Is Iraq better or worse??

popinfresh

Am I the only person that thinks that Iraq would have been better off WITH Saddam in power . All the US had to do to improve the well-being of the Iraqi people was drop the sanctions. I know it sounds terrible, but now as opposed to Iraqis being killed for opposing Saddam, nowadays you get killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Crime has shot up and Iraq is on the verge of a deadly civil war. This prospect has always existed in Iraq, however the "evil dictator" Saddam prevented this from happening. Iraq is one of them countries/cultures where the only way to rule it is with an iron fist. Now that Iraq is being led by democratic style government the insurgents have come out, because they're no longer afraid of the government...

Bush has essentially messed with something he knew nothing about. And now Iraq is a worser place because of it. The only real benefit Iraq has seen because of the invasion is the fact that the sanctions (that were imposed by America) have now been lifted

m1ke

Maybe it isn't better off in the short term.... but hopefully it will be better off in the long term. If Iraq is a stable democracy in ten years then perhaps it will all have been worth it?

popinfresh

Is that possible though

At the moment, there are at least 3 cultures in Iraq that want independence from each other. Given the fact that insurgents are common these days in Iraq, I don't think this issue will be resolved anytime in the next 10 years.

Sleepy

Surely then the three cultures can be seperated into three seperate democratic countries? Would this not be the wisest course of action?

popinfresh

Yeah but the US has said it wants to see a "United Iraq". It would be the smarer thing to do but that's not what Bush usually supports now is it :rolleyes:

AmenToThat

Sleepy wrote:

Surely then the three cultures can be seperated into three seperate democratic countries? Would this not be the wisest course of action?

That whole area is like a maze..........
The Shia in the south stretch down into Kuwait and northern Suadi (where they are very heavily repressed by the Saudi (Sunni) regime.

The Sunni in the middle stretches out into the desert and into Saudi proper. as well as parts of Syria that boarder the Sunni region.

The Kurds in the north are part of a block that takes in parts of Iran, Syria and Turkey.

If the country does break up there will certainly be no democratic republic in the Sunni region it will be nothing more than series of city states run by which ever insurgency group is strongest in that region and will, given its geographical position within the region be a very destabalizing on the countries around it.

The Kurds are demanding almost complete autonamy anyways so although technically they will be part of Iraq for all intents and purposes they will be running their own affairs within a wider Iraq (apparently).
The real problem will be trying to get the 'Sunni triangle' region to accept less autonomy than the Kurds, I mean why should they accept anything less?

tomsie100

First of all i dont know everything so could be wrong.
To me this kinda looks like a yugulslavia (spelt wrong) again.
A nation once held together by a dictator.
Dictator gone free for all and real nastyness on all sides.
I think the only hope if there is fair media that shows war as horrible.
When i look at the channel 4 news at 7:00 and it shows several and i mean 8 or 9 major bomings a day it looks kinda like a civil war.
Does every country have to learn the hard way about civil war and seeing other races as inferior as being bad.
just a few ideas.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

Surely then the three cultures can be seperated into three seperate democratic countries? Would this not be the wisest course of action?

There are no clear cut lines of how to carve up Iraq as huge swaths of it are multiethnic. Additionally, my understanding is that that the perceived difference between Shia and Sunni Arabs in Iraq is often exaggerated in the West.

The Kurds, on the other hand are another thing, in that they would very much want to establish a separate Kurdish state (especially as they had effectively already enjoyed years of independence from Saddam after the first War). However, the Turks would oppose any such move.

m1ke

I think it's absolutely possible to solve the issues raised. Implementing a proper federal system can provide the solution to problems of disintegration. Also anti-american feeling in iraq will hopefully work as the primary binding agent of the new federal system. As an example, Spain is currently a multi-national(Basque's,Catalans,Galicians) country with a federal system of government that got rid of its dictatorship in the early 1980s(i think?). If Iraq works out then it can provide a model democratisation.

It is very rare for stable democracies just to grow naturally, authoritarian regimes never liberalise... and even if they do, it is usually a temporary measure that is subsequently revoked(e.g Pakistan). Intervention(not necessarily military) is perhaps a good way of beginning the process of democratisation and stabilisation that can bring long term benefits for the whole world, something that is in everybodys interest.

Hobbes

popinfresh wrote:

Am I the only person that thinks that Iraq would have been better off WITH Saddam in power . All the US had to do to improve the well-being of the Iraqi people was drop the sanctions.

No and no. It wouldn't of been better with Saddam in power and dropping sanctions (which Saddam wanted) would of just helped him more.

However the actions the US have taken after the Liberation has done nothing but make matters worse.

popinfresh

But surely the sanctions could have been used as a way to control Saddam. i.e If you do X Y and Z, then we'll drop the sanctions..

Err0r

Yes, Iraq is worse off now.

But, Iraq will become much better than before, it will take time.

Balfa

Sleepy wrote:

Surely then the three cultures can be seperated into three seperate democratic countries? Would this not be the wisest course of action?

Ever heard of Israel and Palestine?

Rossonero

I'm suprised people still ask the question. What's the ratio of killings in Iraq before and after the war? There will never be peace or a stable or safe democracy there. It was more organised under saddam.

mike65

Rossonero wrote:

There will never be peace or a stable or safe democracy there. It was more organised under saddam.

Ah yes Saddam Hussein Democrat of the year 1979-2003. The oppression was much better organised under him.

Mike.

AmenToThat

The Corinthian wrote:

Additionally, my understanding is that that the perceived difference between Shia and Sunni Arabs in Iraq is often exaggerated in the West.

Cant agree with you there.
The Wahabbi sect of the Sunni religion which is very prevelent next door(Suadi) and which now seems to be taking root in Sunni areas of Iraq is very different to the Shia religion, indeed to many of the Wahabbi brand of Sunni the Shia are classed on about the same level as the Jews and many of their rituals are considered to be nothing more than pagan in nature.
Thats why they are supressed so badly in northern Saudi Arabia.

There was an article on this very subject in the New York times I believe the day before yesterday.

As for the Kurds they are actually Sunni just of more secular variety as apposed to that practiced in Saudi

popinfresh

Ah yes Saddam Hussein Democrat of the year 1979-2003. The oppression was much better organised under him.

Tbh, Leaving Saddam in power would have seemed like the lesser of two evils to me. All governments are corrupt. For some reason though the world became focused on the corruption of the Iraqi government in particular.

Sand

But surely the sanctions could have been used as a way to control Saddam. i.e If you do X Y and Z, then we'll drop the sanctions..

No - the sanctions hit the Iraqi people hardest, not Saddam who still maintained and built his palaces. Why would he give a feck?

I'm suprised people still ask the question. What's the ratio of killings in Iraq before and after the war? There will never be peace or a stable or safe democracy there. It was more organised under saddam.

People were probably saying the same thing about Ireland in the early 20s. The first thing that happened after the British withdrew was a bitter civil war. Those drunken paddies could never run a peaceful or stable democracy, could they?

Tbh, Leaving Saddam in power would have seemed like the lesser of two evils to me.

Probably because if Saddam was still in power what was going on in Iraq would be a page 43 mini story youd never read?

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

People were probably saying the same thing about Ireland in the early 20s. The first thing that happened after the British withdrew was a bitter civil war. Those drunken paddies could never run a peaceful or stable democracy, could they?

It may have escaped your attention but the politics of Ireland still are not settled and paramilitary organizations continue to operate within this state some 80 years later! On just about every other thread on this board you have continually focused on what you perceive to be the 'threats to the Irish democracy' now your holding Ireland up as the role model?

In any case to compare Ireland of the 1920s to the reality of events on the grouns in the middle east today is like comparing apples to oranges.

Sparks

popinfresh wrote:

Am I the only person that thinks that Iraq would have been better off WITH Saddam in power

No, the Lancet study confirmed it. Lower death rates under Saddam. Ironic, huh?

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote:

The Kurds, on the other hand are another thing, in that they would very much want to establish a separate Kurdish state (especially as they had effectively already enjoyed years of independence from Saddam after the first War). However, the Turks would oppose any such move.

I'd be surprised if the other Iraqis supported it either; "Kurdistan", as proposed, has significant oilfields contained within it...

Sand

It may have escaped your attention but the politics of Ireland still are not settled and paramilitary organizations continue to operate within this state some 80 years later! On just about every other thread on this board you have continually focused on what you perceive to be the 'threats to the Irish democracy' now your holding Ireland up as the role model?

Hardly a role model, and it is beset by anti-democratic forces and the morons who vote for them. But Ireland is a peaceful and generally successful democracy. Back in the twenties, it didnt look that way - it looked liked a civil war was occuring, and the divisions raised between "free stater" and "irregulars" would never be reconcilled, that Ireland would never be a democracy, that it need the paternal hand of stern but fair Britain to guide the Celtic hotheads who were were eager to slaughter their former landlords.

I remember reading a piece where Orwell denounced commentators whose expectations of the future were nothing more than a continuation of the present. When the Nazis were winning their victory was inevitable, when the Soviets were winning theyd overrun all of Europe, blah blah ****ing blah. Back in the 80s, Japan and its corporate culture was the all singing, all dancing bussiness moguls. Where are they now? Apparently now its China that the all singing all dancing choir. Now that desperate elements of Al Queda fanatics, Sunni supremacists and assorted whackos are bombing in a desperate attempt to prevent the formation of a democratic government - God how they fear it! - we have the usual commentators coming out with " X is occuring now, so X will always occur!"

What is happening now is called change - it is inherently unstable. Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon are all in a state of flux and its not possible to say how it will turn out. Change never comes about without instability. Stability is not an absolute good. It is not something to be sought for if the status quo is not desirable. The U.S. - and the West in general - has made mistakes in the past in its foreign policy by attempting to maintain stability, trying to prop up the Shah of Iran for example. Or by propping up the House of Saud when its clear it is the cause of the general instability in the Middle East.

In any case to compare Ireland of the 1920s to the reality of events on the grouns in the middle east today is like comparing apples to oranges.

Only because it shows up your argument as being historically common, and commonly shown to be crap.

Moriarty

Sparks wrote:

No, the Lancet study confirmed it. Lower death rates under Saddam. Ironic, huh?

Death rates for a year automatically equate to a country being better or worse off?

mike65

This sort of thing does'nt help mind you...

from telegraph

George W Bush has promised to investigate the killing of an Italian security agent and the wounding of freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena by US forces in Iraq.

Troops at a checkpoint shot dead the agent and wounded Ms Sgrena on the road to Baghdad airport after she had been freed and handed over to three Italian security agents.

Ms Sgrena arrived back in Rome this morning, where she was taken directly to hospital for treatment for a shoulder injury.

"The agent, Nicola Calipari, covered Sgrena with his body, he was hit by a bullet which unfortunately was fatal," Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, told a news conference.

President Bush telephone Mr Berlusconi to express his regrets. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "The president assured Prime Minister Berlusconi that it would be fully investigated ... We're cooperating closely with Italian authorities."

Mr Berlusconi issued a statement saying: "The prime minister expects that, in the spirit of the particular friendship that characterises relations between Italy and the United States, the US government leaves no stone unturned to shed light on what happened and on who might be responsible."


The US Defence Department said multinational forces had fired at the car when it approached a checkpoint at high speed, discovering only later who its occupants were.

Ms Sgrena's partner said he could not blame the US soldiers for the shooting, saying they were probably "scared boys", and that the real blame lay with those who had sent them to Iraq.

Ms Sgrena's colleagues at the Communist daily Il Manifesto were holding a party to celebrate her release on Friday evening when news of the shooting reached them.

Redleslie2

These people aren't better off anyway.

04-Mar-2005
US Specialist Seth Garceau Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Tikrit (near) Non-hostile - vehicle accident
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
IT Nicola Calipari Baghdad (International Airport) Hostile - friendly fire
BUL Private Gurdi Hristov Gurdev Diwaniyah (near) [Al Qadisiyah Prov.] Hostile - hostile fire

On the other hand, Northern Ireland is indisputably a better place now than it was 40 years ago thanks to the IRA. A very modest amount of casualties too.

Sparks

Moriarty wrote:

Death rates for a year automatically equate to a country being better or worse off?

Yes. You see, since we can't predict the future with mathematical certainty, we tend to rely on the data for the present moment. Which says that as an Iraqi today, you have a higher chance of being dying (either through being killed or through disease or whatever) now than you did under Saddam. Sure, it might get better in the future. But you also might find yourself living in the middle eastern version of the DRC...

Redleslie2

Well the Iran backed shia muslim fundamentalists are doing reasonably well out of the fiasco if the election results are taken anyway seriously. 300 billion bucks blown on turning the place into a theocracy. You couldn't make it up.

Moriarty

Sparks wrote:

Yes. You see, since we can't predict the future with mathematical certainty, we tend to rely on the data for the present moment. Which says that as an Iraqi today, you have a higher chance of being dying (either through being killed or through disease or whatever) now than you did under Saddam. Sure, it might get better in the future. But you also might find yourself living in the middle eastern version of the DRC...

.. so, the UK is definitively a worse country to live in because their death rate is higher than Irelands (7.91 vs 10.19 per 1,000)?

I won't mention that Iraq is lower than both, at 5.66. Oops!

popinfresh

Iraqis now have more reason to live in fear than they did with Saddam. the notion that the day to day lives of the Iraqi people would be made better by instaling a different government was a simple minded notion. All Bush had to do to improve the lives of the iraqis was drop the sanction. Iraq with no sanctions and Saddam would have been better than Iraq with no sanctions without Saddam. The US fcuked up. It's that simple. Or at least their propeganda reasons for invasion are now proving to be bullsh1t

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

Only because it shows up your argument as being historically common, and commonly shown to be crap.

I have no idea what argument your trying to make here and would welcome a more complete explanation.

Redleslie2

mike65 wrote:

This sort of thing does'nt help mind you..

Failing to take opportunities to murder anti-war commie journalists doesn't help your side much no.

"We were hit by a spray of fire," she told the television network. "I was talking to Nicola ... when he leaned over me, probably to defend me, and then he slumped over. That was a truly terrible thing."

Pier Scolari, the journalist's boyfriend, said she told him: "The most difficult moment was when I saw the person who had saved me die in my arms," according to the ANSA news agency.

[Scolari told Sky Italia TV: "I have said so many times, war is madness. Probably it was scared boys who fired, it wasn't their fault, it was the fault of those that sent them there." Scolari also said the shootout took place 700 meters from the airport, after they had already passed other road blocks. At a press conference he said: "Giuliana and the other people who were there told me that the American attack was completely unjustified. [b]They had alerted the whole chain of command, the Italian troops were awaiting them at the airport. And yet, they fired 300, 400 rounds. Why?"][/b]

Source.

That agent who died protecting her is a bloody hero.