More than 100 people have been killed in Iraq in apparent revenge attacks after the bombing of a key Shia shrine.
Could someone please explain to me why this is better than having Saddam in power?
I'm serious. Convince me that this is a better way of life for the people of Iraq and I will denouce my leftist political views, donate money to the Republican party and give Dick Cheney a big, wet, sloppy smooch in the mouth.
2006-02-23
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Nadir: This is a hard question for me to address. For one thing, this is not what we war supporters imagined happening. So are you asking to compare Hussein's Iraq to our invasion expectation, or the invasion reality? At the time of voting, we could only go by our expectation, which was a democratic Iraq with a liberal and observed constitution, and no capacity for Iraq to support international terror. The democracy hasn't fully materialized, but I believe that progress has occurred. Is it closer to happening now than it would have been had the US not invaded? If it ultimately happens, will the costs have been worth it? And of course the Iraqi state does lack the capacity to support international terrorism, at this point.
It may well turn out that this effort produces nothing more than a very costly and failed attempt to improve the world, and make democracies safe from external threats.
That's bullshit, Paul. George H.W. Bush predicted what would happen if Iraq was invaded and Saddam ousted. Several of the world's top generals and Iraq experts warned that this would be the result. You were exposed to most of the same news that I was.
Because you believed the administration's lies and distorted intelligence and (later) flowery words about spreading democracy doesn't mean you and the administration weren't told exactly what would happen.
So my question remains unanswered: is the current situation in Iraq better or worse than when Saddam was in power?
Can you honestly say that Saddam killing hundreds is worse than the U.S. military killing thousands and then rival factions within Iraq ripping the civilization apart?
Nadir: To answer your strictly worded question, No, the situation in Iraq is worse now in many areas than before in the same way that the situation in Tokyo, Berlin, and Atlanta were worse during the wars that led to their surviving residents living in freedom and prosperity (though of course Atlanta suffered a 100 year backslide). In some areas of Iraq, particularly the Kurdish area, things are better (though as Tom would point out, they were at better there to begin with). Most experts in 1860 believed that subduing the confederates would take just a few months and a few casulties. And D-Day was a huge failure, except they took the beach. Subsequently, many christian churches and other priceless historical structures got destroyed. Heussien imprisoned Iraq's civilization, and I admire Bush's attempt to liberate it. He may fail, but I am cheering for him. It took 600,000 deaths in 5 years to bring racial freedom to the US (north and south; the war led to ammendments of the US constitution). That's much more suffering (including by slaves, who experianced abject starvation) than would have occured without the godsend of the civil war.
Post a Comment