Life is better for Iraqi's. So stfu.

[jonnykill]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

[alex_de_large]

Hmmmm... interesting article. While I agree with you 100% that most Iraqi's do probably agree that their life is better today then it was under Saadam's regime there are still a few concerns I have with the war in Iraq.

Firstly, history has shown time and time again that when a country is changed because of foreign intervention the changes seem to be short lived. Instead of the U.S cleaning things out I believe that a far more effective and long lasting initiative would have just been to simply wait for a revolution by the people. Once the revolution occured, THEN I would say it would be appropriate for the U.S to lend assistance such as funds and weapons. This would help shape a strong national identity for a new Iraq founded upon principles by the Iraqi people. It would be as significant for Iraq as the American revolution was for the USA. Every nation needs a pivotal point in history like this.

Secondly, Sadaam was largely assisted by the US in his rise to power so the whole problem would not have existed if foreign intervention had not occured in the first place. I believe this just goes to show that isolationist policies and tight homeland security are the best methods for terrorist prevention. Whether you agree or disagree with Israel's right to exist in the heartland of muslim territory it is hard to deny that if the U.S had simply not taken a stand there would be less terrorism targeted towards America today.

[Fish_Bone]

If what I'm hearing about Iraqis moving out of the country or neighborhoods that are now full-blown war zones is true, then yes, I'd imagine life is better for them.

[Crazed Ronin]

Well now instead of worrying about Saddam's goons taking you away in the dark of night you can worry about a bomb blowing you up at any time. Of course you are just as dead either way.

[Quick_Draw21]

except now they can die for no reason and before Saddam would only attack those who threatened his rule...Not saying its right though.

[MooCowzRock]

The problem really is just Bagdad...Thats where our soldiers are, thats where the bulk of the police and government is, so that is just the problem area...

[JaneEyre]

I can see how that interview went.

This Iraqi is walking down the street....having lived through war after war, then Sadaam's rule. And here comes what he/she has been taught is Satan, the Westerner, (with military escort of course) and they say "So, is your life better now that we are here?"

Yeah. Of course the answer is yes. One thing years with Sadaam has taught them, the answer is always "yes"

[Shameonyou]

Hmmmm... interesting article. While I agree with you 100% that most Iraqi's do probably agree that their life is better today then it was under Saadam's regime there are still a few concerns I have with the war in Iraq.

Firstly, history has shown time and time again that when a country is changed because of foreign intervention the changes seem to be short lived. Instead of the U.S cleaning things out I believe that a far more effective and long lasting initiative would have just been to simply wait for a revolution by the people. Once the revolution occured, THEN I would say it would be appropriate for the U.S to lend assistance such as funds and weapons. This would help shape a strong national identity for a new Iraq founded upon principles by the Iraqi people. It would be as significant for Iraq as the American revolution was for the USA. Every nation needs a pivotal point in history like this.

Secondly, Sadaam was largely assisted by the US in his rise to power so the whole problem would not have existed if foreign intervention had not occured in the first place. I believe this just goes to show that isolationist policies and tight homeland security are the best methods for terrorist prevention. Whether you agree or disagree with Israel's right to exist in the heartland of muslim territory it is hard to deny that if the U.S had simply not taken a stand there would be less terrorism targeted towards America today.

"History has shown time and time again that when a country is changed because of foreign intervention the changes seem to be short lived"

Right, be sure to tell that to the whole of Europe, Japan, and South Korea i'm sure they will be interested while they are playing world of warcraft on thier 5000 dollar computers.

[csite]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Everyone knows the iraq war is a failed war and 5,000 iraqis don't make up the whole of iraq. Iraq is a diverse country with diverse opinions, a poll could give you a complete different result in one part of baghdad compared to another part. This poll doesn't paint a true picture of iraq.

[bergshadow]

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. Reductio ad absurdum: there's something badly wrong with that survey, or the reporting of its results.

No one - no sane and informed person, anyway - believes the military operations now underway will disarm the Kurdish militias, the Shia militias, AQ, or all of the Sunni militias. Iraqis are an armed people, and will be after the military operations now underway are yesterday's news.

There are thousands of weapons caches unguarded, unknown, etc, in Iraq. The Saudis will not allow the Sunni to be disarmed (or AQ), the Shia have access to American weapons and training, the Kurds have apparently cut an informal deal allowing them to keep their weapons and do some ethnic cleansing as long as they don't kill American soldiers, etc.

The problem really is just Bagdad...Thats where our soldiers are, thats where the bulk of the police and government is, so that is just the problem area... Even if "Baghdad" is expanded to all its outlying regions, and defined to include a third of the population of Iraq, it still doesn't include Kirkuk, Karbala, Diyala, Al Anbar, etc.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-09-voa52.cfm

[American Infidel]

Everyone knows the iraq war is a failed war and 5,000 iraqis don't make up the whole of iraq. Iraq is a diverse country with diverse opinions, a poll could give you a complete different result in one part of baghdad compared to another part. This poll doesn't paint a true picture of iraq.

If I didn't know by your IP address that you were posting from the UK, I'd swear to God that you're one of Nancy Pelosi's sockpuppets!!!

[alex_de_large]

"History has shown time and time again that when a country is changed because of foreign intervention the changes seem to be short lived"

Right, be sure to tell that to the whole of Europe, Japan, and South Korea i'm sure they will be interested while they are playing world of warcraft on thier 5000 dollar computers.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this statement. European countries and Japan had their shit settled long before WWII. All I'm saying is that a country can't just come in an fix everything. You have to let the civil wars play out first before you can do anything. As for Korea, half the country wanted communism half did not. The U.S picked a side for two reasons. 1. there was the threat of the russians and 2. they wanted to establish a military presence in E. Asia region which they still have today. Unification of Korea would mean their troops would have to leave.

[bergshadow]

I found a link to the survey itself: http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/FINALTables.pdf

If we look at the unspun data, rather than Murdoch press headlines, things look a bit different. We find, for example, that less than half of all Iraqis surveyed - even in the current polling climate - are willing to say that the current situation is better than the rule of the tyrant Saddam after ten years of economic blockade. Conditions bad enough to have killed a half a million children and malnourish many of the rest, under the rule of an increasingly unstable abd famously vicious tyrant, were not definitely worse {edited for sense} than this.

We find that most Iraqis think the security situation will improve as soon as the US withdraws.

We find that a very significant proportion of the Iraqis in some areas firmly believe the "surge" is a pretext for preparing an attack on Iran.

Some Iraqis want the current government arrangement - a united Iraq under one central government. Some prefer a federation of fairly independent States, with only a coordinating or advisory central government.

We then find some interesting correlations. The Iraqis who prefer the current situation to life under Saddam are the ones most likely to prefer a loose federation ratherr than a united country.

The ones believing the surge is preparation for attack on Iran, and the ones who most certainly believe the security will improve as soon as the US leaves, are the ones favoring a united Iraq. {edited for sense. I was asleep on my feet}.

So who, in Iraq, is a dependable ally of the US? We want a united Iraq, allied with us, that welcomes US military bases and oil commerce. That is a very rare combination of preferences, according to this survey.

[avix123]

except now they can die for no reason and before Saddam would only attack those who threatened his rule...Not saying its right though.

It is a paradox. Reading on wikipedia v2.0 I can see that is accurate.
sarcasm for those that cant tell

http://www.conservapedia.com/Saddam_Hussein

[Karly]

well since I believe everything I read..............

[chalupa]

Yeah -- way more people died under Saddam than since the start of the US invasion...oh wait.

Well, at least you now can be sure that you won't disappear when you go outside...oh wait.

The economy is better now...oh wait.

At least now you are free to worship however you want...oh wait.

Well, only Baghdad is having violence...oh wait (massive explosions in Kirkuk today).

Well, at least a thousand years of sectarian hatred no longer boils up...oh wait. Oh wait! You're telling me there wasn't a low-level guerilla style sectarian-based war going on under Saddam??


Look, people, you'd be dumb to think it is any better now than it was under Saddam. Here's the problem -- we got rid of Saddam and HAD NO PLAN FOR HOW TO PROCEED. It COULD have been better, but the blind hubris of this Administration led directly to the current situation. They thought we'd be greeted as liberators and Iraqis would just become good little American clones.

Unfuckingbelievable how they thought that. We missed a golden opportunity to rebuild a country over there in our own image. Now we have a ridiculous mess on our hands. I'm not saying go back to Saddam, but you don't just replace a tyrant with a democratically elected govt! You need order, infrastructure, and committed, loyal, NOT CORRUPT people involved. We haven't supplied any of that.

So, on the whole, for the average Iraqi, Saddam's rule provided stability, relative to the situation today. Anyone who claims otherwise is just burying their head in the sand and ignoring the reality of the situation.

We need to admit that currently our plan is fucked over there, and we have to solve this ASAP, so THAT IRAQ WILL BE BETTER OFF THAN WHEN IT WAS UNDER SADDAM'S RULE. We are not there now.

[bergshadow]

Here's the problem -- we got rid of Saddam and HAD NO PLAN FOR HOW TO PROCEED. Minor qualification: there was a definite plan for how to proceeed. It was based on the political assumptions and theories of the Neo-con intellectual elite that has been dominating US right wing politics for some time now. Bremer's actions were not planless - they were orchestrated according to Neo-con theory and carried out in obediance to carefully considered policy.

Leo Strauss is the intellectual godfather of the US occupation of Iraq - right down to the concealment by the elite of their motives and plans, and the justification of "necessary" action by lies and deceits.

The plan was worthless, of course - but only from an ordinary decent human being's point of view. You can't deny that the organizers and justifiers and enablers of the Iraq invasion have profited enormously - their plan has worked quite well, for them. They didn't get the corporate paradise they hoped for, in Iraq, but one can't expect everything to work out perfectly.

[anti-liberal]

Under Saddam, the Iraqis had stability, but no hope of a future.

Under the current gov't, there is at least a chance, albeit a small one, of a prosperous future for the people of Iraq.

[bergshadow]

Under Saddam, the Iraqis had stability, but no hope of a future.

Under the current gov't, there is at least a chance, albeit a small one, of a prosperous future for the people of Iraq. This, that we are seeing, was the downside of what hope there was under Saddam.

Except for the Kurds, maybe. If they can keep Kirkuk, and cleanse the Turkmen etc, and things will be looking up for them - if the Turks themselves can be held off, as well as the Shia, Iranians, Syrians, etc.

And, true, there is the chance that after the US is booted some better future awaits, even for the Fallujans. But when will that be?

[chalupa]

yeah berg -- there WAS a plan, and it sucked. too bad, eh?

Turns out ol GW was right in his first election campaign when he said, "We a not a people of nation-builders" in critique of the Dems' Balkan involvement and foreign policy strategies.

He proved that while we are not nation-builders, we are certainly good at destroying them.

Sad thing about all this is that I am having a tough time seeing the hope any more. I've always been proud of our military and our country's ability, but I feel like we were steered so badly off-course on this one that there is no real solution.

check that, there IS a real solution, and it would involved about half a million occupation troops operating a country under martial law, and costing us prolly a trillion more dollars.

too bad.

At least the price of my gasoline came down...oh wait. At least the profits at Exxon went up.

[bergshadow]

Another poll heard from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031900421.html Apparently most Iraqis think things have been getting worse since 2005.

Number of most concern: 51% now think violence against American soldiers - by other people - is justified. A majority. Up from 17% in 2004.

Number of second most concern: 43% think a united, centrally governed Iraq will emerge from this. A minority.

[NYG 5]

hmmmm lets see


order in the streets

or back and forth death squad invasions


hmmmmmm:idea:

[Kazimierz]

Life is better for Iraqi's.

Did anyone send the Iraqis this memo? Because i don't think they got it.

And we sure as shit didn't pay 500 billion fucking dollars to make life better for Iraqis.

[The Machine]

WHO CARES if life is better for iraqis. We went to war for SELF DEFENSE! Not bloody sympathy. They were supposed to have WMDs and we were going to stop terrorism. If we wanted to help people we'd give food to the fucking starving people in sudan. America doesn't give a shit about iraq's well being. Don't make it seem like "we were right all along". This wasn't our goal and we failed, gg.

[Nocturnal]

I've never heard of the source agency for that poll.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/03/20/poll_finds_residents_pessimism_growing/

This one makes a bit more sense, and has a history of past polls that can be used to compare accuracy.

The number of Iraqis who say their own life is going well has dipped from 71 percent in November 2005 to 39 percent now.

Only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops, and 86 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be a victim of violence.

Slightly more than half of Iraqis, 51 percent, now say that violence against US forces is acceptable -- up from 17 percent who felt that way in early 2004.
More than 9 in 10 Sunni Arabs in Iraq now feel this way.




Fewer than half in the country, 42 percent, said that life in Iraq now is better than it was under Saddam Hussein, the late dictator accused of murdering tens of thousands during a brutal regime.

STFU indeed

[chalupa]

I think the saddest part of all of this is that the neo-cons truly believed Saddam was a greater threat than Al Qaeda. This wasn't a conspiracy, this was stupidity.

[Chewy]

so if thing are going so swimmingly... why are Iraqis still fleeing their country?

[pers]

isn't there still daily curfews in iraq? I know there is still water shortage and power cuts. Funny, under saddam iraq was producing more oil than it is after saddam's regime fell to the two most advanced oil producers (britain and america)

There is plenty of foreign investment coming in, loans and some aid, but noone knows where this money is going.

I wonder how much people like noori almaliki have in their swiss bank accounts.

And to think America wanted Iraq to become an idol of democracy in the middle east. I'm sure every middle eastern country hopes to be like iraq now :rolleyes:

[StCyril]

Everyone knows the iraq war is a failed war and 5,000 iraqis don't make up the whole of iraq. Iraq is a diverse country with diverse opinions, a poll could give you a complete different result in one part of baghdad compared to another part. This poll doesn't paint a true picture of iraq.

Niether do you. The simple fact is that the ONLY footage you see about the War in Iraq is the stuff that comes out of Baghdad. Before the war, the entire country lived in fear of Saddam's "goons." I have a friend in the Marines over there as we speak. The letters he's sent me told me about how most of the other cities and residences that they have travelled to welcomed the United States soldiers and cheered them coming in.

These people are living much better lives since the American Soldiers got there. Lets say we pull out tomorrow, the insurgeants take over and put another Saddam in power (probably will happen). Next thing we know, the slaughter of innocent civilians IN THE MILLIONS will have people like you going to the capital of your chosen country and screaming for human rights and Armed invasion. Then when you get it, things will start going bad again and you'll be criticising the United States and her allies to pull out... and the vicious cycle continues...

My point: STFU, lets finish what we started, at least give the country a fighting chance, and then we'll pull out and hope for the best.

[bergshadow]

Lets say we pull out tomorrow, the insurgeants take over and put another Saddam in power (probably will happen). Hardly likely. The secular forces in Iraq are among the comparatively weakest, and neither the Shia, Sunni, or Kurds look strong enough to dominate the other two.

Another Saddam is far more likely from some effort by the US to install another strongman ruler - as Chalabi was supposed to be. And even then he would not have the control Saddam had, whne all the army was his.
Niether do you. The simple fact is that the ONLY footage you see about the War in Iraq is the stuff that comes out of Baghdad. So ignore all footage, and go by the numbers:

the Kurds are our strongest allies, and they don't want a centrally governed Iraq of any kind. The Shia are split enemy/ally, and they don't want a coalition central government with Sunnis and Kurds in it telling them waht to do - they want something more like Iran. The Sunnis are our sworn enemies, and they want a central coalition government much like the one we want. All three of these want our troops out - last year a majority said they wanted us out within a year.

Meanwhile AQ is our sworn enemy, and they want violence and chaos, with the US soldiers staying for targets and PR.

Our enemies have our goals, our allies have other agenda.

Ethnic cleansing is happening all over Iraq. The country continues to break up. Iran's influence continues to grow. The criminal and mercenary factions continue to prosper domestically, in Iraq and in the US. Now you were saying about the good news?

[StCyril]

Hardly likely. The secular forces in Iraq are among the comparatively weakest, and neither the Shia, Sunni, or Kurds look strong enough to dominate the other two.

Another Saddam is far more likely from some effort by the US to install another strongman ruler - as Chalabi was supposed to be. And even then he would not have the control Saddam had, whne all the army was his.
So ignore all footage, and go by the numbers:

the Kurds are our strongest allies, and they don't want a centrally governed Iraq of any kind. The Shia are split enemy/ally, and they don't want a coalition central government with Sunnis and Kurds in it telling them waht to do - they want something more like Iran. The Sunnis are our sworn enemies, and they want a central coalition government much like the one we want. All three of these want our troops out - last year a majority said they wanted us out within a year.

Meanwhile AQ is our sworn enemy, and they want violence and chaos, with the US soldiers staying for targets and PR.

Our enemies have our goals, our allies have other agenda.

Ethnic cleansing is happening all over Iraq. The country continues to break up. Iran's influence continues to grow. The criminal and mercenary factions continue to prosper domestically, in Iraq and in the US. Now you were saying about the good news?

I'm curious where you are getting your numbers? Lets just go with what you said for a moment. Right now the United States is being blammed for everything thats going on over there. I concede that there are things that the government has done that we can't justify anymore. But I'm on the fence with some of it. In the end, what would you have us do? Lets pull out now, and as I said earlier, you'll see EVEN MORE Ethnic cleansing and then you'll have human's rights activists (Anti war activists who finally got thier way) screaming for armed invasion again!

[bergshadow]

I'm curious where you are getting your numbers? Same place everyone else is on this thread: the posted links. I read them.
Lets pull out now, and as I said earlier, you'll see EVEN MORE Ethnic cleansing and then you'll have human's rights activists (Anti war activists who finally got thier way) screaming for armed invasion again! The Iraqis say different, in those polls and surveys here. They say the US forces are making things worse. And I don't really see how you could get any more ethnic cleansing, pragmatically. It seems to be maxed out.

Since we do not know the future, and it could be jsut as bad if we stay as if we go, let's leave. At least then it will start to be someone else's fault, and we won't be doing any more damage to ourselves. At least one general has said, we have two choices: lose, or lose and wreck our army.

We might need them. There are countries, unlike Iraq, which might put a claim on our military response.

btw: Invented scenes for your "anti-war activists" to play out is no justification for bad policy now.

[Slayer-33]

Say that to the 50 to 100 dead daily cock sucker.

[chalupa]

I'm confused...are people in here still saying life is better for Iraqis?

[Chewy]

Say that to the 50 to 100 dead daily cock sucker.please read the rules in CE before posting you can not call someone a 'cock sucker' .

[TiV2223]

Holy Shit, I am LMFAO right now. I just clicked that "conservapedia" link someone gave, and I saw something that put me to tears.

Here's an excerpt from the article on dubya, praising Bush's handling of the economy...

"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well"

LMAO that has made my day, week, month. Yay, profits for big oil and executives! I feel so happy for the top percent, keep it up George! My chest hurts from laughing at that so hard.

[P0iletTaper]

"The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week"

Sounds just as plausible as the survey of around a thousand iraqis who said they wanted us out.