Iraq one year later-better off, of course, widely reported? Of course not

Sodium Pentethol V · Mar 17, 2004

Commentary

(03/17/04) The invasion of Iraq commenced one year ago today.

Ask an American whether it was worth the human and financial cost and you will probably get an answer dependent upon the person’s political stripe.

But Oxford Research has just asked 2,500 Iraqis what they think, and the majority say life is already better than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Seven in ten said life today is "very good" or "quite good," and 71 percent said they expected conditions to be even better a year from now.

Half of Iraqis initially opposed the continued presence of troops, but only 15 percent want them to leave now.

Here’s one significant aspect to the poll: that there is a poll in which the Iraqi people can comfortably tell a stranger how they regard life in their country, without fearing retribution for their opinion.

Contact Michael Smerconish

Brazil4Worldcup2002 · Mar 17, 2004

Actually those figures were widely report - I watched a 1 hour documentary yesterday (superb documentary by the way) on BBC - Iraq: 1 year on and they were discussed throughly.

Here's a question for you:
Has the Iraq war made the world safer from terrorism? I dont think so, unless you watch Fox news all day.

Sodium Pentethol V · Mar 17, 2004

Why wouldn't you think so?

Been exactly one random attack in the last 2+yrs, that killed hundreds not thousands.

that is significantly less than the previous two yrs.

there is anecdotal evidence that the treatment of Hussein will dissuade the other malcontent leaders from acting psyhcotic.

and it is not like inaction comes with no associated costs.

Oceans11 · Mar 17, 2004

The same report had 50% of Iraqis in favour of religious leaders, 50% didn't trust the US, and hardly anyone wanted the US puppet administration.

outstanding.

Brazil4Worldcup2002 · Mar 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Been exactly one random attack in the last 2+yrs, that killed hundreds not thousands.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference between you and terrorists is that you think in the short-term and they think in the long-term.

xpanda · Mar 17, 2004

There is no question that Iraqis will eventually be better off without Saddam. It remains to be seen by just how much, given that no one is entirely sure yet what role the US/UN will play and who will end up elected. If Islamic law becomes central to gov't life, then it would be difficult to surmise that women will be better off. And that's the majority.

Right now, things aren't as bad as the media makes them out to be. True, buildings are gone and electricity is hard to come by, but the press makes it seem like every square inch of Baghdad is a war zone. My friend's family is doing just fine, although they are having difficulty adjusting to the incredible inflation (well over 200%.)

But, let's face it, there will be American military bases all over Iraq when all is said and done. The new Iraqi military is composed of only 40,000 soldiers and can be considered nothing more impressive than border control. So if you consider that Iraqis by and large want the US to piss off, the freedom from Saddam (which, incidentally, was almost inevitable given the domestic insurgence against him) does not come with sovereignty, despite propaganda to the contrary. Americans will think they are better off since they are being run by Americans. Iraqis may well beg to differ.

American · Mar 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xpanda: So if you consider that Iraqis... freedom from Saddam (which, incidentally, was almost inevitable given the domestic insurgence against him) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you kidding??? How in the hell were the Iraqis supposed to stop that MACHINE Saddam and his inbred sons had going? Hussien and Co. had set up a great system for holding on to power. They might have been able to hold on to power for centuries. You underestimate the grip of terror that mother-f*cker had on those poverty-stricken, 50% illiterate people.

Xpanda, you make some BIG assumptions at times, and the above is one of them.

xpanda · Mar 17, 2004

That's quite interesting because, if you listen to Powell and Rice tell it pre-9/11 then the US/UK imposed sanctions were totally working and Saddam had become awfully close to losing control over his people. Big assumptions, maybe, but it isn't me who's making them.

(Incidentally, a theory exists that the reason Saddam did not want to confirm the destruction of WMDs is that it may have been his only hold over the insurgents at that time.)

American · Mar 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
That's quite interesting because, if you listen to Powell and Rice tell it pre-9/11 then the US/UK imposed sanctions were totally working and Saddam had become awfully close to losing control over his people. Big assumptions, maybe, but it isn't me who's making them.

(Incidentally, a theory exists that the reason Saddam did not want to confirm the destruction of WMDs is that it may have been his only hold over the insurgents at that time.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now you take the word of Powell and Rice as gospel because it serves your little liberal arguement of the day? If you really belive Saddam was going to be ousted, why don't you do some thinking for yourself and explain to me how the Iraqis were going to stop that machine over there.

It wouldn't have happened in our lifetime. Saddam & Co's grip strengthened with time. It wasn't becoming weaker.

xpanda · Mar 17, 2004

And you're dismissing the words of Powell and Rice because it suits your hegemonic argument of the day?

The US has long used sanctions to help overthrow a gov't. Let's talk Haiti, for example. I'd love to give you a play-by-play of how that kind of thing goes down, but I am not a military member. I am sure if you wrote to your Congressman and asked him/her to explain how the US took out Aristide they would be happy to disclose the details in full.

Or, maybe in a few months, we can catch up with good 'ol ally-cum-dictator Chavez and see if he'll explain how the US did it to him, too.

UncleMoneybags · Mar 17, 2004

I can't speak for them but the threat of throwing my wife into a wood chipper feet first after she has been gang-raped is a decent incentive for compliance.

There was some stability under Saddam. If the U.S. practiced the same tactics they would have similar results but we can't do that now can we?

Saddam crushed all opposition without mercy. Woe to the rest of the world if the U.S. ever gets that maniacal.

KMAN · Mar 17, 2004

SPV - Thanks for posting this. You definitely won't see this on the major US media channels.

American · Mar 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xpanda:

The US has long used sanctions to help overthrow a gov't. Let's talk Haiti, for example. I'd love to give you a play-by-play of how that kind of thing goes down, but I am not a military member. I am sure if you wrote to your Congressman and asked him/her to explain how the US took out Aristide they would be happy to disclose the details in full.

Or, maybe in a few months, we can catch up with good 'ol ally-cum-dictator Chavez and see if he'll explain how the US did it to him, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chavez and Aristide are minor leaguers (single A at that) compared with Saddam and what he had going. You're a very bright young woman. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

WINNINGHAND · Mar 17, 2004

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAy worse.

eltonio · Mar 17, 2004

Maybe some of you should ask a couple of the people that were in the hotel that blew up in Baghdad today. They may disagree with your assessments.

BadBeat · Mar 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by eltonio:
Maybe some of you should ask a couple of the people that were in the hotel that blew up in Baghdad today. They may disagree with your assessments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll get their opinions right after I get the opinions of all the people buried in the mass graves that Saddam's thugs filled with his own citizens. What do you think the tally will be, when its added up?

WINNINGHAND · Mar 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bad Beat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by eltonio:
Maybe some of you should ask a couple of the people that were in the hotel that blew up in Baghdad today. They may disagree with your assessments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll get their opinions right after I get the opinions of all the people buried in the mass graves that Saddam's thugs filled with his own citizens. What do you think the tally will be, when its added up?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You make some meritorious points. However, did the Bush administration really do even 5% of what they said they would post war? I think you will have a hard time arguing that one. Saying that the region is in disarray would be an understatement.

Sodium Pentethol V · Mar 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The difference between you and terrorists is that you think in the short-term and they think in the long-term <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea they think so long term that after 1000's of years of evolution they still live in the cave man days, whilst we lead mankind.

Phucking agenda ridden moron.

BadBeat · Mar 17, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by WINNINGHAND:
You make some meritorious points. However, did the Bush administration really do even 5% of what they said they would post war? I think you will have a hard time arguing that one. Saying that the region is in disarray would be an understatement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to the normal prosperous lives and situations of most first world countries, certainly the area is in disarray. When you have foreign Islamist suicide bombers within your country blowing things up, its not going to be all peachy-keen. Compared to living in many other places however, there are still advantages to the standard of living within Baghdad.

Has the Bush administration finished what it started? Not yet. Was the US all rosy and smooth and organized and peaceful the moment the colonies won their independence from Britain? Hardly. Installing democracy where none has been is not a matter of flipping a switch, and putting a system into place that is more than a shell that quickly collapses has proven to be even harder. It is still way too early, imho, to judge how well this administration is doing regarding "what they said they would do". That is a question that will be best answered after the government is turned back over to the Iraqis, and we see if the US fouled the situation up, or did a good deed.