What do you say to the 'Iraq is better without Saddam today' crowd???

[hadrons]

this seems to be the fallback reply to any point that Iraq is a mess

[evlbstrd]

1. "Name one way."

Just one.

[electricray]

20. Yeah and then when they say...

"Well they got to vote for the first time in history," make sure you point out that the result of that vote excluded the country's largest sect. Then I'm sure that the neocons will say "Yeah but they are all Saddam-lovers so screw 'em!" To which you could reply that no-one liked Saddam. Not even his own Baath party. The only reason they didn't rise up and destroy him is the same reason that good decent Americans who have been sold a bill of goods by this admin. don't rise up and get rid of the neoconservative power structure. The Iraquis believed that Saddam was playing Iraq's political hand with success, as was evidenced by the hospitals, electricity, running water, sewer, police, and whatever other infrastructure we bombed the bejeezus out of. The fact is they were wrong and had we not botched the after-war party to high-heaven things might actually be better now. Saddam did no better job than Bush is currently doing with America or than Kim Jong Il is doing with North Korea. They all just do what comes natural to despots, they fight and cheat and steal and scream at the top of their lungs about the need for "nationalism" and "patriotism" in order to get at least part of the population to let them mistreat other world citizens. The only difference between Bush, Il, and Hussein is that in America we have first amendment rights to protect us from overt brutality and repression. Rights, mind you, that are being abused and neglected more with each passing day.

The bottom line is that when this war was pitched, the American people couldn't afford to fight for other people's freedom because we were (and still are) all hurting so badly economically. We wouldn't have gotten on board if they had pitched it that way. Iraq didn't want us to come in. There were no flowers and chocolates to greet us. If the Iraqui people didn't want us to fight for their freedom and the American people couldn't afford to support a philanthropic beat-down why did we go? Regardless of the conditions today, why are there hundreds of thousands less Iraquis alive today if we went there to make their lives better? Last time I checked dead is not better than pre-war Iraqi life.

[leesa]

26. They voted when Saddam was in power too. It was about as meaningful

as the elections they had this year while under occupation by an invading force.

[Nederland]

37. What sect was excluded? (nt)

[electricray]

46. The Sunni community has no role

And the efforts to reach out to them since the election have failed.

Sunni nominee declines post

Check out this article from Monday.

[meegbear]

2. I think you answered your own question ...

It is just a fallback ala 'Why do you hate America?'

[progmom]

3. except for all the people we killed

...and continue to kill every day.


They might have been a little better off before. :shrug:

[malmapus]

4. Tell that to the 100,000+ dead Iraqi's

..

[JimmyJazz]

5. Usually, I ask how Saddam is so different from Augusto Pinochet,

whom the US *put* into power with a CIA backed coup of Chile's legitimately elected government.

[RobertSeattle]

6. The Ends don't justify the Means

Just because something is theoretically better than before does not mean the means of getting there are justified (deceit, lies, exaggeration, death of innocents, costs, loss of respect for the US)

[Vincardog]

7. Why are they better? Because US troops are raping and torturing them?

Is it because the electricity and watter is not on as much as it was before? Is it because the depleted uranium shells are exploding the rates of birth defects and cancer? How can you support the invasion and occupation of a country that posed no threat to us?

[NMDemDist2]

8. better off? when unemployment is at 60% and power is on 4 hours

a day if you're lucky and more children are malnourished than under the sanctions and women can't leave their house to go to school or shopping without a male family member for fear of violence or kidnapping?

Oh yeah, it's a paradise over there :sarcasm:

[cally]

9. Is the world and US better

Are we better with instability in the middle east? Are we better with many muslim nations hating us? Are we better going into debt to fight a war in Iraq? Was it worth billions? Was it worth your social security retirement? Was it worth not helping Americans with health care? Reducing medicare? Cutting IRS enforcement? etc, etc.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

10. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Hang on while I ask all the dead Iraqis.........

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. Starving Iraqi children double after war

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=342672005

[BOSSHOG]

12. The same morons who think America is better without Clinton?

[Rainbowreflect]

13. I usually say that it is a matter of opinion &

my opinion is that our county & the world would be better off without bush in power,but if another country invaded us to take bush out I might even take up arms against them.

[Career Prole]

14. Give them the link to Juan Cole's "Informed Comment".

Snippets from today's post
At least four car bombs exploded in Baghdad on Monday, Iraqi police and the U.S. military said. They included a morning suicide attack in southern Baghdad that killed two Iraqi policemen and a civilian at a checkpoint at a busy intersection, police said. Six other policemen and three civilians were wounded in the attack. Another suicide attacker exploded a car bomb at an army checkpoint in eastern Baghdad, wounding five Iraqis, the Interior Ministry said. When police approached a suspicious car in south Baghdad, the booby-trapped vehicle exploded, killing one officer and a civilian bystander, the Interior Ministry said. Another policeman lost an arm in the attack.

<snip>

Al-Zaman/AFP/DPA: Shiite followers of Sistani in Karbala demonstrated on Monday, demanding that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari distribute to the people their flour rations (the rations had been established under the oil for food program of the United Nations). They complained that this key foodstuff had not reached them for four months (IOW, since the election). They also demanded an end to corruption and bribe-taking by the police...

<snip>

Jabr's control of the Interior Ministry is seen by the US Central Intelligence Agency as a problem, according to Knight Ridder. They fear that if they relinquish control of the new Iraqi intelligence service to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which was among the winners of the recent elections, its members will immediately pass the information over to Iran. Yet there is some question of how much control of Iraqi intelligence the CIA can retain in the face of demands for sovereignty by the elected government...

<snip>

The bodies of six Shiites from a single family killed at Yusufiya in Babil Province were returned to their home in Sadr City (the Shiites slums of East Baghdad) for burial on Monday. Ominously, the coffins were sent first to the offices of a local representative of Muqtada al-Sadr. Hundreds of angry Sadrists gathered to demonstrate and shout "Revenge!"

The battle of the corpses seems to be heating up, with Sunnis demanding retribution for the dead Dulaim, and Shiites calling for revenge over the Yusufiyah Six...

Oh yeah...things are really looking up since ol' Saddam got scooped up.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Pffffffffffttttttttttttt

There's no answer. They will just accuse you of "loving Saddam". Just blow a raspberry in their face and move on.

[jobycom]

16. I generally spit in their face and call them liars

A fake democracy, an occupying national force, the same oppression that happened under Hussein, and a complete destabilization of the socio-economic condition of the nation combined with an out-of-control crime rate and a future of civil war and political fragmentation do NOT make for a better Iraq.

I even hear people say that the WORLD is better off with Hussein. I answer that the world was better off with an America that defended freedom and liberty, rather than an America that lied to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people on the whim of a spoiled fratboy.

I'm not real popular at parties in Texas...

[PassingFair]

38. You'd be the hit of my parties, Joby!

Keep flamin!

[Maine-i-acs]

17. "Saddam killed 250,000 of his countrymen in 10 years..."

"We killed 100,000+ in 18 months.

Iraqi civilians are dying at a higher rate under "freedom" (occupation) than under "tyranny".

More malnourished babies;
Less electricity, food, services;
Less stability, more terrorism;
Everyone hates the US now;

So I guess if you happen to like dead civilians, hungry children, terrorists, and miserable people, and the world united against our effed up policies, then yes, Iraq is better now."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. PERFECT !! I am copying that to memory. Question -- Where'd

you get the 250k? I always hear people say millions. Guess no one knows for sure.

[Maine-i-acs]

36. Some numbers and one link (I'm sleepy ...):

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/122854.htm

Numbers dance around to suit the intent of whoever's quoting them, of course. I was considering innocent Iraqi civlians murdered when I came up with the 250K. Thus I am not counting the Iran-Iraq war military dead, or deaths from disease and malnutrition caused by the sanctions before this gulf war. Some numbers I turned up (Googled 'Iraqis killed by Saddam'):

The Kurdish purge in 1988 killed an estimated 180,000

The Shia purge after GW1 in 1991 killed 35,000-60,000

The overall uprisings after GW1 (11 of 18 provinces, and about to work until we let Saddam fly his helicopter gunships...) resulted in an estimated 250K dead (the number that stuck with me)

Human Rights Watch estimates that SH Killed 225,000 in 24 years

The Occupation Authority (instituted after GW2) estimates 300,000-500,000 people were buried in mass graves while "some Iraquis" (Chalabi?) estimated the number at around 1 million

CBS News, Global Security and American Daily all seem to latch onto the number of 300,000 in 23 years in about 250 mass graves.

Generally speaking they end up with about 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed per year by Saddam. Thus I concluded that we are killing Iraqui civilians at a greater rate than Saddam did...

[Lexingtonian]

18. The best reply imho

It's a subjective point. The argument is about the facts of the future.

All you can do with the opposite p.o.v. is hold it to factual measurement- 'If the present puppet democracy fails and civil war breaks out, you lose; if it survives, okay, you win.'

[cestpaspossible]

19. America is a lot worse off today than we were before we invaded.

And that's more important to me than how Iraq is doing -- and I wouldn't agree that Iraq is better off either.

[StatGirl]

21. A lot of countries would be better off without their dictators. But . . .

. . . it wasn't worth $300 Billion of *my* retirement money.

(That argument should particularly appeal to the "it's my money, not the government's money" crowd.)

[calimary]

22. I'd show 'em this:

Iraqi police vent anger at US after car bombings. 10/05/2005. ABC News Online

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1364588.htm>
Last Update: Tuesday, May 10, 2005. 10:27pm (AEST)
Iraqi police vent anger at US after car bombings
Iraqi police hurled insults at US soldiers after two suicide car bomb blasts in Baghdad killed at least seven people and left 19 wounded, including policemen.
"It's all because you're here," a policeman shouted in Arabic at a group of US soldiers after the latest in a bloody wave of attacks that have rocked Baghdad this month.
"Get out of our country and there will be no more explosions," he told the uncomprehending Americans staring at the smouldering wreck of a car bomb.

The last line in this story is just sad:

45-year-old minibus driver Abdullah Jassim Mohammed said... (snip)

..."Since Americans invaded our country they have brought nothing but evil."
- AFP
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1364588.htm

Maybe the Iraqis are the ones to answer this question, not the self-satisfied, bush-worshipping limbaugh-lunkheads.

[StephanieMarie]

23. that the number of children with malnutrition has doubled

since we got there. They have less electricity, food, water, and freedom.

[Sugarbleus]

24. Oh really? In what way?...................n/t

[welshTerrier2]

25. I would say "I agree" ...

but this does not justify unilateral US military action ..
this does not justify falsifying the evidence and lying about WMD ...
this does not justify the disrespect shown by bush to the international community and the UN ...
this does not justify the support shown to Saddam by Reagan and Rumsfeld ...
this does not justify the torture of innocent Iraqis or any other Iraqis for that matter ...
this does not justify the lies tying Saddam to international terrorism ...
this does not justify the total destruction of Iraq's infrastructure by the US and the starving of its civilian population ...
and it does not justify the installation of permanent military bases, the construction of the largest US embassy in the world, and the permanent occupation of the country by the US military ...

Saddam really was a bad guy and perhaps through some sort of UN-directed coalition, removing him from power would have been justified ... but for the US to do it in the manner they did with only corporate objectives as the goal, unacceptable !!!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. Well Said, WT2!

[welshTerrier2]

33. thanks, Laura !!

we can do a very good job opposing the insanity of bush's occupation without having to condone Saddam's rule in Iraq ...

there are lots of bad guys in the world ... that doesn't mean the US should have a license to use them as an excuse to setup puppet governments ...

[Roland99]

27. With something like this:

Saddam was contained and couldn't do much beyond the no-fly zones (which covered a great amount of the country.)

The U.S. policy is still a move to regime change. That could have been achieved through diplomatic or internal (to Iraq) methods and by bringing in other Arab nations. However, this administration knew the only way to get a guaranteed pro-U.S. government in Iraq to give us easy access to more oil and have western companies come in and make a killing on rebuilding Iraq (instead of letting the Iraqis do it themselves) was to invade and occupy.

Yes, Saddam had done a lot of bad things in his time but much of it was done when he was an *ally* of the U.S. All actions from here on out will be retroactive as far back as is necessary with no regard to the U.S. complicity in those actions?

[Dr Fate]

28. Say- I agree- It should make it easier to find the WMDs too-RIGHT?

????

[Banner_Of_Songun]

29. Two hundred thousand dead later, it MUST be better /sarcasm

[newyawker99]

44. Hi Banner_Of_Songun!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Sparkly]

30. Ask whether BushCo's way was the *Only* way to remove Saddam.

Invading on false evidence, without support from key allies, without a plan for the aftermath, was the worst possible way to oust Saddam or curtail the threat he represented.

Rightwingers will then provide quotes from 1998 or earlier, as if nothing had happened between then and BushCo's invasion.

Remind them also that there are far greater threats and far worse tyrants than Saddam, and ask whether we should go around "liberating" others in the same way -- particularly since Saddam wasn't at the top of the list.

If people in the armed forces volunteer to die not to defend and protect America, but instead to make other countries "better," is it right to send them all over the world to kill and to die to improve things as we have (supposedly) in Iraq?

All of these points can be argued without even getting into long debates about whether Iraq is or isn't "better off."

[malmapus]

34. One of the best ones

People can't have democracy forced upon them, if they want it enough they will fight for it on their own.

[Zen Democrat]

35. Not for the 100,000+ Iraqis who've been killed since the invasion.

Or for the hundreds of thousands of others who are left without parents and children and brothers and sisters.

[R. A. Fuqua]

39. I personally am not convinced

that they are better off today--BUT even if they are--does that give Amerika the right to go around the world getting rid of any leader they don't like?

What if you don't like the Mexican or Canadian leader next? Or you going to go and over throw him?

It is simply wrong to go around imposing your will on the world--even if you ARE convinced that they will be "better off" (in your opinion).

[seabeyond]

40. use to be the fallback answer, i havent heard it in quite a while

though. i know none of my friends or family would seriously use this with me

[kenny blankenship]

41. Great! Go live there!

Why don't you marry Saddam-free Iraq since you love it so damn much!!!

Is that what you call love--whenever you step outside your protected firebase/compound twenty fucking carbombs explode in your face?

Is that what you call "better off"????

[Tactical Progressive]

42. Say: "And America would be better off without Bush today.

What's your point?"

The fact that Saddam and Bush are both bad for their countries may be a non-sequitor, but so what, right-wingers never respect anybody else with reason, so why should you. Just smash Bush when they say it.

[spindoctor]

43. Much better. Now they die as democratic citizens...

...so that we can be free.

[BeHereNow]

45. Whaddya say?

"Get your ass to Iraq and support our troops."
That's what I say.
BHN