Is Baghdad really safer post-Saddam? Don't be ridiculous.

The strawman is the Bush administration line that things have to be better now, simply because Saddam's in prison.

Take a look at the facts: Baghdad has become what Beirut was a quarter-century ago and is sliding toward a Mogadishu-like point. I'm not sure anything can stop that slide now. And that slide can be traced directly to the Bush administration's unnecessary (and probably illegal) invasion of Iraq.

 

Proposition: The average Iraqi citizen is no better off today -- after three-plus years of American occupation -- than he or she was during 2002.


Care to refute?

 

I have a life. I also work. Sorry I can't be around on demand.

That said, I have one question: at what point do the Iraqi people, of all faiths and splinters of faiths, take responsibility for killing and maiming themselves? We removed a tyrant who was committing state-sponsored terrorism to the tune tens of thousands per year. The Iraqis have the right to not kill each other.

Maybe we underestimated this sectarian violence but it's hardly the fault of the U.S. if the citizenry of a nation is hell-bent on killing each other.

 

The average Iraqi citizen is not getting killed by his president/dictator. He is getting killed by other Iraqis. I presume they have a choice in the matter.

 

Interesting gambit, hondo, but I doubt the identity of one's killer matters much to the dead.

And the living have less water, less electricity and more shit blowing up more often.

This proposition really isn't that arguable, but an interesting discussion would be whether the average Iraqi was better off during the Iran war or during American occupation.

 

I guess the lesson here is to leave every murderous dictator in power, so the trains can run on time and the downtown areas of major cities can appear orderly.

 

"We" didn't. The "we are all-powerful and can do anything with impunity" faction of the government certainly did.

And the sad part is that there was already anecdotal evidence out there that this would happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/

Taking him out of power has been nothing short of failure. And the fact that they already should have known this would happen borders on criminal negligence.

 

And there is no power, clean water, etc. because the Iraqis won't cut the shit, put down their arms and try to maintain some semblance of living with each other. And every day they continue to carry our this Shiite vs. Sunni vs. Kurds carnage, they give more ammo to those who think Islam is a violent religion.

 

Well, that would be it if you were dtermined to make a logical leap the size of the Grand Canyon.

Or, you could address the fact that while Saddam was a brutal dictator, his brutality had little to nothing to do with our wishes to oust him. Ample evidence exists that millions and millions of people live under dictators as bad or worse than Saddam, and the US has not attempted regime change in those countries.

 

Burma, for example.

 

The red area equals the low and high estimates of the number of people who were killed during the reign of Saddam Hussein.

But I guess in some people's mind it can be argued that Hussein made Baghdad safe for CNN reporters (as long as they toed the company line)

UNICEF had a study that said that 5,000 children under the age of 5 were dying every month because of Saddam Hussein. I would go out on a limb and say that things are better for those kids.

 

Don't go out on a limb. Either show evidence backing up your point or shut the fuck up.

The red X is very nice, BTW.