Was Iraq better off before the US and Coalition removed Saddam?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
B B B B B B B B B BOING

Keep your intimate feelings to yourself please.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Keep your intimate feelings to yourself please.

CsG

Please stick to answering the question and any supporting comments.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Keep your intimate feelings to yourself please.

CsG

Please stick to answering the question and any supporting comments.

Please stick to answering the question and any supporting comments.

Wheeeee..... that was fun. :roll:

CsG

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: cpumaster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
If so - why?

If not - why?

Please stick to answering the question and any supporting comments.🙂

***********************

IMO, Iraq is better off now. They have a ability to decide their own leader and have gained many freedoms that were kept from them under Saddam.

CsG

Based on recent polls among the Iraqis reported by AP, many actually think Saddam is better than current chaotic situation. If Saddam is allowed to join the election, he could get elected by majority of Iraqis. The report say many prefer living under brutal dictator that could provide order and security rather than current so-called democracy but people are afraid for their lives everyday. Plus scarce electricity and jobs hurt too.
Now that I'd find ironic and showed how pathetic our post-war planning has been. :thumbsdown:

In as much as I diispise the way we went to war, the fact the bastard Saddam is now out of power is good news for Iraq, even if these poor intellectual midgets can't see the good that can come from a free democracy.
If this adminstration had given two seconds of thought about winng the peace instead of just getting Saddam, then the appalling aftermath of this so called "victory" would not yeild the angst of so many in the world community. It will be decades before any simblance of stabilty will come to the region. Bush dosen't give a crap though. He could care less. As long as Saddam is humiliated, Bush Sr. is vindicated, a present from the "W" to his pappy for all the bail out help he got all his pathetic life. :disgust:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Keep your intimate feelings to yourself please.

CsG

Please stick to answering the question and any supporting comments.

Please stick to answering the question and any supporting comments.

Wheeeee..... that was fun. :roll:

CsG

B B B B B B B B B BOING

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Yeah, I'll participate. Just a sec, I'll be right back...

Shore is nice to be loved!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Czar
Iraq might be, hard to say at the moment, give it 5-10 years

But the US definetly isnt better off

but but but the US removed Saddam out of the goodness of it's heart :roll:

As for the question if Iraq is better off without Saddam let me quote the article I posted the other day:

"I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad."

So the senitment in Iraq seems to be that they prefer stability and relative safety to bombing campaigns.

"The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle."

No at present Iraq is not better off than before the invasion. A testiment to the magnitude of Neocon ineptitude.

After brutally killing thousands and leaving Moscow in disgust with himself, the Russian people begged Ivan the Terrible to return. They loved the abuse? Who knows what makes people the way they are. It took 10 to 15 years of occupation to stabilize Japan and Western Europe. Are France and Germany better off now than before the American Invasion? How about Japan? The only way to respond to a question like this is through looking at history. Anger, hurt, and confusion are all Iraqis know now. War is a terrible thing and seldom creates feelings of warm and fuzzy feelings in the minds of those involved in it. Is war right or wrong? Who knows? Better to ask "Was it necessary?? Won't know that for years either if ever. When the streams of history are altered, parallel lines disappear and can never be recaptured for inspection. How is "better off" defined? Until you can define that, the question is unanswerable. Is Russia "better off" after the fall of the Soviet system? The oligarchs would answer an adamant "yes!? the old Soviet retirees (thousands) who lost the system that was to support them for the rest of their lives would answer "No!? The Bathiests in Iraq are not better off. Saddam is not better off. The Iraqi contractors that provide services for the American missions in Iraq at exorbitant prices and are becoming wealthy are better off financially. Iraq is now a caldron of conflicting elements seeking power. Iran tried for years to conquor Iraq. They were fast to move in after the occupation and are behind much of the power struggles that we see today. The non-participants are bitter because we excluded them from easy gains after the occupation. Better off? Better restructure the question so it has an answer.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Sultan
No. Iraq had better infrastructure, pretty much stable electricity and water supply before the war. There was one dictator, yes, but he held the country together. In the last 10 years of sanctions before the invasion, I did not see the devastation that has been brought upon Iraq in the last year alone. 13000 dead is a huge number. We can play the number game and say Saddam killed many more, but the question is not based on Saddam's actions, it is based on the condition of Iraqis.

Before the invasion, the common Iraqi could still go out, run his little shop, bring home some food, take a bath, sit under the fan and watch TV. I dont think thats very possible in most of Iraq.

Btw, those who think that the problems only exist in so and so state out of so many other states... well, if Nevada or Tennessee were relatively calm and California and New York were burning, I'd say there's a pretty big problem.

Your logic presupposes that American slaves were better off before the Civil war in America. They had all of the stability that you describe on the plantation. They lost all of that during and after the war. It took them generations to regain it. Are they better off now? I doubt that a single Black American would say that they are not better off today. War is chaos. It takes years if not generations to recover from such chaos.
The pain of our civil war still exists, but no one would agree that it was unneccessary and everyone would agree that it resulted in a far better good.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
Nobody, certainly not me, has claimed that "Iraq is the same". And no there are not only two options. You are in neocon binary mode again ("you are either with us or against us" remember). My third answer is that Iraq is not "better off" with Saddam, especially not Saddam under the US led UN sanctions, and it is not "better off" right now.

If "Iraq is the same" is not a possible answer, then it's either better or worse, which implies only a yes or no alternative. All the pedantic gyrations in the world, nor your attempt to redefine the question, changes that.

You're overlooking the most accurate answer. The situation in Iraq is different. That does not automatically require a yes or no alternative. Some people may feel Iraq is "better off" now but the Iraqis themselves seem to think they were "better off" under Saddam, sanctions and all. How on earth can anybody think that is "better off" when the fact is sanctions were killing Iraq? It is perfectly legitimate to feel that Iraq is equally messed up now as it was before the invasion but for different reasons. Clearly the situation in Iraq was not sustainable. It is equally clear that the Bush administration has messed up the occupation completely. In February this year only 21 per cent of Iraqis prefered an "Islamic state" (Oxford Research International poll) ; in August this year 71 per cent of Iraqis favoured a state based on Islam and Sharia laws (International Republican Institute).

An once more for those who can't seem to sink it into their heads: I am not a neocon. I know the propensity of the anti-war crowd is to slap insulting labels on everyone who disagrees with them, but it's a shallow practice and it's poorly applied. Your gross overgeneralization is simply incorrect.

I use the term neocon as a synonym for Bush supporters/apologists.

There are as many third answers as there are different individuals. Each has a right to his opinion. How do you measure "better off"? The almost 40,000 Iraqis that have died as a result of the invasion are certainly not "better off". Are the civilians of Samarra and Fallujah "better off"? Are the 35 children, and their families, that were killed some time ago by a car bomb "better off"? So given the fact that more people are being slaughtered in Iraq now than before the war how is Iraq "better off"? You can argue that the potential for "better off" exists but that is conjecture at this point in time.

You are attempting to reframe the question, which is not within your purview in this thread. Here's a very elegant solution for your dilemma: If you don't like the way the question is posed, don't participate in this thread. Start a new thread and ask the question they way you want to twist it, so it's to your liking.

Now wasn't that simple?

:sheesh:

Nonsense. Unless we can agree what makes Iraq "better off" the original question is meaningless.

Cholera and Plague was an illustration of why CsG's poll was so narrow it became absurd. Are you "better off" with Cholera (Saddam) or are you "better off" with the Plague (US invasion). CsG's poll is comparing two negatives and trying to come up with a positive "better off". That is what I illustrated.
The question as it stands is also misleading because of it's ambiguity which stems from it's premise "better off":

Was Iraq

A. "better off" before Saddam was removed by the US invasion (YES)

or

B. "better off" after Saddam was removed by the US invasion (NO)


The question presupposes that we think of the US invasion as a good thing and not a disaster (so we think the answer is that YES Iraq is "better off"), otherwise we end up with the answer:

A is FALSE (Saddam is bad and the US invasion is bad) which means you cannot answer YES
B is FALSE (the US invasion is bad and Saddam is bad) which means you cannot answer NO

Note that you cannot argue that A. Because Iraq is better off without Saddam then B. the invasion was correct. That would be another logical fallacy.

The implication of CsG's question is that - if not A then B or if not B then A. But the real answer is - not A not B. The fact is that Iraq suffered under Saddam and suffers under the US. It is not "better off" under either. But as has been established by this, CsG's, example of Neocon logic more than two options do not exist in the black and white world of neocons.

The question presupposes nothing except in your own mind. It asks nothing about the quality or effects of the invasion and is not required to. Besides that, as has already been explained over and over and seems to fail to sink in through your empirical thickness, you are free to add commentary to voice your opinion as a clarification. You are also free NOT to participate in this thread if you don't like the manner in which the question is posed.

I'm also free to voice my opinion that the question as it is framed sucks. 😛

Nonsense. It is not a matter of anonymity. The poll numbers are binary yes or no and those voting no appear to support Saddam over Bush as ruler of Iraq.

And that seems to be the gist of your gripe. 'How dare anyone believe Bush is better than Saddam? Oh, but let me add that Saddam sucks too.' It's your partisan hatred driving your opinions in this thread, an emotional bias, and nothing remotely related to logic.

Let's apply some logic. Somebody murders and tortures 1,000,000 people and another one 1 person. Are they not both murderers and torturers? Why should I support the one over the other? Are they not both assholes? Do I have to say yes or no to one of them. Am I not free to reject both?

But insisting on that is exactly what CsG is doing with his silly poll. It is the fact that the OP is silly that we (moonie, me, winston etc) have been arguing about the whole time. Now even you are agreeing with us :roll:

No, their is no implication of support for Saddam or Bush except in your own minds. The subject of the poll is Iraq, not Saddam, not Bush.

Was Iraq better off under Saddam or is it better off now when Saddam is gone thanks to the US invasion (i.e. Bush's invasion). That is the question.

The fact that CsG demanded a binary answer leaves no room for an argument that would not make the yes or no appear absurd. Yes, and here is why but no or No, and here is why but yes, or Yes, and here is why but maybe or No, and here is why but maybe etc. the variations are endless. The only logical answer would have been to enable both yes and no to be answered in the poll or to have skipped the poll altogether. And even without the poll the question itself was poorly formulated.

Then don't participate. Go away and start another thread more to your liking. Nobody is forcing you to vote and your incessant whining about how the question is posed in this thread is becoming tedious and tiresome.

As far as your attempt to point out a conflict in my statements, I'll leave it up to those reading this thread to comprehend why there is no conflict between the two. I don't think you are willing to understand, as your posing of that red herring in the first place aptly demonstrates.

I was watching CNN live yesterday and one of the Rep. Senators on the committee asked a very similar question of Duelfer, something like "Is the world better off after the removal of Saddam?" Duelfer laughed and tried to avoid giving a direct answer to such a silly question but the senator pressed him until he answered: " Theoretically, yes the world is better off."

I do not think anybody can answer that question, or CsG's question, with a straight yes or no. Theoretically the world (and/or Iraq) might be better off. Theoretically the world (and/or Iraq) might be worse off. The real Red Herrings are questions like these used by rightwingers to focus on the removal of an evil man (Saddam) to justify their course of action and to pretend to find the good points in the disastrous miscalculation that is the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Vigilantism is justice perverted. The end does not justify the means.

 

[Ferocious]

This thread is absurd.

There are lot of other countries that would be better off with a regime change too. But most of them have no major oil supply.

Unless they are a direct threat to us....we have no business sacrificing American and innocent civilian lives to effect such a change.

Many countries have effected regime change over the centuries before Bush arrived.

 

[BBond]

:laugh:

Must I really explain the dishonesty inherent in your distortion of my comment? Are you really that ignorant? If so, I'm wasting my time with you. Quit acting the fool and I'll be happy to debate with you. Keep distorting my statements into something they were not intended to be, such as turning them into some sweeping generalization - calling all our troops idiots - which is precisely what you did, and I have nothing further to say to you.

If they joined with that hope, then they are idiots.

Your words, not mine, TLC.

After you call our troops "idiots" then you say that's not what you meant???

You sound like Rumsfeld after he said there was no link between Saddam and Osama a few days ago then said the next day that wasn't what he meant.

Or Bremmer, who said we needed more troops on the ground from the time we invaded until today and that the current fiasco in Iraq is due to the lack of sufficient troops during and after the invasion -- then the next day he tried to retract his statement.

Who is the real fool???

I guess you neocons all suffer from the same plague -- you occassionally tell the truth about the awful situation you've put the world in then you realize you've exposed yourselves for what you truly are and you start backpedalling so fast you end up tripping over your own words.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr
You're overlooking the most accurate answer. The situation in Iraq is different. That does not automatically require a yes or no alternative. Some people may feel Iraq is "better off" now but the Iraqis themselves seem to think they were "better off" under Saddam, sanctions and all. How on earth can anybody think that is "better off" when the fact is sanctions were killing Iraq? It is perfectly legitimate to feel that Iraq is equally messed up now as it was before the invasion but for different reasons. Clearly the situation in Iraq was not sustainable. It is equally clear that the Bush administration has messed up the occupation completely. In February this year only 21 per cent of Iraqis prefered an "Islamic state" (Oxford Research International poll) ; in August this year 71 per cent of Iraqis favoured a state based on Islam and Sharia laws (International Republican Institute).

You mean this poll?

http://www.iri.org/09-07-04-IraqPoll.asp

Read the results again. I believe you've misinterpreted them.

And look at this:

Recent public opinion surveys conducted by IRI show Iraqis to be surprisingly optimistic about their future and much stronger supporters of democracy than many new reports would lead you to believe.

Over 51% of Iraqis polled felt that their country is headed in "the right direction," up slightly from IRI's May/June poll. More telling, the number who feel that things are heading in "the wrong direction" has dropped from 39% to 31% over the same time period.

Some of this confidence may be a result of wide public support for the Iraqi Interim Government. Prime Minister Allawi holds an enviable approval rating, with 66% rating him as either "very effective" or "somewhat effective." Likewise, President al-Yawer enjoys the support of 60.6% of Iraqis polled who say that they "completely trust" or "somewhat trust" him.

In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. Expanding on the theme, 77% said that "regular, fair elections" were the most important political right for the Iraqi people and 58% felt that Iraqi-style democracy was likely to succeed.

I guess I'll wait for some liberal, who knows better, to claim that the Iraqis must be FoS. :roll:

I use the term neocon as a synonym for Bush supporters/apologists.

Of which I am neither.

Nonsense. Unless we can agree what makes Iraq "better off" the original question is meaningless.

Huh? This is about a sampling of what makes a person believe what they believe about Iraq. I don't recall CsG requiring any sort of concensus on the matter nor do the answers truly prove anything or indict anyone. Lighten up some dude.

I'm also free to voice my opinion that the question as it is framed sucks. 😛

They are now free in Iraq to claim the govenment sucks as well. That's something they couldn't do in the past. Aren't you glad that both you and now the Iraqis as well are free to speak your mind on such issues?

Let's apply some logic. Somebody murders and tortures 1,000,000 people and another one 1 person. Are they not both murderers and torturers? Why should I support the one over the other? Are they not both assholes? Do I have to say yes or no to one of them. Am I not free to reject both?

So levels of degree don't exist in your world? By your definition, should I assume that some lefty anti-abortion fruit-loop that murders a doctor is identical to someone like bin Laden?

I was watching CNN live yesterday and one of the Rep. Senators on the committee asked a very similar question of Duelfer, something like "Is the world better off after the removal of Saddam?" Duelfer laughed and tried to avoid giving a direct answer to such a silly question but the senator pressed him until he answered: " Theoretically, yes the world is better off."

I do not think anybody can answer that question, or CsG's question, with a straight yes or no. Theoretically the world (and/or Iraq) might be better off. Theoretically the world (and/or Iraq) might be worse off. The real Red Herrings are questions like these used by rightwingers to focus on the removal of an evil man (Saddam) to justify their course of action and to pretend to find the good points in the disastrous miscalculation that is the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Vigilantism is justice perverted. The end does not justify the means.

Then don't vote, say you didn't vote because you disagree with the methodology of the question and answers, and post what you just posted above.

Now please, stop blowing this whole thing so damn far out of proportion. Instead of constantly whining, work out a solution and go with it. That's one of my beefs with liberals and the left. Instead of dealing with problems, they'd rather bitch about them all day, as if that accomplishes anything.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I use the term neocon as a synonym for Bush supporters/apologists.

Of which I am neither.

Actually, you're a subtype of neocon. You're one of those people that prides themselves on being independent when they haven't voted for a Democrat in years and basically hold all the conservative beliefs dear to their heart. At the very least you're an apoligist.

Now if you want more details, I'd go as far as to say you are one of the split personalities / avatars of one of our resident neocons...

 

[dbk]

No question Iraq is better off. However, I don't agree with how the administration went about making Iraq better (US safer?).

 

[BBond]

The International Republican Institute???

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You're funny. Tell us another joke.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

If they joined with that hope, then they are idiots.

Your words, not mine, TLC.

And what does "that hope" refer to?

It refers to those who joined the service with the idiotic hope they wouldn't have to go to war. Is that calling "troops" idiots? No. It's calling those who joined with that hope idiots, and they are.

Got that? I sure hope so. Now go serve up your distortion-filled BS to someone else, fool. I won't bother with any more of your dishonest attempts to malign me.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

If they joined with that hope, then they are idiots.

Your words, not mine, TLC.

And what does "that hope" refer to?

It refers to those who joined the service with the idiotic hope they wouldn't have to go to war. Is that calling "troops" idiots? No. It's calling those who joined with that hope idiots, and they are.

Got that? I sure hope so. Now go serve up your distortion-filled BS to someone else, fool. I won't bother with any more of your dishonest attempts to malign me.

You can try to spin your statement any way you like. But you're spinning your wheels when you try to defend your unpatriotic attack on men and women who are putting their lives on the line by using the same stupid attack again.

You are a disgrace. I'm going to e-mail your opinion of our troops to a few of them who are in theater right now and ask them how they feel about it.

PS

Your sig...

AnandTech's #1 bigot, comprehension challenged moron, and designated forum idiot.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

If they joined with that hope, then they are idiots.

Your words, not mine, TLC.

And what does "that hope" refer to?

It refers to those who joined the service with the idiotic hope they wouldn't have to go to war. Is that calling "troops" idiots? No. It's calling those who joined with that hope idiots, and they are.

Got that? I sure hope so. Now go serve up your distortion-filled BS to someone else, fool. I won't bother with any more of your dishonest attempts to malign me.

You can try to spin your statement any way you like. But you're spinning your wheels when you try to defend your unpatriotic attack on men and women who are putting their lives on the line by using the same stupid attack again.

You are a disgrace. I'm going to e-mail your opinion of our troops to a few of them who are in theater right now and ask them how they feel about it.

Too late. I already e-mailed it to my son, who is a marine, yesterday. His buddies completely agree with me than anyone who joins the military hoping they don't go to war are idiots.

Oh, they also said to tell you you're a moron.

Bye.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

If they joined with that hope, then they are idiots.

Your words, not mine, TLC.

And what does "that hope" refer to?

It refers to those who joined the service with the idiotic hope they wouldn't have to go to war. Is that calling "troops" idiots? No. It's calling those who joined with that hope idiots, and they are.

Got that? I sure hope so. Now go serve up your distortion-filled BS to someone else, fool. I won't bother with any more of your dishonest attempts to malign me.

You can try to spin your statement any way you like. But you're spinning your wheels when you try to defend your unpatriotic attack on men and women who are putting their lives on the line by using the same stupid attack again.

You are a disgrace. I'm going to e-mail your opinion of our troops to a few of them who are in theater right now and ask them how they feel about it.

Too late. I already e-mailed it to my son, who is a marine, yesterday. His buddies completely agree with me than anyone who joins the military hoping they don't go to war are idiots.

Oh, they also said to tell you you're a moron.

Bye.

AnandTech's #1 bigot, comprehension challenged moron, and designated forum idiot.

Apparently, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
You're overlooking the most accurate answer. The situation in Iraq is different. That does not automatically require a yes or no alternative. Some people may feel Iraq is "better off" now but the Iraqis themselves seem to think they were "better off" under Saddam, sanctions and all. How on earth can anybody think that is "better off" when the fact is sanctions were killing Iraq? It is perfectly legitimate to feel that Iraq is equally messed up now as it was before the invasion but for different reasons. Clearly the situation in Iraq was not sustainable. It is equally clear that the Bush administration has messed up the occupation completely. In February this year only 21 per cent of Iraqis prefered an "Islamic state" (Oxford Research International poll) ; in August this year 71 per cent of Iraqis favoured a state based on Islam and Sharia laws (International Republican Institute).

You mean this poll?

http://www.iri.org/09-07-04-IraqPoll.asp

Read the results again. I believe you've misinterpreted them.

And look at this:

Recent public opinion surveys conducted by IRI show Iraqis to be surprisingly optimistic about their future and much stronger supporters of democracy than many new reports would lead you to believe.

Over 51% of Iraqis polled felt that their country is headed in "the right direction," up slightly from IRI's May/June poll. More telling, the number who feel that things are heading in "the wrong direction" has dropped from 39% to 31% over the same time period.

Some of this confidence may be a result of wide public support for the Iraqi Interim Government. Prime Minister Allawi holds an enviable approval rating, with 66% rating him as either "very effective" or "somewhat effective." Likewise, President al-Yawer enjoys the support of 60.6% of Iraqis polled who say that they "completely trust" or "somewhat trust" him.

In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. Expanding on the theme, 77% said that "regular, fair elections" were the most important political right for the Iraqi people and 58% felt that Iraqi-style democracy was likely to succeed.

I guess I'll wait for some liberal, who knows better, to claim that the Iraqis must be FoS. :roll:

If you read the poll 69,5 % per cent say they want Islam and Sharia as the sole basis for the future constitution of Iraq. I had the exact figure wrong by 1,5 % but my point about Iraq becoming increasingly more interested in Islam stands. Iraq used to be the quite secular but that seems to be changing.

I use the term neocon as a synonym for Bush supporters/apologists.

Of which I am neither.

Right.

Let's apply some logic. Somebody murders and tortures 1,000,000 people and another one 1 person. Are they not both murderers and torturers? Why should I support the one over the other? Are they not both assholes? Do I have to say yes or no to one of them. Am I not free to reject both?

So levels of degree don't exist in your world? By your definition, should I assume that some lefty anti-abortion fruit-loop that murders a doctor is identical to someone like bin Laden?

Levels of degree do exist but in the end murder is murder.

I was watching CNN live yesterday and one of the Rep. Senators on the committee asked a very similar question of Duelfer, something like "Is the world better off after the removal of Saddam?" Duelfer laughed and tried to avoid giving a direct answer to such a silly question but the senator pressed him until he answered: " Theoretically, yes the world is better off."

I do not think anybody can answer that question, or CsG's question, with a straight yes or no. Theoretically the world (and/or Iraq) might be better off. Theoretically the world (and/or Iraq) might be worse off. The real Red Herrings are questions like these used by rightwingers to focus on the removal of an evil man (Saddam) to justify their course of action and to pretend to find the good points in the disastrous miscalculation that is the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Vigilantism is justice perverted. The end does not justify the means.

Then don't vote, say you didn't vote because you disagree with the methodology of the question and answers, and post what you just posted above.

Now please, stop blowing this whole thing so damn far out of proportion. Instead of constantly whining, work out a solution and go with it. That's one of my beefs with liberals and the left. Instead of dealing with problems, they'd rather bitch about them all day, as if that accomplishes anything.
[/quote]

Are you one of those that support Bush simply because he acted, because what he did supposedly was the "right thing to do" nevermind the lack of proof, the lies, the spin, the illegality etc. What has Bush "accomplished" really besides committing the same crimes as Saddam (illegal invasion of a sovereign country, use of WMD classified weapons (DU and cluster bombs), torture etc.?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr
If you read the poll 69,5 % per cent say they want Islam and Sharia as the sole basis for the future constitution of Iraq.

If you read the statement it says:

On the role of religion in determining the new constitution, while support for Shiri'a law is strong at nearly 70%, there is divided opinion on whether the government should create a secular state that respects the rights of all religious, tribal and ethnic groups with 49% agreeing and 40% disagreeing.

Considering the disparity in findings there, it's kind of difficult to draw a conclusion.

I had the exact figure wrong by 1,5 % but my point about Iraq becoming increasingly more interested in Islam stands. Iraq used to be the quite secular but that seems to be changing.

The fact that Saddam, supposedly, maintained a secular government (Which is not actually true as his laws were still based on Islamic laws and if you ever read one of his tranlated speeches, practically every sentence was suffixed with "Praise Allah.") is and never was an indication that Islam was not the predominate religion or was not widely practiced in Iraq. It IS and has been that way since Iraq was designated a country, and historically can be traced back in that region for many centuries previous to that.

Do not confuse Saddam's supposedly "secular" government (Which Saddam did primarily to prevent anyone and anything, such as religion, from usurping the least bit of power from his grasp and to prevent clerics from gaining any real power in government and questioning Saddam's edicts.) with a secular Iraqi society. Iraq does not and has not had a secular society, ever.

Right.

Believe what you want, correct or not.

Levels of degree do exist but in the end murder is murder.

I see. So you have a black and white viewpoint on things. Shades of gray do not enter your thinking?

Are you one of those that support Bush simply because he acted, because what he did supposedly was the "right thing to do" nevermind the lack of proof, the lies, the spin, the illegality etc. What has Bush "accomplished" really besides committing the same crimes as Saddam (illegal invasion of a sovereign country, use of WMD classified weapons (DU and cluster bombs), torture etc.?

I support the invasion of Iraq. Whether Bush, Kerry, or Elmer J. Fudd were president and made that decision would not matter to me. Supporing the action is not the same as supporting the person who happened to make the decision.

The poor attempt to equate Bush with Saddam, once again by thinking only in black and white and ignoring levels of degree seems disingeious and intellectual dishonest to me. It's the same kind of thinking as those who smugly proclaim Bush = Hitler. If you want to think that way, help yourself. Personally, I think it's pretty damn looney. I mean, you claim murder is murder. So, are you willing to call Kerry that? He is an admitted murderer, you know.

 

[BBond]

TLC,

I hope your boy gets home to you safely, and soon.

Bill

 

[onelove]

Topic Title: Was Iraq better off before the US and Coalition removed Saddam?

can the ends justify the means?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: onelove

Topic Title: Was Iraq better off before the US and Coalition removed Saddam?

can the ends justify the means?

Will it still be a disaster if the Iraqis say the means were justified and those in the US say they weren't?

Is our determination in this matter more important than that of the Iraqis?

imo, determining the value of it all will be up to the Iraqis moreso than us.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: onelove

Topic Title: Was Iraq better off before the US and Coalition removed Saddam?

can the ends justify the means?

Will it still be a disaster if the Iraqis say the means were justified and those in the US say they weren't?

Yes. There's still the fact we went about it entirely the wrong way.

Is our determination in this matter more important than that of the Iraqis?

Pretty much yeah since the pretext for the war was that we were going in for our own interests.