Are the iraqi's better off now? Talking points?

[booley]

Please excuse the length but I actually do have a point here..somewhere...

Last friday I was in this store and they had some shock jock (in this case shlock jock) talking to a caller. basicly it went like this...

Jock-But, aren't the Iraqi's better off now then there were under Saddam Hussein?

Caller-But Bush lied to get us to war!

Jock-NOT MY QUESTION! Are you saying that the iraqis would be better off with Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator? Are you saying that the Iraqis have not benefitted from being liberated?

Caller-The US supported Saddam..

Jock-ANCIENT HISTORY! NOT MY QUESTION!

Blah blah ect ect...

Now, I am sure I am not the only one that has been hearing this kind of spin. Iraq's WMDs seem to be be in the same catagory as Unicorns and Elvis sightings. Shrub has had trouble explaining how Saddam and Bin Ladin would be cooperating when they hated each other. And that immimant threat was just... silly.

BUT we did get rid of Saddam (even if we can't find him now) who was an evil dictator and did torture people and imprison kids. Ironicly, that saddam was a bad man was about the only true thing to come out of shrub's mouth. -Though even I still don't get why they felt the need to demonize Saddam by making up stuff as well Sorta like trying to defane Hitler's rep. As if that whole holocaust thing wasn't bad enough. Anyway.

That we got rid of saddam is the only excuse Shrub has left to stand on. So naturally the neo-cons are going to hype it to all high heaven , trying to make anybody who was against the war the same as supporting Saddam. (Any day now I expect freepers to come up with the term Saddamite..and now if they do they have to pay me money becuase it's copyrighted! If Fox can sue so can I!)

The reason I bring this up (besides my wish to sue Freepers for copright violations and get rich!) is I don't think the caller who was against the war replied very well. He stated the obviouse truths.. that we were lied too about the danger of Iraq, that the US gov (like Ronnie "get your raygun" REAGAN and George the first) did support Saddam and any WMDs Saddam did have were fertilizer in some guys flower bed by the time the war came. But the radio guy, being a graduate of freeper U, knew to control the arguement and not let details (like the actual truth of the matter ) get in the way of his question...ARE YOU SAYING THE IRAQIS WERE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM? WHAT THE US DID BEFORE IS ANCIENT HISTORY!-to quoth the radio guy.

Obviously this is not to say that the history is irrelevant. When the same guys who turned a blind eye to people being fed into wood chippers and civilians being gassed suddenly become so MORALLY OUTRAGED by those same actions 20 years later that they must take the nation into war, it's not so crazy to question thier sincerity and real motives. When a lot of the suffering under Saddam's regime was facilitated or even caused by the US sanctions and actions, obviously it has some relevance to how the Iraqis should feel about Americans (or to put it this way..if you get hit by a car and somebody drives you to the hospital, you would feel grateful, right? Now what if the guy who took you to the hospital is also the one who hit you. And he made you pay him to do so first? How grateful would you be then?)

I mean, neo-cons suddenly worried about human rights violations?! what next? Falwell marching with Gay Pride? I have an easier time beleiving in Iraqi Unicorns filled with Anthrax and singing "Viva Las Vegas".

However, citing all that history or logic actually works against us since we are talking about the freeper strain of the con gene pool and getting into long involved detailed discussions on the how/why of a situation just gives them time to ignore what we just said and come up with silly sound bites or leading questions like the radio guy above.

So here's the question we need to be able to answer in a very quick and succinct way...Are American policies and actions helping the Iraqis? (not, are they better now then with Saddam, obviously. Thats like asking if your headache got better after I sucker punched you in the gut. Missing the point and playing into the kind of logical fallacies freepers love so much)
So? Are they? IF so? How and is it worth the bad effects of the occupation? And if NOT, how?

I can think of a few things-and tell me if I am wrong on any of them:

67% of Iraqis do not approve of the occupation. (and shouldn't the best judge of whether life is getting better for Iraqis be the Iraqis?)

right now , the US forces are enforcing a Saddam era law that made organizing workers in any government owned industry (which is most of them) illegal. So the US is arresting iraqis and treating them as POWs if they try to organize at thier work. ironic since Shrub is also trying to privatize those industires. The effect being that the workers will be unable to organize to stop the sell of the industires until they are being laid off en masse.

Meanwhile, unemployment in most of Iraq is incredibly high. as I am sure you know , one of the biggest employers in Baghdad is the Burger King..who's staff are primarily PAKISTANI.

Iraqis do not get to elect thier leaders.

Iraqi's do not seem to have any kind of protection from illegal searches to my knowledge, no freedom of the press. No right to assemble peacefully. Though I could be wrong about that.

Ok, we did rebuild thier power and water systems..but didn't they have those before the US invaded? Wasn't our forces that destroyed those in the first place?

and finaly..in order to liberate all those Iraqis..US bombs and troops had to kill large numbers of them. 15,000 I beleive the current total is. As the Onion said, I am sure the dead iraqis would have loved democracy if American cluster bombs hadn't killed them...

I could go on. But I think you get the point.

So HOW do we present these facts without falling into the freeper trap of sounding like we support Saddam Hussien?

[BallaFaseke]

1. That is the problem

If your against the war you are labled pro-Saddam.

[maggrwaggr]

14. Fine. Then call me pro-Saddam

Why should I be happy that our military is bogged down in a country half a world away to the point where we effectively have no military that can protect us?

Who gives a shit if the Iraqi people are HAPPY. Our job isn't to go around the world making people HAPPY.

Our boys are getting shot like clay pigeons over there and I'm supposed to be happy because we're making a few Iraqi's happy?

That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever fucking heard.

Tell that to the parents of the boys who are dead. "Well hey, your son's death made a few Iraqi people HAPPY"

[LastKnight]

2. hmm.

inconsistent electricity, water, ect...

foreign jihadis entering just to mess up anything the 'liberators' fix, including anything local built, owned, maintained, ect.

collateral damage from american 'liberation'

an occupying force in your backyard

unexploded cluster bombs, ordinance, and depleted uranium EVERYWHERE

everything you had was looted a few months back

alledged civil rights abuse by soldiers and oil companies against your people... and to add insult to injury it will go unpunished or even widely known due to a presidential order.

you can say anything you want, as long as its not against uncle sam

yea sounds like fun. thier *defenatley* better off

all of the above are examples of compassionate conservatisim (now going international! thanks to your tax dollars!)

-LK

[La_Serpiente]

3. You can throw on

the fact that the US destroyed hundreds of years of olive trees.

Also, there are backwater abortions taking place. Many people don't know this, but Sadaam was more like a leftist totalitarian. Abortion was legal under his regime. Now, they are taking place in dirty locations, even on beds.

I have heard stories of former Baathists gaining the posistions of power, but I cannot confirm that.

And I feel that there is a real disconnect between the US leaders and the people. Perhaps the reason why the reporters are reporting the terrible nature there is because they are the ones out on the street. The leaders are out in their offices away from all that is occuring.

[BallaFaseke]

4. Um

Do you think there are any hospitals up and running right now could even do legal abortions?

Bush destroyed the whole country.

[LastKnight]

5. in a lawless country, define 'legal'

would you rather take a relative for one in a shady hospital or the back of a shady hardware shop? in a hospital your at least more likley to get a doctor...

-LK

[La_Serpiente]

7. There probably was the Red Cross

and International Aid Agencies.

Maybe there were family planning agencies as well.

However, the US probably wouldn't let them in due to opposistion from the Right To Life Organization.

[BallaFaseke]

9. What about the Brtis and the Poles?

They run parts of Iraq too.

[La_Serpiente]

10. I am not sure about the Poles

but from what I heard about the Brits, they are doing just fine. In fact, I don't think there have been many caualties lately from them.

The British are experts at doing reconstruction work. They have been doing it all their life.

Usually, it's the US that goes in and other countries come in and rebuild. The US bombed Serbia, but left the reconstruction to the Europeans. The US bombed Afghanistan, but now Canada is head of the forces there and it is mainly International troops that are there.

So it is kind of like a bomb and go mentality.

Maybe that's why the French and Germans don't want to help. They are sick of going in after the US bombs places and they are left to clean up the place. ON most occasions, cleaning up is harder than blowing the fuck out of the place.

So now, the US is clamoring for help, but only Australians, the Brits, Poles and the US are there. The Japanese are still debating whether to send troops or not and the South Koreans as well.

And a lot of the aid money is in loans.

So you were right in that other post of yours. The US doesn't know what it is doing.

[RapidCreek]

17. Oh yea?

What part of the country do Poles run?

RC

[booley]

6. baathists

"I have heard stories of former Baathists gaining the posistions of power, but I cannot confirm that."

Thats true to my knowledge. will have to find a link to confirm that.

Of course, what a lot fo people don't realize is that most of the industries were government controlled. And to work in any moderate or high level position, you had to be a member of the Baath party. Sorta like the communists in the USSR. It wasn't necessarily that they beleived in the ideology or committed the crimes the party was responsible for (though obvioulsy many did) but was a simple fact of life. You wanted a god job, you joined the party.
So anybody who had an inkling of how to run al the stuff that needed running in Iraq would also be a former Baathist.

Though, if the baathists who committed the atrocities the party was known for are back in power, thats a different story.

[sandnsea]

8. But is America better off?

Our military is to defend our country first and foremost. Are we better off now that Bush has lied us into a war, left our forces stretched too thin to go after al qaeda, lost track of Saddam Hussein, diminished our influence in the region and the world, and generally destroyed our relations with almost every ally we ever had? Are WE better off, that's the question.

[Military Brat]

11. The women are not better off

They always need a male escort. Rape and assault are escalating. Kidnapping is becoming rampant.

It's my understanding that under Saddam, if you kept your mouth shut, you did okay. (Sound familiar?) The whole world would be better off if we had no brutal dictators. That's the answer. To single out Saddam is mere rhetoric.

"Well, I don't know, Mr. Schlock-Jock, if an Iraqi would rather die of cancer from depleted uranium, or an exploding cluster bomb, or if that Iraqi would rather just shut his mouth and be alive." And let's not forget that it wasn't just Saddam, because without his followers, he would never have risen to power. All dictators draw strength from non-thinking brutes who love the taste of power (Sound familiar?)

The Iraqis are a unique culture. We cannot really speak for them. But they seem to be speaking for themselves lately, don't they?


Edited for spelling correction.

[LibertyorDeath]

12. It is common knowledge that Countries are always better of when

invaded and occupied by an outside force for their own good( see world history 101) to help them get out of the evil clutches of a Dictator we helped install.

To bring these poor folks freedom and Democracy at any cost.

Do it for the children and if not for the children.

Then do it for the O I L !

Do you think for a millisecond we would even be talking about this if Iraq didn't sit on the second largest oil reserve on the planet.

The real ? is are they better of being exploited by America for their oil than they were by Saddam for his ego.

[maggrwaggr]

13. I don't care if they're all humping our legs over there

it's not our policy to go around the world making people HAPPY.

Fuck that. We were told Iraq was a threat. It wasn't.

Who would fucking DARE say that our soldiers should die so that people in a foreign land should be HAPPY.

[iangb]

15. More prisons....

Saddam's brutal dictatorship reputedly imprisoned tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

The US led Coalition has as one of its priorities the building of many more prisons. I don't know about you, but I say......WTF?

[RapidCreek]

16. Real simple answer

The 15 thousand innocent iraqi civilians we killed are not better off, nope. Neither are their families and loved ones. Many of whom, whether pro Saddam or not, are currently seeking vengeance by killing American soldiers. Much the same as you would do if our countries roles were reversed.

RC

[Bundbuster]

18. Talking point - "Could we better use the $500 Billion HERE?"

In addition to all the points already posted...By the time PNAC "gets done" with Iraq, well over $500,000,000,000 of your tax dollars will have beeen poured into an illegal invasion/occupation/reconstruction/ME power grab. Turn the question on the Freeper and simply ask if he believes that WE'D be better off spending that 500 billion on America's decaying infrastructure, school systems, health care, job programs, and anything even hinting of a social safety net.

Then ask if he's HAPPY with PNAC's intentional diversion of available tax dollars away from such domestic spending, so they can cry poor at the next round of domestic budget funding.