a Mossed agent. Yes most certainly could have gotten rid of Saddam without a military invasion, if that had been our true objective

[theanarch]

36. "We've gotten rid of lots of dictators...

...without invading and overthrowing them"? Really? Somoza? No, that was the Sandinista's. Batista? No, that was Castro. Pinochet? No, he's still at large. The Shah of Iran? No, that was the Shi'ia mobs led by clerics. Milosovic? Well, kinda, but it took a war and a semi-invasion. Noreiga? Yes, but that was a war and a full invasion. Franco? Nope, he retired just in time to die...gee, i can't think of any. How 'bout you?

[sandnsea]

41. Oh geez

I'm not going to have a geopolitical debate about who was a dictator and who wasn't in the last 100 years. The CIA overthrew Allende. They helped elect De Gasperi over the communists. They overthrew Mossadegh and installed the Shah. They overthrew Baby Doc. There's hoards of them. I'm not arguing the politics of overthrows, only that they happened time and time again.

[SoFlaJet]

14. He was a man in a box

and wasn't doing anything to hurt us that we couldn't kick his ass back in line fast-it's the wrong question to ask though IMO-Bin Laden is the question to ask and the answer to it...

[DinahMoeHum]

15. ME prefer?? Ain't my decision. Better ask the Iraqis. . .

that is, if you can tell a Shiite from a Sunni from a Kurd from a Turkmen from an Armenian...etc.

:evilfrown:

[TankLV]

16. That's a false choice.

The war was based on LIES.

It is a REPUKE war.

It is an unnecessary war of CHOICE.

The USA and the world is WORSE off for the WAR CRIMINAL bush* having invaded.

And, lastly, Saddam was a bad dictator, just like a hundred or so other dictators, no worse, no better.

We shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

That makes everything we've done ever since WRONG.

We should extricate ourselves ASAP and let the rest of the world try to fix what bunkerboy has done - and the REPUKES and those who support this ILLEGAL WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES should be forced to foot the bill.

[MrPrax]

20. With or without Sanctions? n/t

[fairfaxvadem]

22. I don't think "prefer" is how I would describe it.

But it goes back to the same old thing: for every action there is a reaction. Was proper consideration given to all potential outcomes if we removed him? Obviously not.

While I would not wish Saddam on the Iraqi people, in terms of regional stability, removing him disrupted the equilibrium in that area, and now we're faced with a situation that we will not be able to control, at least, not very well. And now, instead of keeping our foot on his throat and maintaining some control, we're playing whack a mole. No one wins that game. And now Iran sees its opportunity.

Does anyone remember some months before the invasion of Iraq reports of the meeting of the Arab League? When no one was making much of a fuss over Saddam and Iraq, that's when I knew for sure Bush was full of crap.

[fuzzyball]

24. Yes because Saddam was a good control over population expansion

in Iraq. He was executing 30,000 Iraqi's in an average year.
He also kept the Shiites and Kurds under control. Now watch
Iraq break up into 3 countries, Kurdistan, Sunnistan & Shiastan.

[GOTV]

51. 30,000 Iraqi's a year?

Do you have a link for that? Is that some average ofer Saddam's entire span as Iraqi Leader? Are you saying he killed around 90,000 people in the years 200,2001,2002 before we invaded?

[Quantess]

52. If you're interested in population control,

Then the current situation in the middle east is working a lot better.
By the way, I can't believe you just said that.

Personally, I think birth control is a really effective, non-violent, form of population control.

Do you suppose that neo-cons are fully aware that the current ME chaos is controlling the population, and that violent death is preferable to birth control? It does seem like a stretch, but only until you consider neo-con's insistent support of abstinence only, and abortion ban, and severe restrictions on birth control in general. Hmmm.

[GOPBasher]

25. Simple quick answer: Of course I'm happy Saddam's in prison, BUT,

because Saddam wasn't a threat to us, it was simply not worth the cost in American soldiers' lives, Iraqi civilians' lives, money spent, reputation damaged, and troops depleted from the important war: Afghanistan.

I realize not everyone agrees with me on Afghanistan, but I was just saying my own opinion; I'm not speaking for the left in general. :-)

[Ravy]

27. I agree with you. (n/t)

[nevergiveup]

26. I believe

Saddam was a "check" on Iran. Once he was gone Iran begin to spread its wings and now look what we have.

[Donna Zen]

28. False choice, an unsubstantiated assumption and...

an unacceptable decision:

• The choice you have offered is Saddam stays or the US uses Bombs+occupation. The reality before the war was that there were various proposals for removing Saddam from power. At one point, according to Blumenthal, there were plans for a military coup that was betrayed by someone, probably Chalabi. And the Carnegie foundation had carefully worked on getting inspectors back into Iraq followed by NGOs who would eventually undermine Saddam. Many plans. Bush chose the one least likely to work.

• Roses can smell the same no matter the name. (or snakes just as poisonous) One of the arguments that was made in '91 against going to Baghdad was that the only people that would be ready to replace Saddam were more of the same or worse. Since Iraq now has a corrupt pro-Iranian Islamic fundamentalist government, the blush is off a newly named rose (the poison as lethal.) Assuming that somehow Saddam is gone, needs to be rethought with a close eye on the reality. Saddam has a new name...meet the new boss.

• Nothing that happens over the next 100 years in Iraq will expunge the fact that the president lied to the American people to use and abuse our soldier in a war of choice.

Casting aside the absurd notion that Saddam had WMDs that presented a threat to the United States, we are left to evaluate bush's mission as stated at a much later time. According to the administration, we would replace Saddam with a pro-western democracy. That mission has absolutely failed, which tells me, that someone failed to listen to the many voices that warned of this disastrous invasion.

[countmyvote4real]

29. Yes. And whatever world reputation the US had back then, too. n/t

[LWolf]

30. If I get to use hindsight,

I would prefer that the U.S. never put him in power there to begin with.

[gulliver]

34. I would prefer that the Republicans no longer be in power.

They've well and truly screwed us all.

[AZBlue]

35. Let's ask the Iraqi people that question.

It is their country and their government after all.

[enigma000]

44. January 2006 poll of Iraqis

Q3. Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US- Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?
Worth it......................................................77%
Kurd..........................................................91
Shia Arab.....................................................98
Sunni Arab....................................................13
Other.........................................................64

Not worth it..................................................22
Kurd...........................................................8
Shia Arab.....................................................2
Sunni Arab....................................................83
Other.........................................................31

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_quaire.pdf

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2

Are there any Iraqis on this board who can comment on this?

[IndianaGreen]

38. With Saddam in power, we wouldn't be having an Iran problem

and Iraqi women would be doing much better than they are under Shia rule.

[Vidar]

39. Yes.

[nolabels]

46. Okay, easier question

Would you prefer that judges not be allowed to rule in their partisan choices into the outcomes of popular elections?

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Considering that he was an enemy of Iran, yes

There's no question that he is subhuman and I would like to work toward a day where no people are oppressed by dictators like him, but there are a lot of dictators that I would like to get rid of and only with time will that happen. The fact is that Iraq was not a serious threat to US Security whereas Iran is just that has caused the greatest amount of turmoil in the middle east. Ending the world's dependancy on oil is the long term solution to the middle east crisis. Keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is the short term solution. Keeping Saddam in power would've helped that goal.

[leesa]

42. I think the Iraqis certainly would.

[Hawkowl]

43. Re-frame the question!!!

When they ask that question, respond with: "the Middle East is far worse off now." You must re-frame the question. This is what the rethuglican talking points do to the democrats all the time. We must define ourselves and not be painted into corners.

Of course the press will simply vomit for the talking point. I envision Tweety for example, hammering away with "but do you prefer Saddam?"

Again, re-frame the question and simply say : "We have 3000 dead Americans and 15,000 missing limbs, and 100,000 with psych problems".

Tweety, weakly, "So you prefer Saddam?"

Re-frame: "Iran is developing nukes because Saddam is gone"

Re-frame: "Gas is $3.50 a gallon now"

etc. etc.

[BootinUp]

45. Better yet, accuse the reporter of framing it.

Why should that question be answered at all. It is a Karl Rove hypothetical question. After accusing the reporter of taking his questions from Karl's playbook, I would then say that the purpose of the question is to destract Americans from realizing that Karl and Georgie got it so wrong back in 2003 when they abandoned the joint effort at the UN to continue inspections.

[treestar]

47. Why do the Republicans get to ask the questions?

Maybe the question is: Do you prefer that the US spend its money and the lives of its military on the affairs of other countries?

[CJCRANE]

48. Foreign policy priorities in 2001

in order of importance:

Al-Qaeda, North Korea, Iran, Saddam.

[RangerSmith]

49. Take out Saddam and ...

step back.

The guy needed to be taken out.

And yes, I know there are many around the world just as bad or worse. I'd love to see a real UN deal with exactly this everyday and if it meant taking these ass wipes who are killing thousands of their citizens a yr out by assassination, so be it.

[klyon]

50. yes

next

[Quantess]

53. A lot of moderate Americans aren't convinced yet.

I think aloud when the news is on. When the Iraq war is on the news, I say something like "we need to get our troops out of there".
A good friend who sometimes watches the news with me predictably replies something like:

"Yes, but Saddam Hussein was a very bad man. I think it's good we got him out of power."
"I agree, I wish the troops didn't have to be there, but they're there now, and if they left, it would be a disaster."

I value our friendship, so I don't press the issue too much.

But, a lot of reasonable, moderate, people feel the same way my friend does. Most likely, they have been listening to faux news and other mainstream media, but the fact remains that these are the hearts and minds that need to be won back. These are intelligent people who are misinformed, because of only hearing the pro-B*sh agenda spewed at them.

[ieoeja]

55. Yes.

Things Ba`athists are:

1. for Arab control of the Middle East.


Things Ba`athists are not:

1. anti-US except when/where opposition to the United States benefits their goal for control of the Middle East,
2. pro-US except when/where support of the United States benefits their goal for control of the Middle East,
3. anti-communist except when/where opposition to communist regimes benefits their goal for control of the Middle East,
4. pro-communist except when/where support of communist regimes benefits their goal for control of the Middle East,
5. anti-facist except when/where opposition to facist regimes benefits their goal for control of the Middle East,
6. pro-facist except when/where support of facist regimes benefits their goal for control of the Middle East,
7. anti-Islam except when/where opposition to Islam benefits their goal for control of the Middle East,
8. pro-Islam except when/where support of Islam benefits their goal for control of the Middle East.


You get the point. For the historical record:

WW-I: supported Britain who promised to help them achieve independance from Turkey.
WW-II: supported Germany who promised to help them achiee independance from Britain/France.
Early 50s: supported Britain/France who aided them against Israel.
Late 50s: supported United States who aided them against Britain/France/Israel.
60s & 70s: supported USSR who aided them against Israel/US.
80s: supported US who supported them against Iran.

[Jed Dilligan]

56. Yes, if only because the power that emerges from the civil war

will make Saddam look like Gandhi.