galanter wrote:

sparky wrote:You are correct. I should have used the words "misguided, catastrophic and ruthlessly selfish."

So the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam with no end in sight?

Do you think most Iraqi's would answer "yes" to this?

Compared to the situation now? Yes. And considering Saddam's age, no end in sight seems thick. A stable and repressive dictatorship (see Saudi Arabia) is preferable to the disintegration and widespread murder which is a direct consequence of the invasion.

Besides which, who asked for this humanitarian intervention? Where do you draw the line Galanter? Why so keen to send armed men to places where they are not wanted? Why dictate to a people a revolution that they were not willing to carry out themselves?

galanter wrote:

sparky wrote:You are correct. I should have used the words "misguided, catastrophic and ruthlessly selfish."

So the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam with no end in sight?

Do you think most Iraqi's would answer "yes" to this?

Absolutely. They so answer whenever anyone asks. To think otherwise is to drink the Kool-Aid.

I still love your avatar, galanter... and I still want to know if your handle is related to Highlights' Goofus and Gallant.

steve wrote:

galanter wrote:

sparky wrote:You are correct. I should have used the words "misguided, catastrophic and ruthlessly selfish."

So the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam with no end in sight?

Do you think most Iraqi's would answer "yes" to this?

Absolutely. They so answer whenever anyone asks. To think otherwise is to drink the Kool-Aid.

Steve, I don't think this is true. I understand the problems with polls, but the ones I've seen tend to read something like this:

Are you glad the US took out Saddam? Yes.

Are you happy they are still here? No. There are all kinds of problems, and we blame them for not making things better. They should leave as soon as possible.

Should they leave today? Well...maybe not today. But as soon as possible.

Along with polls I've seen lots of street interviews along these lines, and lots of reporters also tend to give a similar answer based on their experience.

The question, "Would Iraqis prefer things as they were or as they are?" has been asked and answered many times. Things are worse now, say the Iraqis. That's what I was getting at. Saddam Hussein was a prick, and of course they wanted him gone. They just don't want chaos, bloodshed and civil war. In the normal course of events, they could have had one without the other.

sparky wrote:

galanter wrote:

sparky wrote:You are correct. I should have used the words "misguided, catastrophic and ruthlessly selfish."

So the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam with no end in sight?

Do you think most Iraqi's would answer "yes" to this?

Compared to the situation now? Yes. And considering Saddam's age, no end in sight seems thick. A stable and repressive dictatorship (see Saudi Arabia) is preferable to the disintegration and widespread murder which is a direct consequence of the invasion.

Besides which, who asked for this humanitarian intervention? Where do you draw the line Galanter? Why so keen to send armed men to places where they are not wanted? Why dictate to a people a revolution that they were not willing to carry out themselves?

You seem to forget Saddam's sons who were, by all accounts, worse than the father. North Korea offers a good example of what such a situation promises.

There were numerous attempts to off Saddam, and significant uprisings that failed around 1991...because Saddam was willing, for example, to use chemical weapons to wipe out entire villages.

Where to draw the line? Each situation is different. Each requires its own analysis. For example, at this point going into North Korea would be a terrible idea...at least so far as I understand the tactical situation.

And as I've tried to explain (so many times now) the rational for taking down Saddam is based on multiple reasons taken in their totality. Why Saddam? Because (1) it was do-able (2) it wouldn't upset the neighbors, (3) it was justified because he was the worst of the worst.

The Saudi's are bad, but living under the House of Saud is a picnic compared to living under Saddam.

Briefly some of the reasons that contribute to the tally include (1) past crimes (e.g. attacking 3 countries, using chemical weapons inside Iraq and out, the murder of more Moslems than anyone in all of history) (2) ongoing threat to the region (3) breaking the terms of the end of the previous war (4) ongoing warfare against his own people (5) support of terrorists (e.g. his support of Hammas is beyond dispute) (6) refusal to demonstrate the destruction of his WMD's and related programs, and the related probability his WMD efforts could continue, (7) nearly daily firing upon the overflights preventing him from killing more Kurds in the north and Shiites in the sourth.

steve wrote:The question, "Would Iraqis prefer things as they were or as they are?" has been asked and answered many times. Things are worse now, say the Iraqis. That's what I was getting at. Saddam Hussein was a prick, and of course they wanted him gone. They just don't want chaos, bloodshed and civil war. In the normal course of events, they could have had one without the other.

Steve, the normal course of events was that any uprising was immediately crushed. It is possible, you know, for a dictator to oppress his own people well into old age and die quietly in bed. And Saddam had a couple psychopathic sons just waiting to take over.

At some point it's simply immoral to stand by and allow a horror like Saddam to continue when you have the power to stop it.

galanter wrote: my primary argument was that the hugely popular elections show that the Iraqi people are ready for democracy, and nothing in your all-too-easy cut'n'paste refutes that.

Wouldn't it have been more polite if we had asked the people if they actually wanted these "elections" before we forced them upon the people?

I is drunk and tired so i'll be brief and possibly full of regret.

Galanter is right by my looking the Iraqis do answer as he suggests that they are glad Saddam is gone but that they want 'us' gone too.
The figures do not suggest a massive iraqi conclusion that sans saddam is best (as you suggested somewhere along here Galanter) but still polls being polls that's what they suggest marginally(polls being polls mind, Galanter, Bush was not elected but that's another story).

However, I have a question that relates ot all this 'long term improvement'

Was the invasion of the Americas with the wiping out of several indigenous races of native a worthy 'sacrifice' for the greater good of America as it is now?
With all it's groovy 'democracy', 'freedom of expression' etc?

Your dragging out of this long term good could lead us to conclude that any 'bad' may be 'good' given the long term view.

Also regarding the polls: I think Saddam being gone is good.
But I do not think that the means were good at all.
Which side of the poll would I be on?

Given the direct nature of the questioning I would probably be on the marginally larger Saddam gone = good - side

However the means being inseperable from the intent I wouldn't say overall the situation is better.
Being drunk I can't be arsed trying to find the sites with the stats on but perhaps you - argued into a corner as it were - might direct us to such.

FWIW I'd like to be on record as saying what was done to the indigenous population of the Americas was a horrific genocide that cannot be justified in any way.

I see no contradiction in believing this and supporting a war to remove Saddam.