As anyone who reads this blog obviously knows, I'm very much against the war in Iraq. It seems that most of the congresspeople in this country are against it also. I hear Republicans use the rhetorical device of asking "Well do you think we would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?" and forcing people to address that question on their terms. Why do Democrats, or any reasonable person, allow that to happen?
The answer to that question is simple. If it meant that we had never invaded Iraq, and this whole mess had never started, yes, I think we would be much better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. Not only would we be better off, but the Iraqi people would be better off. We are now killing a hundred Iraqi civilians a day, by the Pentagon's own estimates. Saddam wasn't doing that. Political repression through violent means? Yes. A hundred dead a day? No. So yes, everyone involved would be better off if Saddam were still in power.
By the way, guess what will happen once we leave: Someone like Saddam or worse will come into power. That's after a period of ethnic cleansing and civil war to rival anything happening in Africa. Thousands dead, and then we'll be, and the Iraqis will be, just as bad off as we all were before, if not worse. They will have less infrastructure, less ability to meet basic needs, and still no democracy or freedom. Nice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Look, I agree that this whole Iraq debacle is just that, a complete debacle. And I agree that America may be better off without the war in Iraq. However, Hussein was a vicious murderer of his own people, even convicted in court of such. So to deny that fact, to deny the genocide of 100,000s of Kurds, to deny his invasion of Kuwait, to say that the Iraqi people were better off with him in power is just silly.
Post a Comment