A post I made on a conservative board: re: Iraq better off?

[Lerkfish]

Here's what I posted:

------
Is Iraq actually better off since the premptive invasion?

We are coming dangerously close to exterminating as many Iraqis as Saddam, in a much shorter amount of time. There are estimates of nearly 300,000 dead Iraqis since the occupation.
Entire cities are flattened, the infrastructure is destroyed. Negroponte is avocating "death squads". Election officials are assasinated or resigning. Officials viewed as collaborating with the foreign occupation are executed. "free elections" becomes an oxymoron, when entire segments of the population boycott them.
Abu Ghraib was just the tip of the iceberg, and the lawyer who found the loophole to allow torture is the new Attorney General.
Our own military advisors are finally admitting the troop level is too thin: a draft precursor.
National Guard units are being forced to reenter the theatre above the previous service requirements, due to changing the rules on service. A back door draft is in full swing.
The number of "insurgents" outnumbers our troops on the ground, by our own estimates.

Bombs go off all the time, even in protected "green" zones. The foreign occupiers are unable to gaurantee the safety of even aid workers or civilian contractors, much less the average citizens.
The pentagon is pushing for more money, more than double of previous estimates, and is suggesting a mercenary solution to troop strengths.

So, a while back, at the time of the invasion, any critics of the invasion were told they were traitors and felt Iraq was better off with Saddam than with the US. Although it was originally a taunt from the right, it is proving to be close to the truth.

Is Iraq better off since the preemptive invasion? Do the conservatives on board STILL think so?
----------

it'll be interesting to see what they say, or the depths of their denial.

[eallen]

Frankly, it's too early to ask that question.

[King Coal]

2. And frankly, why is that?

[eallen]

9. It's changing too fast. No one knows what it will be like in two years.

I hope it is better. I don't expect it will be. Nonetheless, the instability of the current situation means we should be cautious in how we talk about our expectations. In my opinion.

[DrWeird]

12. There's a 100,000 more dead people

then there would have been under Saddam. That's not 100,000; that's 100,000 MORE dead.

It's too late to ask them.

[linazelle]

14. Why should "we" be cautious about "our" expectations?

All you have to do is look at what has actually happened from March '03 until now and the outcome is clear. Iraq is a quagmire, there is no win for us or for the Iraqis. There never will be.

[eallen]

16. Because we are more rational than they are....

Yeah, that sometimes puts us into a bit of a bind in political debate. They latch onto claims without evidence. We go where the evidence takes us, and when it takes us. They confidantly predict the future, again and again, even where there past predictions were all wrong. We are more cautious, not pretending to a foresight beyond our ken. They slash moral Gordian knots with simplistic notions of absolute Right and Wrong. We are nuanced, and oft see more than one side.

At least, that is how I see it. It's easy simply to gravitate to the opposite pole in every debate. But that doesn't make it the rational thing to do.

[Occulus]

3. conservatives around me have been declaring this for months

"Iraq is much better off. Would you rather have Saddam back in power?"

If conservatives are telling me this, it's definitely not too early to be asking it to them...

[Cats Against Frist]

4. It's always "too early" to ask any question

Frankly, if we purged all fundies, neocons and corporate worshippers, and had a responsible society of well-educated egalitarians and responsible consumers who took personal responsibility for themselves and their health and had pride in their society, we'd be better off than we are now, with the right-wing intellectuals and their little dogs the "freepers of mammon Jesus," the social darwinists and the Tory loyalists.

Anything could happen. But am I better off than I was in 1998? Fuck no. Is it too early to ask that question? Fuck no.

Someday we might all be invincible millionaire walking orgasms, but that doesn't mean the Iraqis don't have it pretty shitty, now -- and that thousands of innocent lives haven't been lost.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. invincible millionaire walking orgasms

My new aspiration in life. Thanks for that ;-)

[ConservativeDemocrat]

7. But it's not too early to ask if WE are better off...

The best way to phase it is this:

The most likely outcome in Iraq now is that it will become a Shiite dominated Islamic theocracy, much like Iran. Should th U.S. have spent nearly fifteen hundred U.S. soldiers deaths, ten thousand injured, and 200 Billion of 0our taxpayer dollars, to do this?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Lerkfish]

11. Sure, if you only care about americans and our political advantages...

but not the deaths of Iraqi citizens, invaded under false pretenses and slaughtered, if that holds no interest for you.

:grr:

[Jacobin]

15. hmmmm

Have you enlisted yet?

Which evil dictator would you like your fellow countrymen to go depose next? And, what will be the boogey man excuse for invading the next country?

[eallen]

18. That's a different question. I deplore the way Bush took us into Iraq...

The question was not whether Bush was justified in taking us to war in Iraq. Clearly, he was not. He trumped up a danger that was not imminent. He played a charade before the UN. He lied about the connection between Iraq and 9/11. He diverted US attention from Al Qaeda. His blatant dishonesty turned the world against us. He inadequately planned for the aftermath. It appalls me that the American people would reelect someone so dishonorable.

Does all that mean that the reconstruction will fail? No, it does not. It certainly lessens the odds. My expectations are not that positive at this point. My suspicion is that Iraq will either become a Shi'ite state, or erupt into even greater civil warfare. But that's just my suspicion. It's hard to tell at this point. Which is why I said it was too early to ask the question.

As I wrote above, it's easy to move to the polar opposite on every question, to leap from the despicable way in which the war was initiated to the conclusion that Iraq is therefore doomed. But the connection between that premise and conclusion is more argumentative than factual. History works in strange ways. Just because Bush acted badly doesn't mean that every consequence is damned. The world is not so simple.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissBrooks]

1. Where did you post this?

I would love to read the results myself!

[bobbyboucher]

5. Good one.

Read the results, hehehehehe. That's funny.

[Lerkfish]

10. well, so far, no conservative takers...

I posted it here:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=241285

I should note: this is a board I left in disgust a few times due to the personal attacks that repukes throw at dems. It got to be I only had to post ANYTHING and it would devolve into a ganging on of several repukes against me..telling me I had a tin foil hat, etc.

usually for suggestint the war in Iraq was a bad idea, and that neocons existed. Many repukes on that board would deny the existence of neocons vigorously, in spite of any evidence put forth to their existence.

perhaps because of that history, only liberals have responded in my thread thus far.
But if you want to laugh at repukes, read some other threads there....its a lot like freeperville.

[DireStrike]

13. I noticed this also... I cannot find rational hardcore conservatives.

The ad-hominem starts right away, as well as the attacks on "liberalism".

[Lerkfish]

17. yeah, it got too frustrating, so I came here...

I used to enjoy debating rational conservatives, but since Bush got elected, they have disappeared or mutated into repuke mouth breathers, so its impossible to discuss anything without waving asid the dross of attacks.

[oneold1-4u]

8. "A bit conservative" don't you think?

A really good post! Will add that we know that any nation led by a traitor to the citizenry, a dictator, deserves to be taken down but the important rule is to clean up your own house first! The US has been under some of the poorest management in the world for many years, and a thorough sweep with a big broom is imperative quickly!

[YIMA]

19. Ouch!

"Just dropping by as a courtesy to inform you a reply will probably NOT be forthcoming.

You need to grasp and understand the cold reality -liberals are no longer relevant, no longer party to debate, no longer requiring of acknowledgment...

It does not matter how right you are or think you are -it matters how effective you are. You are no longer seated at the table..."

Harsh reality, but definitely true. Why should they care what liberals think when they can do whatever they want?

:cry: