Why is it a "good thing for Iraq and the world that Saddam is gone"?

[kentuck]

I've heard it said about 5 times today. But why is it a good thing? No more mass graveyards? No more torture chambers? No more rapists? And now they have "freedom"? They have more water and more electricity? They will spread "democracy" throughout the Middle East? Sorry, I don't believe any of it. I think it is all a lie to convince everyone of the "fantastic victory" in Iraq just before the next election...

[FlashHarry]

1. You would prefer him in power?

The guy was a monster.

Listen, I was against the war, but I'm not shedding any tears about Saddam's ouster. It would have been much better had the Iraqi people instigated it, for sure. But, now he's gone, things will eventually get better--so long as we get out and let them govern themselves.

However, much like you have to pay for a neighbor's window that your son breaks, we owe it to the Iraqi people to at least get them on their feet. You break it, you buy it.

That being said, you can't use the 'mass graves' argument as a casus belli. By that logic, we should go after Zimbabwe, North Korea and a whole host of other countries. We have neither the right nor the manpower to do that.

[kentuck]

3. What made him a monster ?

I'm only looking for facts other than what this Administration feeds us. I guess I'm a skeptic... :)

[FlashHarry]

10. I guess I'm basing my opinion largely on an episode of Frontline

Amongst other things. Frontline, by the way, is show that is considered by many to be very fair and balanced--even by DU standards.

Listen, Saddam's thugs brutally murdered thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, in addition to thousands upon thousands of Iranians and Kurds. He was a very, very bad guy. I'm glad he's gone.

I didn't support the invasion. I don't support it in retrospect. I don't think that the fact that Saddam is bad man is reason enough to invade a sovereign country. But, again, I'm glad he's gone.

[Emillereid]

27. Yeah, it was PBS and Frontline that gave Pollack hour upon hour

convincing us how evil that crafty Saddam was with all his weapons of mass destruction. Since that particular imminent threat appears a little thin these days -- I for one ain't buying Frontline stock in truth. Personally I would prefer that Saddam and other war criminals (including the Bushites) face a real fact finding court of law to determine guilt or innocence, not tried and convicted by TV documentary. If we could afford to do that for Nazi criminals, we certainly should do the same for Iraqi thugs. Even if Saddam was as terrible a dictator as he appears through American propaganda to be, it still should have been up to the Iraqi people to get rid of him, not us. (especially since our hands were pretty dirty creating and propping him up for all those years).

[Jacobin]

4. Now we'll get a nice cute islamic fundamentalist who will

ENSLAVE women, exhort muslims to attack Israel and the U.S. and use oil as a power in the holy war.

Is that better?

(this of course ASSUMES that Iraq gets to democratically elect a leader.)

[maggrwaggr]

24. I will be so bold as to say it: I prefer Saddam was still in power

Why?

Because there would be over 300 young Americans still alive.

There would be thousands of Iraqi children, women, old people and teenage boys still alive instead of having been bombed literally to pieces by YOUR and MY tax dollars.

Because we wouldn't be paying hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for something that had absolutely no effect on the lives of any of us.

And because he was never a threat to the United States. I knew it then and I know it now.

And because I now feel complicit, as a tax paying U.S. citizen, in a massive war crime. And I was utterly powerless to stop it.

[Maple]

2. Well they have to

say something.

I mean thousands have died, and billions have been spent...so they have to come up with some excuse.

Never mind that the world has many brutal dictators everyone ignores.......

[gratuitous]

7. I think that's it

"They have to say something." After all, we're flushing hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet, hundreds of our military men and women have died, thousands more are injured, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or maimed, and we're looking at an open-ended commitment of resources for the foreseeable future in Iraq.

The "we're better off with Saddam ousted" mantra should be taken every bit as seriously as the guy who murders his parents and then pleads for leniency from the court because he's an orphan.

[leftchick]

30. precisely!

that is what I say everytime I hear the "It's so great saddam is gone" shit. There are many brutal dictaters and represive governments around the world, should we move on to the next and remove all of them until they are gone? Not to mention chimpy's pals in Saudi Arabia that he is protecting from the 9/11 inquiry. How the hell do you justify that?

[Loyal]

5. I have other questions, namely,

Is Iraq a better place now that it no longer has a lot of electricity, clean water, or food?

Is Iraq a better place now that tens of thousands of its people were killed or injured by our attacks?

Is Iraq a better place after more than 10 years of our sanctions on Iraq that brought them starvation and disease?

Is Iraq a better place when our women and men are being taken out by snipers, car bombings, and other ambush attacks?

I don't think so!

We're not so great at this.

[Brucey]

6. People who say that see things only in black and white.

Saddam was bad, so it is good that he is gone. But what was the price that was paid, and what is the alternative? Let's say we kill your mother and your family in order to get rid of a bad guy. Then later we can say, "Isn't it great that the bad guy is gone?" Well, no. It is insulting to say it because it ignores the price and the consequences. It suggests that killing thousands of Iraqis in order to save thousands of Iraqis is a good deal. The ends do not justify the means. People should act responsibly and morally. And, of course, there were many other ways to control Saddam (diplomatic, economic, international coalitions, the UN, through his friends and partners, by educating and empowering the people of Iraq, and others), so saying how good it is that he is gone ignores those and rationalizes the illegal and immoral invasion.

[Caution]

8. Because the guy was a brutal dictator

He started 2 wars of agression, he did in fact gas his own citizens as well as Iranians.

I dislike Bush and I HATE his policies including his pet war for oil, but sometimes there are nuggets of truth out there. Reagan and his cronies were complicit in the gasing of Iraqis but it wsa Hussein who ordered it. I went to college with a woman whose mother was married to a high level Iraqi official and they escaped from Iraq and most of the awful stories you hear about these people are true. Anytime a man like that is driven out of power it is a good thing. The methodology was all wrong, the reasons given were lies and now the aftermath is really awful. Will removing Hussein stop mass killings? (nope, happening today in iraq), Torture chambers? (I hope so!), rapists (nope, nothing can stop that unfortunately, hopefully it'll put an end to state-sponsered rape in Iraq), freedom? (not a chance while the US is an occupying force answering only to itself), more water and electricity? (not while there is an active resistance to US occupation), spread democracy? (not a chance).

Most of the rhetoric are lies, but that doesnt turn Hussein into a good man.

[caledesi]

9. I think I know what you mean Kentuck...I get SO sick of hearing

that false choice question. It's stupid. You HAVE to say yes..then it is interpreted as believing that the ends justify the means. Not!

I like how Dean handled a similar question posed by Wolf, "but don't think Iraq is beter off now...blah, blah." Dean said, "it's too early to say; time will tell."

And if I hear about those f*cking mass graves and torture chambers again, I swear...

There are other dictators out there right now who are doing similar atrocities.

[kentuck]

11. And if you say it is "good for Iraq and good for the world..."

Then how can you credibly say it was not a good thing to invade Iraq? For me, the two positions do not square...

[Caution]

13. the two are not incompatible

The United States has fundamentally changed it's policy. Bush calls it pre-emption, however since we KNOW that the basis for this preemption was bullshit and we KNOW that Bush and his cronies were flagrantly lying, then the actual policy is one of aggression of the most flagrant type.

Our system of government requires that out leaders represent the views of the people. When the government makes a policy change such as this it must be done as a result of the will of the people. At the time this change was made and based upon the facts we were given (which were bogus), we as a people overwhelmingly supported the action. Those of us who knew the truth and listened to those who were telling the truth, opposed the action, but overall this was started out with massive popular support (in the US at least).

Well, while the ouster of Hussein from power may very well be a good thing for the Iraqi people in the long run, the precedent set is a terrible thing for the state of the rest of the world right now. The US has basically told the world that if you don't act in a manner we find acceptable we will take over. And we'll lie to our own people in order to justify it.

The fact that Iraqis are suffering as a result of this action, that Americans are dying as a result of this action, while important to them and their families and to those of us with empathy and compassion, is secondary to the fact that the fundamental power structure of the world took a massive change for the worse when Bush duped this nation and when his cronies informed the media that they could no longer report the truth.

Thankfully there exist outlets for the truth to get out there and there are enough people in power who disagree with Bush and his gang to prevent this from going any further (I say thankfully when in truth i mean hopefully).

[noiretextatique]

29. "our government" is illegitimate

and therefore, no amount of popular support justifies any of its actions. bush is no different than what he claims saddam was...a brutal dictator. we had NO BUSINESS in Iraq, given our own problems with our very own dictatorship. the arrogance and hypocrisy of the american public, and its "leaders" knows no bounds. we had NO RIGHT to pre-emptively attack Iraq...and all the of justifications for this war have proven to be complete LIES. "he gassed his own people"...well, we've done THAT...and WORSE to our "own people" :argh:

[tsipple]

12. But Saddam Is Not Gone...

He just went underground.

[woofless]

18. I agree

I have a sneaking suspicion that he is still very much in touch with all the elements that are attacking our soldiers, UN personnel and pipelines.

[realFedUp]

14. I don't think we should be picking up his debts.

Did this administration's "intelligence" know that there
were huge outstanding debts?

Pump the oil. Pay the debts....all of them, including
to US taxpayers.

[Sick of Bullshit]

15. So what you are saying is

"Steal Iraq's oil to pay for a war that the Iraqi people did not want and which is inflicting untold misery on them"?

[karlschneider]

16. I think we will not know the answer to your question for very many years.

And maybe never at all. After all, what are the criteria for "what is good for Iraq"? If they were to become a mirror image of the USA, some would consider it good and some wouldn't. We have here a very questionably "elected" president...shall we support the same kind of system for Iraq? What if they overwhelmingly (and fairly, as much as possible) elect a Mullah/Sunni/Fundamentalist. Shall we support that kind of choice when it would likely result in Sharia law with little or no rights for women...?

There seems to be damn little evidence that the CPA gives a rat's ass what the majority of Iraqis actually want. I don't really think they're all that much in love with Chalabi and his cadre.
:eyes:

[kentuck]

19. I think you are correct, karlschneider...

Perhaps we will not know for many years? However, we have some out there talking even today, on the Senate floor, for example, calling Saddam's atrocities a "holocaust". If it is a "holocaust" or if it is permitted to be portrayed as a "holocaust", how could anyone be against the invasion? I think that is the context with which we have to accept or not accept the statement, "is the world and Iraq better off now that Saddam is gone?" It is an attempt to legitimize an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based upon lies. Once we accept the degree of evil that they wish to equate with Saddam, then we unknowingly validate the invasion in the eyes of the public.

[Sterling]

17. The world only seems worse to me?

I don't remember any US troops dying in Iraq before the war and I don't remember having to pony up another 87 big omes before the war. I see no end in site. Saddam was bad but this is better? I think not.

[maggrwaggr]

20. yeah, and if we'd bombed the Soviet Union in 1962

the world would be better for it, too, right?

Containment works. It worked for the Soviet Union and it was working for Iraq.

All the dead women and children in Iraq really don't give a flying fuck that Saddam is out of power.

[gulliver]

21. It was a bad trade. Think of it that way.

Say you spend $500 for an ice cream cone. OK, the ice cream is good. It was dumb, but there is no denying that ice cream is good.

Those who ask "Would you rather have Saddam back in power?" are using classic fallacious reasoning. They are offering a false choice. We could have had:

1. Saddam still in power but permanently surrounded by inspectors.
2. A strong worldwide coalition backing intrusive inspections with teeth.
3. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers still alive.
4. $156 billion dollars to play with.

We got taken. And Saddam hasn't even been caught.

[maggrwaggr]

23. nice post. but you're forgetting

that to eat that $500 ice cream cone you had to kill several thousand women, children, old men, teenage boys ......

[cmd]

22. I understand what you are saying , kentuck

Perhaps it is because I grew up in a very disadvantaged area. I live in a middle class neighborhood, but I'm very comfortable in low income areas. Many of my friends will make comments like - I couldn't live like that. I could. I did. I did it happily. I didn't know that I was disadvantaged. I believe that there are many Iraqis who were perfectly happy living under Saddam.

Here is my take on what should happen. We are responsible for putting things back the way they were. Give the money that we would spend to the UN to administer, admit we were wrong and get the hell out. I didn't want to be there in the first place, but I'm willing to pay my share to make repairs in Iraq.

[farmboxer]

25. Because Halliburton And Cheney Know How

to take care of their oil!

[maggrwaggr]

26. it's the only justification they have for a massive war crime

and that's all there is to it.

Oops, they've been busted on the WMD lies, the "threat", soldiers keep dying every day ....

"Ah, but the world is a better place because of what we did!"

You'd think they'd planted flowers or something.

Lying killing war criminals is all they are.

[camero]

28. Wasn't the Gassing of the Kurds

done during the Iran-Iraq War? And that some had evidence that it was the Iranians who did the gassing? Just something I heard.