I'll say it: Yes, it would be better if Saddam Hussein was still in power

[Zorra]

rather than the people of Iraq and the rest of world having to have experienced this botched, tragic attempt at world empire by the PNAC.

The unbelievable number of people that have been killed and maimed, the blood of innocent children that has been spilled, the mothers and families that will live with a lifetime of overwhelming grief, the financial costs, the environmental devastation, the evil, dangerous joke that our country has become in the eyes of the rest of the world...

No. In absolutely no way were these results worth removing Saddam Hussein from power in the manner that Commander Cuckoobananas and the PNAC chose to remove him.

They were wrong. Dead, devastatingly, tragically, crushingly wrong.

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US. Judging from the rapid destruction of his military by US forces, he was not a threat to his neighbors either. He had no WMD.

Obviously, President Clinton's policies concerning Iraq had worked. He had, in all reality, forced Saddam Hussein to disarm. Iraq had no WMD, and had fully and unconditionally agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq.

But Commander Cuckoobananas and the PNAC chose to ignore the truth, and the facts.

Based on the evidence of what we know now, it is clear that if a wiser, more intelligent, more diplomatic President than Bu*h (realistically, that could be just about anyone) had been Commander in Chief from 2001-2004, it is highly probable that Saddam Hussein could have been neutralized as a leader and human rights violator, or removed from power altogether through non-violent means, or other means based on the discretion of the Iraqi citizenry.

All the death, destruction, grief, and financial cost could have been avoided, and Saddam Hussein would be just as powerless as he is right at this moment.

Commander Cuckoobananas and the PNAC cabal invaded Iraq for reasons other than removing Saddam Hussein from power. They are liars, war criminals, and are, collectively, a genuine threat to all humanity.

That's a fact, based on their actions, and it would be pretty hard to prove otherwise.

(This post is basically a response to this question posed by the fascist war criminal, Paul Wolfowitz, made to the press yesterday: "Would you really prefer to have Saddam Hussein in power?" Wolfowitz responded when asked whether he had regrets about his role in the war.)

COMMANDER CUCKOOBANANAS, (ALIAS MR. DANGER)

[Sanity Claws]

1. I agree

I think all the people who died as a result of our invasion, the occupation and the resulting civil war would agree. So would all the women who have been raped, as would all the innocent people rounded up and placed in Abu Grahib and other places.

[Avalux]

2. How dare you speak the truth!

At least under Saddam, Iraq had stability and NO terrorists. But we'd better be careful with this, we might be called traitors for saying such things.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. I agree

We have the UDAY a Qusay boogie men comment daily from conservatives, but are they really worse than what we have done at Abu Graib? Are they worse than our indiscriminate bombing of weddings or opening fire at check points? Are they worse than the tens of thousands of innocents killed by us or the thousands upon thousands of birth defects in the future due to Depleted Uranium? Are they worse than the death squads we now appear to be operating?

[pie]

5. True. And our reign of terror is just beginning.

[Richard Steele]

10. Not to mention we have IMPRISONED more Iraqi's than Saddam did.

We took an orderly, modern dictatorship and turned it into another Somalia. Just like BushSenior and every SANE intelligence report predicted a decade ago.

The task of maintaining day-to-day social order is falling into the hands of local warlords; civil government is nothing but a useful pretense in many parts of the country.

We took a bad situation and made it worse.
Much, much worse.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Saddam was organized crime..the US occupation is disorganized crime

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Saddam was organized crime..the US occupation is disorganized crime

[Richard Steele]

17. Sadly, you summed it up well, NSMA!

And as any student of history knows:
"Organized Crime", if stable over 3 generations,
always evolves into something called "POLITICS"!

"DISorganized Crime", on the other hand, regards ANY stability as anathema.
Disorganized Crime, unchecked, ALWAYS DEvolves into utter chaos.

Sometimes, it POSES as 'Organized' until it gains control; but its extremist nature prohibits any consolidation of power, and its end is the same. (Khmer Rouge, anyone?)

The B*sh Cabal is identical to 'Disorganized Crime', only FASTER.

[AngryAmish]

4. We have done a great disservice to the noble people of Iraq.

They still have a few freedom fighters trying to regain their sovereignty.

[eissa]

6. I just spoke with a family of Christian Iraqis

who escaped and are now in the US. They (4 of them) all said that although life under Saddam was no bed of roses by any stretch of the imagination, it was certainly much better than the chaos that rules the country now. Said there was no religious strife under Saddam's dictatorship -- he seemed to keep the religious freaks in their place. And since Saddam killed everyone -- Sunni, Shia and Christian alike -- there was unity among the people because there were no "favored" groups (other than Saddam's Tikrit-based clan) as there is now with the Shias. That even during the darkest hours of war with Iran, they always had electricity, water, etc. Women didn't have to be veiled and people weren't jittery walking to the market, school, work, etc.

[Sandpiper]

7. I guess the question comes down to

Are Iraqis better off than they were 2 years ago?

No! No! A thousand times No!


100,000 Iraqis would still be alive but for our "liberation" of their country.

[noiretextatique]

8. but...but...but...he gassed his own people!!!!!!!!

surely, iraq was much a more stable and less dangerous country than before bush, inc wrought its version of "freedom and democracy" there.

[Fridays Child]

9. I hear you.

And I recognize that you didn't say it would be good if Saddam Hussein were still in power--only better. Better in terms of lives lost and blood shed. Better, too, in terms of Middle East instability worldwide terrorism.

As Ben Franklin observed, "there was never a good war or a bad peace."

[Zorra]

16. The thing is, the probability that Saddam Hussein would have been

neutralized or overthrown by other means without resorting to an invasion, is IMO very significant.

Let's face it, Bu*h and the PNAC are not only lacking in common sense and foresight, they are flat out dumb as a box of rocks, a fact which is obvious in light the mess that exists in Iraq at this time.

A wiser and more intelligent US Commander in Chief, Administration, and DOD would have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein without a military invasion.

Yes, from all appearances Saddam Hussein was definitely a creep, but in retrospect it would have been far better to proceed with non or less destructive policies to remove or neutralize him.

Even if Iraq is eventually stabilized, the overall astounding cost of this transformation in terms of blood, destruction and funding will always be a completely farcical and unnecessary expense, like paying a hundred million dollars for the exact same toilet seat that you could have bought for $11.99 on sale at Costco.

[uppityperson]

13. Agreed.

Yes life was hard there. Yes people were killed or imprisoned or both. Yes Saddam was an evil person. But Iraq and the entire WORLD were better off.

[LynnTheDem]

14. Agree.

Especially as the ICRC, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International all having repeatedly said there is NO "humanitarian intervention/human rights" justification for attacking Iraq.

Too bad even (I suspect) the majority of leftys didn't (don't) know the actual facts about Iraq, the people of Iraq, or the Hussein government.

If they had known the facts, bush would NEVER have been allowed to attack Iraq.

[fob]

15. If you were to say to me 5 years ago that in five years I had to pick

the lesser of 2 VERY GREAT EVILS running Iraq and the choices were Secular Dictator or Imperialist Religio-Nutjob*, I would have to take the Secular Dictator (Secular Dictator may get me dead, but the IR-N* would get us ALL dead!). Fast-forward to today and you can use actual names of saddam and bush* and unforunately the choice is the same.

[Mr.Green93]

18. There is a good chance

Saddam will be found innocent at trail and will be able to get his country back.

[geek tragedy]

64. Uh, I'd like some of what you're smoking. eom

[aneerkoinos]

19. Disagree

With the claim that Clinton did OK.

It was UN inspectors that disarmed Iraq, all Clinton did was compromise their integrity by infiltrating them with spies, withdrew the inspectors in 1998 before they could declare Iraq clear so that the inhuman sanctions against Iraqi people could go on, killing million people, and so that Clinton and Blair could bomb Iraq whenever they wanted, and that Iraqi people would stay dependent of Saddam's food rations.

Sanctions were wrong, Clinton and Albright were very very very wrong. A genocide is not OK.

[Zorra]

22. Good point.

Why would Clinton keep sanctions in place "so that the inhuman sanctions against Iraqi people could go on, killing million people, and so that Clinton and Blair could bomb Iraq whenever they wanted, and that Iraqi people would stay dependent of Saddam's food rations."

What reason could Clinton have for desiring this? Do you think it was part of some long term neoliberal globalist plan?

[eridani]

53. Jimmy Carter had the right idea

Lift sanctions except for weapons in exchange for a permanent weapons inspection presence

[LynnTheDem]

56. Abso-f*cking-lutely! That was not only the ideal and easy to implement,

it was PURE COMMON SENSE.

It was also what the world wanted. Guess the world didn't like watching all those children die.

[Terran]

20. Agreed

And you notice you almost never hear that argument from the war suporters anymore. I think we passed that threshold sometime last year, where things were clearly worse under US occupation than they ever were under Hussein. And *now*, hooboy!

[wildflower]

21. It depends on who you ask; many Kurdish people would disagree. n/t

[bpilgrim]

25. gotta link?

tia :toast:

peace

[wildflower]

30. You might like to try these to start:

www.kurdmedia.com
www.kurdistan.org

Also ask Kurdish refugees (there are many here in America). Also see books about the Kurdish people.

-wildflower

[LynnTheDem]

38. You might like to try this one;

Kurdistan Observer

For decades main Kurdish military-political groups, under the misleading title of parties, waged a self-destructing war against each other. It is not an exaggeration to state that this long fratricide cost the Kurds more lives than the murderous actions of Saddam, Turkey and Iran combined.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/2-6-04-opinion-zorab-sense-of-frustration.html

Or the fact that Talabani (one of the 2 main Kurd warlords) was Hussein's ally after 1991.

Or the fact that Barzani (the other of the 2 main Kurd warlords) was Hussein's ally against Talabani from 1996.

[wildflower]

40. Thank you. I would just ask that those of you posting links on this...

please talk to some Kurdish refugees in your area. They are in many cities across the country.

All I'm saying is many are glad that Saddam is gone. Because of the members of their families that were killed, and the threats to their own lives (which is why they are refugees here), they understandably feel better off without him in power.

-wildflower

[LynnTheDem]

42. And many who are STILL IN Iraq are not so glad Hussein is gone,

because life is now worse and many of their loved ones are dead.

The Kurds' worst enemy was the Kurds. Still is.

[funflower]

26. True, but we were able to protect the Kurds from Saddam's tyranny since

the end of the Gulf War. Will they fare better under a Shia-dominated government?

[LynnTheDem]

31. Some day the facts will overcome the bushit. Someday.

Both of the main Kurdish factions who fought each other for 3 decades in their "fratricide war", were allies of Hussein's; Kurd warlord Talabani (and current president of Iraq) from 1991-1996 and Kurd warlord Barzani from 1996, when he asked Saddam to help fight Barzani's #1 enemy, fellow Kurd Talabani.

Iraq's New President, Kurd Jalal Talabani: Ally of CIA, Iranian Intelligence and Saddam Hussein

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/07/1343226

The Fratricide War; Kurd versus Kurd

In 1994, war broke out between the two leading factions of the Kurdish people, Al-Barazani's KDP and Al-Talabani's PUK, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Kurdish fighters on both sides.

http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/laender/persischer_golf/irak_memri8_12_09_03.html

Kurdish Timeline of Kurds versus Kurds:

1970 A peace agreement is signed between the Iraqi government and the Kurds of northern Iraq, granting them some self-rule.

1975 Jalal Talabani, leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), leaves to found the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The two Kurdish groups begin decades of conflict. With each other.

1992 A large-scale Turkish military operation attacks PKK bases in Iraq, where Kurdish safe havens had been allowed to develop by international forces after the Persian Gulf War.

-(Just thought I'd point out who else was killing Kurds back then)

1994 The two main political groups of the Iraqi Kurds, the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), led by Masoud Barzani (his father and grandfather were legendary Kurdish freedom fighters), and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), headed by Jalal Talabani, begin fighting each other for control of the Kurdish autonomous region.

1995 In a military operation similar to the one in 1992, about 35,000 Turkish troops invade PKK bases in Iraq.

-{When do we invade and occupy Turkey?)

1998 The PUK's Talabani and the KDP's Barzani sign a peace agreement, ending the four-year war between rival Iraqi Kurd factions.

2002 The Iraqi Kurdish regional parliament meets for the first time in six years, indicating a real sign of unity between Iraqi Kurdish factions since the 1994–1998 war.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kurds3.html

And both main Kurdish factions are still going after each other;

KDP and PUK supporters clash following Talabani’s election
April 16, 2005

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2005/4/independentstate148.htm

[Tinoire]

33. Haha! Look at post 23

;)

[LynnTheDem]

39. OMG!!! The Truth outed!

:D

[funflower]

49. Wow. It's going to take me a while to get through all of that. Thanks.

[wildflower]

32. That I worry about.

I hope for their sake that they do.

-wildflower

[Tinoire]

29. That's all war Propaganda/Apologetics

On the "Hussein = mass murdering monster" rhetoric only; the "WMD", "ties to 911", and "ties to al Qaeda" have been thoroughly debunked by everyone on the planet already (except for the die-hard rightwing idiots) and have been well-documented as being known by most the world before bush's attack on Iraq.

-Who's killed the most Kurds?

The Kurds.
More Kurds have killed Kurds than the number killed by Turkey, Iran, and Hussein combined, during their 3 decades long "fratricide" war.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/2-6-04-opinion-zorab-sense-of-frustration.html

-Who made a surprise appearance in 1991 on Baghdad TV to hug and kiss Saddam Hussein?

Kurdish warlord and current Iraqi president Talabani. And this was long after the "gassed his own people", after Gulf War 1, after the uprisings in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4506507.stm

-Who danced & cheered in celebrations after Talabani hugged & kissed Saddam Hussein in 1991?

The Kurds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4506507.stm

-Who asked Hussein for help in 1996 to fight against Kurdish warlord Talabani and his Kurds?

Kurd and warlord Barzani.
http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2005/4/independentstate130.htm

-During the Iran-Iraq war, Halabjah was attacked with blood agent gas; how many Kurd deaths were originally reported until the number was increased several years later right before Desert Storm?

"several hundred".

http://againstbombing.org/chemical.htm

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html ***excellent***

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0788162098/mmn-20

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

The CIA's website still lists "hundreds", not thousands or tens of thousands, and as being "caught in cross-fire between Iranians and Iraqi forces". We call that "collateral damage".
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

-When doctors sent by France, the United Nations and the Red Cross examined gassed Kurdish refugees in Turkey, what symptoms did the doctors say were exhibited?

Non-lethal tear gas.
http://www.polyconomics.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1967

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

-What city presented Hussein with the Key to the City in 1979?

Detroit, USA.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546287.shtml

-What nation won Humanitarian Awards for its literacy programs?

Iraq. Under Hussein's government.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change

-What nation had the highest number of citizens with PhDs on the world? And had more PhDs than America?

Iraq. Under Hussein's government.
http://www.bronxmall.com/norwoodnews/past/013003/opinion/page2.html

-Which nation was using much its burgeoning oil revenue to improve the daily lives of its people?

Iraq. Under Hussein's government.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change

-What did the rebels do in their 1991 uprising?

Slaughtered thousands of Iraqis.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

-What did the Hussein government do about the rebel uprising?

Slaughtered thousands of Iraqis.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

-Where did the figure of "300,000" originate as the number of Iraqis "killed by Hussein"?

The figure (originally 200,000-250,000 over 30 years) was an estimate of an estimate of a "general international concensus" the HRW used as an estimate for the number of Iraqis unaccounted for, ‘many of whom are believed to have been killed’— and not for the number buried in mass graves.

Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: 'Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

HRW itself refuses to use its figure of 290,000 as an estimate for the number of bodies in mass graves.

To date, aproximately 5000 remains have been found, dating from the 1991 rebel uprisings.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

-Who "mass-graved" thousands of Iraqis by bulldozing over them?

US forces in 1991.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=45

-What nation defended this atrocity by saying a gap in international law allowed for burying Iraqis alive?

The USA.
http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm

-Saddam Hussein and his "woodchipper people-shredder"?

Long-time Iraq war supporter Ann Clwyd came up with this sequel to the "incubator babies" lie. Clwyd said; "We heard it from a victim; we heard it and we believed it."

One unidentified, unverified source; one person. That's her entire "proof".

Clwyd insists that corroboration of the shredder story came when she was shown a dossier by a reporter from Fox TV. On June 18, Clwyd wrote a second article for the Times, citing a "record book" from Abu Ghraib, which described one of the methods of execution as "mincing".

-Can she say who compiled this book?
"No, I can't."

-Where is it now?
"I don't know."

-What was the name of the Fox reporter who showed it to her?
"I have no idea."

-Did Clwyd read the entire thing?
"No, it was in Arabic! I only saw it briefly."

Curiously, there is no mention of the book or of "mincing" as a method of execution on the Fox News website, nor does its foreign editor recall it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1155399,00.html

-What actual claims of human rights violations were made against Hussein's government in 2002?

-death penalty
-long (2 years) detentions without trials
-"some apparently tortured first"
-arbitrary arrests
-forced expulsion of Kurds from Kirkuk

http://hrw.org/wr2k2/mena4.html

-Who said attacking Iraq cannot be justified as a "humanitarian intervention"?

Human Rights Watch
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140092002?open&of=ENG-IRQ

-What kind of torture did Hussein's son Odai perpetrate on Iraq's soccer team that war supporters often point to as justification for attacking Iraq?

Torture such as electric cables being attached to their bodies. (Oops, sorry, that's just frat-house party games.)

A missed penalty or other poor play entailed a ritual head shaving at the Stadium of the People, or being spat on by Uday's bodyguards.

Some players endured long periods in a military prison, beaten on their backs with electric cables until blood flowed.

Other punishments included "matches" kicking concrete balls around the prison yard in 130-degree heat, and 12-hour sessions of push-ups, sprints and other fitness drills, wearing heavy military fatigues and boots.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:puQH7yiyeg8J:www.iht.com/articles/95606.htm+A+missed+penalty+or+other+poor+play+entailed+a+ritual+head+shaving+at+the+Stadium+of+the+People,+or+being+spat+on+by+Uday%27s+bodyguards&hl=en&start=5

Maad Ibrahim Hameed, the assistant coach of the national team, said Odai had offered money as a bonus for winning and threatened prison for losing. "But it was only talk," he said. "They weren't tortured. Some were sentenced to jail if they didn't behave responsibly. But they all came back to play."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/07/MN175617.DTL

-How do the Iraq soccer team members feel now about bush's invasion?

Iraqi Olympic Soccer Teams Gives Bush the Boot
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0820-11.htm

"Bleeding-heart liberals" would have a hard time making a case for invading a nation and "shock & awe" bombing the crap out of them, let alone "tough" republicans.

Maybe that's why the vast majority of Americans DID say there's no "humanitarian" justification for attacking Iraq;

--Only 27 percent of respondents said they think that countries have the right, without UN approval, to overthrow another government that is committing "substantial violations of its citizens' human rights," although another 41 percent said that intervention could be justified if the violations were "large-scale, extreme and equivalent to genocide."

--In the case of Iraq, however, only 32 percent of respondents believed both that human rights abuses equivalent to genocide justified intervention and that such extreme violations were occurring under Hussein's rule. Asked, "Do you think that there are other governments existing today that have human rights records as bad as that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein?" an overwhelming 88 percent said there are.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-06.htm

Now that the shite's hit the fan on bush's "WMD" and "Iraq in bed with al Qaeda" lies and his "Iraq did 911" insinuations, and about to hit the fan on his lies proven by the Downing Street official minutes, the "Murdering Butcher of Baghdad" bullshit is bound to appear all over the "librul" media.

And like the "WMD, "ties to al Qaeda" and "ties to 911", it is bullshit.

Thanks for putting together all this information LynnTheDem!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3780745#3780745

[bpilgrim]

34. thanks for sharing, sounds like some Kurds might not agree, either

folks spout their opinions like they spent their lives as a pollster in whatever country provides an excuse for WAR and EMPIRE.

at this point there should be no-one on DU but NEWBIES who don't see how much WORSE thing's are now for the WORLD but especially IRAQ.

DU edu is making me the smartest dude on the block ;-)

Thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs ;->

:hi:

peace

[Tinoire]

46. That's so true

When I first came to DU, I was happily adoring Clinton, had no idea what the DLC was, had no idea to which depths the bipartisan corruption went...

It took less than 3 months of reading sourced posts, day in and day out to realize what a terrific job of whitewashing the media was doing and about that same amount of time to realize that the media was protecting BOTH the Democratic and the Republican politicians. It was all lies, spin and more lies!

DU made me... ugh... smart too :) A little education is a dangerous thing!

:hi:

[funflower]

50. Egads! Why did you have time to collect all of this? Very impressive!

[Tinoire]

54. Not me lol

That was all done by LynnTheDem and I. am. pea. green with. envy.!!! I just re-pasted it.

That was such an impressive post I saved it, formatted, onto my hard drive to reference over and over again!

If I have the energy, I'll dig up all the links I have that can supplement Lynn's information. Yes sir, yes ma'am, pea. green with. envy.! Egads indeed :)

[Tinoire]

23. Totally agree

with the caveat aneerkoinos brought up in post 19.

It's a damn shame isn't it?

We tried. We really tried...

[bpilgrim]

24. It's TRUE by any objective assessment of the BEFORE & AFTER states

thats how FUCKED UP these neoCONs are :puke:

peace

[Just Me]

27. Describe Iraq 6 months before the US corporacratic invasion,...

,...compared to what it is today. Compare the United States 6 months before the US corporacratic invasion of Iraq,...to what it is today.

Who benefitted from the US corporacratic invasion of Iraq?

The Iraqi people? NOOOOOOOO.

The American people? NOOOOOO

The US corporacratic regime that possesses the executive branch of the US government? YEEESSSSSS!!!!

[Tinoire]

28. You sound bitter

Lol... :hi:

[LynnTheDem]

35. You're not the first or only one saying so. Iraqis say so too.

May 19, 2005

Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6103

[ConsAreLiars]

55. More links to Iraqi views on this comparison

are found at the bottom of the page where that article first appeared: http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1816

The full UN report is at: http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm

(edit typo)

[Zorra]

60. Gosh, so many Iraqis seem ungrateful for the "humanitarian intervention"

that killed their babies.

Researchers determined that some 24,000 Iraqis died as a result of the US-led invasion in 2003 and the first year of occupation. Children below the age of 18 comprised 12 percent of those deaths, according to survey data.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6103

[babylonsister]

36. Thanks Zorra. That says it in a nutshell-nominated. nt

[July]

37. IMO, it would certainly be better for us as a nation.

But that question never came up in the juggernaut for war.

[LuPeRcALiO]

41. many would strongly disagree with you

and they all live in Iran.

[LynnTheDem]

43. Now THAT'S a damn fine point.

Ain't it just so like bush to achieve the very last thing he actually wanted to have happen. In other words, once a total f*ck up, always a total f*ck up.

[MzShellG]

44. Agreed

The notion that they wanted to liberate the Iraqis from a cruel dictatorship is BS. If the world is so much better off without Saddam, then what's the logic behind not going after all the OTHER dictators of the world, to liberate their victims as well. The bottom line is, as always, hypocracy.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Zorra]

47. By pulling out of Iraq ASAP, letting the Iraqi people pick up the pieces,

let Iraqis form their own government at their own discretion, and by financing the reconstruction of Iraq unconditionally, without interference from any outside corporate or state entities unless specifically requested by an Iraqi government recognized as legitimate by a clear majority of the Iraqi people.

[DistressedAmerican]

48. Kick And Nomination!

Great Post! Tell It!!!

[agincourt]

51. What amazes me,

is how in some areas we could do actually worse. I mean really, how do you do it worse than Saddam Hussein? Takes a lot of inspiration and effort I guess, and GWB is the nutsack for the job.

[Turn CO Blue]

52. Wow. Just wow. To see it written out like that...

was actually refreshing, and it made me laugh outloud!

I am so sick of all those Chimp-voters still desperately struggling to maintain their moral ground (while being bombarded with megatons of daily evidence) -- and so, in a sophomoric attempt at debate will state petulantly, "But, but... the world is better off without Saddam in power!" I just want to say, "Oh it is, is it? How so, exactly, dimwit?"

[mike_c]

57. ding ding ding-- we have a winner....

Yes, both Iraq and the world were better off with Saddam Hussein in office.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[AngryOldDem]

59. Agreed

You sound like you are expecting flames. No flames here.

Containment, which had been working reasonably well, could have continued to work. Instead, we're ass-deep in carnage with no way out.

Good job, George! :thumbsdown:

[number6]

61. ordinarily we could say the world was better off ....

without Saddam, however Bush and Rummy foolio screwed it
up so bad that there was actually more order and things
worked better under Saddamy

[Radical Activist]

62. Americans killed by Iraqis before the war: zero

Americans killed by Iraqis after the war: Over 1,600.

I know which I like better.

[Bouncy Ball]

63. Five years ago I would have been shocked to read this.

Now I just nod my head.

PNAC is sick and evil and has wrought far worse than they claim to have "cured."

:puke:

[Vladimir]

65. I prefer to phrase this slightly differently

It would be better if the invasion of 2003 had never taken place and sanctions on Iraq had been lifted. Hopefully, the Iraqis would have then taken care of whatever needed taking care of, in the manner in which most dictatorships eventually end...

PS Clinton's policies had most certainly not 'worked' in any meaningful sense of the word - the sanctions lead to the deaths of a huge number of innocent Iraqis. It was, IMO, a despicable and unsupportable policy.

[Cats Against Frist]

66. It really boggles the mind

I haven't thought much about the invasion, for a while, because all of my energy is wrapped up in kicking the ass of the religious whackjob right.

However, the logical dead ends that one must erect in one's brain to support this war, is astounding, and, is, to me, inescapable proof that the followers of PNAC/BUSH/Big Oil are just as fucking crazy as the "Jesus loves the rich" crowd.

It is connected to the religious right, however, because it has become OK in public circles (take the NRO, for example) to actually trash Islam. What's happened, in effect is that the longstanding feud between the Jews and the Muslims has come home to roost. The Israel Sympathizing Neocons -- PNAC -- are the philosopher kings, the noble liars -- the intellectual right wing, and they have the psychology of Joe Bob Fucking SUV Money Christ Idiot mapped out like an oilfield. From his fears, to his hatreds; from his feelings of powerlessness, to what he will do to make himself feel powerful. They've been able to re-direct homegrown, post-reconstruction racism, into hating not only the black and the hispanic, but the muslim, now, as well.

There is a great converging, conflation and condensing of hate ideologies, right now -- and let's face it. THAT is where Iraq war support comes from. Hate joining up with hate. Fear joining up with fear. Powerlessness joining up with powerlessness.

Ignorance subverting all. Moral compasses stoping at the border. Hypocrisy. Empire. History's actors.

A blastocyst should be protected at all cost. An Iraqi child is "collateral damage."

We must liberate Iraqis (and give them nationalized health care), but we cannot take care of our own children and veterans, at home.

We must stop Islamic Fundamentalism, while the war cries of Israel and Christian fear suck up our tax dollars, decimate our Constitution and vacuum out our respect and pride, as a world leader.

We are tortures. We are occupiers. The "culture of life" ends where brown skin or another country begins.

They can spin it however they want. I heard Newt Gingrich on MTP, a while back, say, flat out, that this war was because of oil and military strategy.

The freeper, in his heart, knows this, too. The freeper, in his heart knows that his existence is nothing more than animalistic ripping and clawing for his own piece of survival. For his own continuation. But yet he wraps himself in the flag, and pays lip service to the Enlightenment ideals: "freedom." "liberty." When he knows that all he wants is freedom to take, and liberty to take and equality amongst his own. These are the real traitors of America. The people who hold up Empire. The people who OK religious fucking retardedness as a governing strategy, betraying the Constitution. Betraying reason. Swallowing the dogshit off of the boot on his own back.

What war supporters don't understand is that that the moral relativism that makes the moral compass stop at the border, also doesn't stop at the skin of your lap dog supporters. You will be told anything to garner your vote. You will be lied to -- and this will be excused by the ivory tower of the right. And if you stood in the way of the pipeline, or the strategy, you'd be as dead as any "rag head." At least, you'd be "deader."

Because, to me, the people who blindly support this war, or are too stunted, too proud to admit that they DO know it, deep down, are already dead.

Saddam in power was not a good thing. It is getting to the point, though, that, at least for Iraq, his rule was the lesser of two evils.

It's very sad.