NationStates Jolt Archive

Most people agree that Iraq is better off than it was under Saddam (over 2/3 in a recent US poll). In your opinion, is Iraq better currently than before the US invasion, and if it (hypothetically) becomes better sometime in the future, would the invasion have been justified ?

You fail at poll-making. And no, the ends do not justify the means.

If Iraq somehow magically got back on track, then one could say that perhaps the invasion did more good than bad.

Not gonna happen though.

So the stated premise was a lie, the moral premise was wrong, the execution was utterly and completely wrong and what happened since then is a disgrace.

Biggest failure of the century? As far as I can predict the future, yes.

Doing better!

And no, the ends do not justify the means.

Sure they do. If Iraq could have a stable, democratically-elected government, that would justify an invasion to depose a genocidal dictator. Would you want to just let Saddam kill people without the rest of the world intervening?

If Iraq somehow magically got back on track, then one could say that perhaps the invasion did more good than bad.

No, if Iraq somehow magically got back on track, then one could say that miracles do indeed happen, but that is because of magic, not because of imperialist aggression.

Taking it as a precedent would be very risky.

Sure they do. If Iraq could have a stable, democratically-elected government, that would justify an invasion to depose a genocidal dictator. Would you want to just let Saddam kill people without the rest of the world intervening?

The Iraqi people are not sheep who need to be led by the benevolent US shepherd, who does not even go as far as to stop them from wanting.

Okay, I know a lot of people aren't going to like what I say, but at this point -- me no care!

I think Iraq is better off without Sadam Hussain, but is worse off since we're staying there and trying to instill American justice on a whole other nation. Everyone knows that the only reason we are in Iraq is because our president is a complete idiot and only operates on what the other idiots in the Senate tell him.

If anyone knows any Middle Eastern history, Iraq has been at war for over five hundred years take or give a few centuries. (Yeah, I don't pay attention to what my history teacher says)

The war in Iraq probably won't end until either the Bush family gets out of office or until the whole country (or the US, whichever is thought of first) is decimated and the population completely wiped out and some nice Americans take charge of Iraq.

The war is just another stupid excuse for Americanism.

--Okay, my rant is done.-- :cool: :p

Doing better!

Ha! With all that is going on there, trying to say things are getting better is just wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12197953/

Sure they do. If Iraq could have a stable, democratically-elected government, that would justify an invasion to depose a genocidal dictator.

If you follow that theory, that outcome would also justify pretty much anything, like genocide, mass torture and Jonny Knoxvilles acting.

The Iraqi people are not sheep who need to be led by the benevolent US shepherd, who does not even go as far as to stop them from wanting.

Are you referring to the war or the reconstruction? If you are talking about the war, then the Iraqis did need a military power to get rid of Saddam because they were not powerful enough to overthrow him themselves. If you are talking about the reconstruction, then the Iraqis need someone to protect them from the extremists, rebuild their economy, improve their infrastructure, etc.

I wouldn't call the war justified, even if it somehow produced a good result, any more than I would say a man is justified in chucking a hammer out of his tenth story apartment window if it just happened to hit a guy who was robbing an old lady.

If the outcome had been FORESEEN and a PLAN had been made taking various RISKS into account, then we could talk about if the plan was justified.

Otherwise, all we could possibly say is "Isn't it lucky we hit the bad guy rather than the old lady?"

Better or worse than before when? Before the war? Before last year? Before the election?

You have a very bad poll. :(

Are you referring to the war or the reconstruction? If you are talking about the war, then the Iraqis did need a military power to get rid of Saddam because they were not powerful enough to overthrow him themselves.

And you know this how? If you assume they are capable of vanquishing the imperial power(s) currently hovering over them, then certainly they could have dealt with Saddam Hussein as well. The twentieth century included a good number of surprising and "impossible" overthrows of murderous and tyrannical regimes.

If you are talking about the reconstruction, then the Iraqis need someone to protect them from the extremists, rebuild their economy, improve their infrastructure, etc.

They most definitely can do that better than the US can (even Saddam Hussein could), and more importantly, they are the only group with any right to do it in the first place. It's their country.

Saddam Hussein ruled in a way that was brutal, but entirely necessary. Look what happens when there's a power vacuum. Utter chaos.

If you assume they are capable of vanquishing the imperial power(s) currently hovering over them, then certainly they could have dealt with Saddam Hussein as well.

I assume that by "imperial power," you are referring to the US. I don't see how they are capable of vanquishing the US, much less the Iraqi Army which would have been much tougher to defeat militarily. The army was loyal to Saddam and he can complete control -- there was nothing the average Iraqi citizen could do about it. And if he/she dissented when Saddam's policies...we all know what would have happened.

They most definitely can do that better than the US can (even Saddam Hussein could), and more importantly, they are the only group with any right to do it in the first place. It's their country.

No, they most definitely cannot. Today, for example, 74 people were killed at a Baghdad mosque:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/07/iraq.main/index.html

What do you want the peace-loving Iraqis to do? There's nothing they can do to counter the horrendous tactics of the extremists, so they must rely on the US to do their fighting for them. Without the US, the country would sink into a vast civil war and many, many more people would lose their lives. No, the US is doing a sloppy job, but it's doing an essential job.

I don't understand how some people can justify that Iraq is better off than it was before. If you get past the fact that Saddam Hussain did torture is people, the US is doing the same thing to the Iraqi people, just in a different way.

Democratic societies just don't work in all places.

Saddam Hussein ruled in a way that was brutal, but entirely necessary.

That's the first time I've heard that genocide was "entirely necessary." Of course, you also agree that US wiretaps and the PATRIOT Act are "entirely necessary" also, right?

I assume that by "imperial power," you are referring to the US. I don't see how they are capable of vanquishing the US, much less the Iraqi Army which would have been much tougher to defeat militarily. The army was loyal to Saddam and he can complete control -- there was nothing the average Iraqi citizen could do about it. And if he/she dissented when Saddam's policies...we all know what would have happened.



No, they most definitely cannot. Today, for example, 74 people were killed at a Baghdad mosque:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/07/iraq.main/index.html

What do you want the peace-loving Iraqis to do? There's nothing they can do to counter the horrendous tactics of the extremists, so they must rely on the US to do their fighting for them. Without the US, the country would sink into a vast civil war and many, many more people would lose their lives. No, the US is doing a sloppy job, but it's doing an essential job.

Uhm, Iraq has been in a vast civil war since forever because of their corrupt government and diverse religious views. The Shi'ite and the Suni have been battling it out for ages. No one is looking past the politics of the country, which leads to more misconception.

That's the first time I've heard that genocide was "entirely necessary."
Hey, I agree that Saddam was horrible and should have been removed (although not in this way).

But don't use words you can't back up. They now charged Saddam with genocide in the trial, and they'll never be able to prove it without taking the last ounce of credibility from that court.

Hey, I agree that Saddam was horrible and should have been removed (although not in this way).

But don't use words you can't back up. They now charged Saddam with genocide in the trial, and they'll never be able to prove it without taking the last ounce of credibility from that court.

As a German, you should know that what Saddam did to the Kurds was Genocide.

That's the first time I've heard that genocide was "entirely necessary." Of course, you also agree that US wiretaps and the PATRIOT Act are "entirely necessary" also, right?

He repressed his people, true, but sometimes that's all you can do to keep hold of a situation when everyone in a country is utterly against everyone else (other than actually breaking the country down into many states for the various peoples of Iraq). There's practically a civil war going on.

And no, I don't agree with the other stuff that you mentioned.

As a German, you should know that what Saddam did to the Kurds was Genocide.
As a German (what a silly reference to make, but I have come to expect that sort of thing from you), I also remember what Milosevic did, and that too was impossible to prove.

Plus, I don't know anything about the intentions of Saddam when he attacked the Kurds. Genocide is all about intention.

And if Saddam committed genocide when he attacked the Kurds, then what did the Turks do when they attacked the Kurds?

I assume that by "imperial power," you are referring to the US. I don't see how they are capable of vanquishing the US, much less the Iraqi Army which would have been much tougher to defeat militarily. The army was loyal to Saddam and he can complete control -- there was nothing the average Iraqi citizen could do about it. And if he/she dissented when Saddam's policies...we all know what would have happened.

To the US and Iran, mostly, both of which are impeding serious democracy in Iraq. For what it's worth, I think it's conceivable that both can be thwarted, but it will definitely not be done militarily.

No, they most definitely cannot. Today, for example, 74 people were killed at a Baghdad mosque:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/07/iraq.main/index.html

While the country is under the rule of the glorious liberators, who have been deliberately instigating sectarian conflict since Day 1. Divide and conquer, it's how the game has been played for thousands of years.

What do you want the peace-loving Iraqis to do? There's nothing they can do to counter the horrendous tactics of the extremists, so they must rely on the US to do their fighting for them.

The US is no better than the "extremists." Relying on the US is no better than relying on the reactionary sectarian Shi'ite or Sunni militias. They all have the same agenda - domination - and the same preferences for achieving it - mass violence and repression.

I would like to see a left-nationalist secular populist coalition, and if it had guns - as it would - it would definitely be capable of defending itself.

Without the US, the country would sink into a vast civil war and many, many more people would lose their lives.

If that's going to happen, it's going to happen with or without the US. The US is not solving anything, if anything it is worsening the situation. It does not know what it is doing, and its objectives are hardly in accordance with serious democracy.

I would like to see a left-nationalist secular populist coalition, and if it had guns - as it would - it would definitely be capable of defending itself.
Two possibilities:
a) You're being sarcastic, in which case I appologise.
b) You're not, in which case I'll post this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath

As a German, you should know that what Saddam did to the Kurds was Genocide.

And what would you call what you did in Vietnam?

*edits*

And I was about to post something about the Ba'ath party too!

As a German (what a silly reference to make, but I have come to expect that sort of thing from you), I also remember what Milosevic did, and that too was impossible to prove.

I have a reputation already? No doubt it is inaccurate.

Two possibilities:
a) You're being sarcastic, in which case I appologise.
b) You're not, in which case I'll post this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath

Not sarcastic. I am familiar with the politics of the Ba'athists.

Of the criteria:

Left-nationalist - maybe several decades ago, certainly not in its current incarnations.

Secular - okay, I'll grant that one.

Populist - again, maybe several decades ago, certainly not in its current incarnations.

Saddam Hussein violated both the first and the last, except perhaps in rhetoric.

Edit: It is worth noting that in Iraq, the Ba'athists came to power by overthrowing a left-nationalist secular populist regime.

And what would you call what you did in Vietnam?

What I did in Vietnam? I was in Vietnam? So those flashbacks weren't caused by watching too many Nam films?

What I did in Vietnam? I was in Vietnam? So those flashbacks weren't caused by watching too many Nam films?

It's about as fair as blaming genocide on a German now, if not more so.

Most people agree that Iraq is better off than it was under Saddam (over 2/3 in a recent US poll). In your opinion, is Iraq better currently than before the US invasion, and if it (hypothetically) becomes better sometime in the future, would the invasion have been justified ?The US isn't the only place to have people. You'll find that most people disagree wholeheartedly.

The US isn't the only place to have people. You'll find that most people disagree wholeheartedly.

Fool! Don't you know that the US is the centre of the world, and that only their opinions count?

*Shakes head*

For shame...

Fool! Don't you know that the US is the centre of the world, and that only their opinions count?

*Shakes head*

For shame...Let me check my passport again...
There's the list of places I can't travel too...
There's a declaration that American citizenship doesn't protect from other country's drafts in case of dual citizenship...
Purdy pictures of the state seals...
Nope, no statement about the US being center of the world. But my passport isn't that new, so that might be why.

Ah, half-baked political ideology. I love NS.

Anyway.

Iraq is better off without Saddam, but as things are going now, not by much. Instead of getting gassed or shot, you get blown up or kidnapped, and instead of an authoritarian dictatorship, you have foreign terrorist elements. A minor improvement, but nothing to really be proud of.

I've disagreed with this war on two fronts.

(1) We should have KO'd Saddam in 1991, when we had many more times as many troops on the ground. The U.N. would have gone along with it, kicking and screaming if necessary.

(2) The invasion was sloppy. Spearheading to the capital and expecting stuff to work itself out = bad strategy. I said it in March 2003 and I say it now. Giving all the countries surrounding Iraq which are opposed to our objectives, how could one not see the obvious outcome of punking the Iraqi military and creating a power vacuum? Everybody and their grandma with an ideological goal and some Iranian 155mm shells can come on over and try to blow something up.

A better invasion plan (as I argued at the time, though nobody listened...) would have been to lock down the national borders, then move inside nice and slow like. Take your time and root out the enemy as you go. Be methodic. Less of the insurgent elements we face today would have had the time or means to melt into the Iraqi society at large, and it would certainly put a dent in the torrent of jihadists pouring into the country. Every time we shoot one of the little nutcases, another one takes his place. These are not good figures!

I frequent a couple of blogs of fellows over in Iraqi, both US grunts and Iraqis. The opinions vary about stuff, but most agree that Iraq - Saddam = good, but it could be a lot better today if the initial operation had been better planned. As far as I'm concerned, people in the war zone have got more valuable opinions than those of us at home.

No, the US is doing a sloppy job, but it's doing an essential job.

The US broke the china, and going by some of the bitching by the various higher ups, is whining about how hard it is to pay/repair it.

As a German, you should know that what Saddam did to the Kurds was Genocide.

Pathetic.

I believe Iraq is currently worse off at the moment than it was under Saddam.

For most Iraqis I dont believe Saddam actually posed that much of a threat. If one was unfortunate they may have had an association of some kind that placed them in danger, otherwise one would have to choose to place themselves in danger (ie by resisting Saddam's regime or otherwise failing to abide by the rules of tyrannical dictatorship).

At this point in time everyone is in danger.

Further I believe daily life is far more disrupted at this time. I expect people feel more endangered in their daily lives, ammenities are less dependable and even staying home with all the doors locked and an automatic weapon next to the bed doesnt allow one to feel safe.

I also believe that people probably feel (generally speaking) no less oppressed. While some individuals feel either more or less oppressed, I believe the populice as a whole feels about as oppressed as they did previously.

There is a lot more crime, there is still the possibility of being unjustifiably held and tortured by 'law enforcement agencies', there is a far greater danger of being blown up, gunned down, kidnapped etc, and frankly I imagine life is incredibly scary in some places, more so than it was under Saddam for most people most of the time.

Honestly, I just dont see any real improvements in any particular issue, and I see quite a few things that appear much worse so I dont see how it's possible to honestly and objectively describe Iraq as better off now than prior to the invasion...

Ah, half-baked political ideology. I love NS.

Anyway.

Iraq is better off without Saddam, but as things are going now, not by much. Instead of getting gassed or shot, you get blown up or kidnapped, and instead of an authoritarian dictatorship, you have foreign terrorist elements. A minor improvement, but nothing to really be proud of.

I've disagreed with this war on two fronts.

(1) We should have KO'd Saddam in 1991, when we had many more times as many troops on the ground. The U.N. would have gone along with it, kicking and screaming if necessary.

(2) The invasion was sloppy. Spearheading to the capital and expecting stuff to work itself out = bad strategy. I said it in March 2003 and I say it now. Giving all the countries surrounding Iraq which are opposed to our objectives, how could one not see the obvious outcome of punking the Iraqi military and creating a power vacuum? Everybody and their grandma with an ideological goal and some Iranian 155mm shells can come on over and try to blow something up.

A better invasion plan (as I argued at the time, though nobody listened...) would have been to lock down the national borders, then move inside nice and slow like. Take your time and root out the enemy as you go. Be methodic. Less of the insurgent elements we face today would have had the time or means to melt into the Iraqi society at large, and it would certainly put a dent in the torrent of jihadists pouring into the country. Every time we shoot one of the little nutcases, another one takes his place. These are not good figures!

I frequent a couple of blogs of fellows over in Iraqi, both US grunts and Iraqis. The opinions vary about stuff, but most agree that Iraq - Saddam = good, but it could be a lot better today if the initial operation had been better planned. As far as I'm concerned, people in the war zone have got more valuable opinions than those of us at home.

It's not only foreign freedom fighters who are killing civilians in Iraq, the US has done a shitload of killing itself. I bet most of the reports that you took out "Insurgents" are a bit My Lai, to be honest.

(1)The UN would not go along with taking out Saddam then, he formally declared war on another state, which is entirely legal. I think you mean "We would have vetoed anything we didn't like to hell and back, repeatedly". The results would have been the same anyway, if you take out a leader of a country, who's the one and only real leader, then of course there'll be a power vacuum. This, combined with the various fighting factions (I bet that the Kurds would probably have indescriminately killed off any Iraqis they could get their hands on) would produce the same results as it has now.

(2) I don't care what you say about the invasion plan, pissing off foreign countries is never a good idea, especially considering what you've done to them all. Especially by locking down the borders. You might get some help from the Kuwaitis, though. Or everyone's favourite, secular, democratic (you'd have to assume, as they're an American protectorate) state, the Saudi Arabians.

And I've heard enough "Jihadist" shite to fill me up for life. These people are opposed to your invasion. That's another key point. The "Jihadists" are people, not little pawns to blow up or whatever. Remember that.

It's not a religious war, it's just an excuse to attack you. Face it. Also, this "insurgency" business. Asymetrical warfare is not "sneaky". If you can't look at things outside of the box, then your military is buggered from day one.

You might "crush" them or whatever, but there are far, far more people in the middle east than there are US soldiers there. If you attack Iran or Syria, then you might just be finished.

And if the views of people "over there" are so much better than yours, then why speak up at all?

I agree, sadamm was bad as he did murder a lot of people but now we realise that the only thing stopping the iraqis all killing eachother was his murders.

Let all the evils that lurk in the mud hatch.

( Robert Graves / Claudius - bk II )

It isn't going to get better until there has been a lot more of.. lets call it... religious cleansing.

What do you want the peace-loving Iraqis to do?
The peace loving Iraqis want the US to leave!!

There's nothing they can do to counter the horrendous tactics of the extremists, so they must rely on the US to do their fighting for them.
Iraqis feel that their security will improve when the US troops leave.

Without the US, the country would sink into a vast civil war and many, many more people would lose their lives.
The country already is in the state of civil war according to some:

Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi has equated the violence with a civil war.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

No, the US is doing a sloppy job, but it's doing an essential job.
According to the respondents of this poll, and according to Iraqis, the vast majority disagree with your statement.

well if you hear what the Iraqis say you will realise that they are happier on the other hand if you listen to the reporters you will think its much worse I can say that even if you ignore what the Iraqis say you will see how much its improving especially as food is being sent to areas that Saddam just ignored

I don’t think you could justify a war on it though

I wouldn't call the war justified, even if it somehow produced a good result, any more than I would say a man is justified in chucking a hammer out of his tenth story apartment window if it just happened to hit a guy who was robbing an old lady.

If the outcome had been FORESEEN and a PLAN had been made taking various RISKS into account, then we could talk about if the plan was justified.

Otherwise, all we could possibly say is "Isn't it lucky we hit the bad guy rather than the old lady?"
i like this analysis the best.

except that the old lady had a heart attack over the bad guys head exploding and they dont know how well she will recover from it.

on the good side, i hear that many areas have more electricity than they did before the war.

If Iraq somehow magically got back on track, then one could say that perhaps the invasion did more good than bad.

Not gonna happen though.

So the stated premise was a lie, the moral premise was wrong, the execution was utterly and completely wrong and what happened since then is a disgrace.

Biggest failure of the century? As far as I can predict the future, yes.

You are one sad sad fellow aren't you Neu Leonstein? Come on now. Stop being so pessimistic.

Ha! With all that is going on there, trying to say things are getting better is just wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12197953/

Why is it only in a localized area and not in all provinces?

on the good side, i hear that many areas have more electricity than they did before the war.

No, they don't, despite the fact that Iraq was one of the most developed countries in the region. This is because (a) the "coalition" destroyed the grid before/during the invasion(b)Paul "the poxy haircut" Bremners "Governorship" was exlemplified by splurging Iraqi funds on contractors of dubious capability and (c) there is now a number of Islamic groups who are destroying various public utilities an/or anyone attempting to repair them. Its been reduced to a third world country.

Hey, I agree that Saddam was horrible and should have been removed (although not in this way).

But don't use words you can't back up. They now charged Saddam with genocide in the trial, and they'll never be able to prove it without taking the last ounce of credibility from that court.

oh my god. I cannot believe this! I really cannot believe this. How soon we forget history.

Leon, what Saddam did was launch an operation against the Kurds and used gas to kill them. That is the fine art of Genocide. He will not get off on that charge as it is a known fact known around the world.

I'm sorry you don't see it that way :(

The peace loving Iraqis want the US to leave!!

I want us to leave and so does the Government of Iraq and the United States. However, both governments realize that we are necessary for the moment unfortunately.

Iraqis feel that their security will improve when the US troops leave.

To be honest, I doubt it highly,.

The country already is in the state of civil war according to some:

Which is crap.

Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi has equated the violence with a civil war.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

A slight overestimate but not that far off. However, most of the ones doing the killings is Al Qaeda under Zaraqwi. From what I've been hearing, he isn't well popular in Iraq even among the insurgency groups.

According to the respondents of this poll, and according to Iraqis, the vast majority disagree with your statement.

I think Iraq is better off. However, you have a terrorist group in there trying to destablize the country.

How are you doing CanuckHeaven :)

Better or worse than before when? Before the war? Before last year? Before the election?

You have a very bad poll. :(I assume its BEFORE and AFTER the INVASION.
..I think he is trying to figure if the Invasion was good for the (average) Iraqi people.

and Yes his poll has major flaws.. the last 4 POLL-options are stupid(..if Iraq becomes better in the future) all countries tend to do better over time (in the future).. and Iraq cant really do any worse than today..

for example Japan.. ask any Japanese if they are happy we nuked them twice.. and when he gives you the Finger, try telling him "But..but.. you ingrate chink.. you are doing so much better today.. Its all because we Nuked You."

The U.N. would have gone along with it, kicking and screaming if necessary.

You've got an interesting post, but all that really matters to me is that, in that it disgusts me. The United Nations isn't there to be dragged into things "kicking and screaming," it's there to ensure world peace and so forth, from what I figure. Sure, it's got no teeth, but over-agressive teeth with world-wide ambition shouldn't control the beast, should it? The UN isn't supposed to be the United States body shield when bad press comes around, to say "well the UN went along with it..."
The US should not try to use the UN like that. It's purpose is NOT to carry out the United States wishes.


Moving on;
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert:
"If there's a Civil War in Iraq, we can't be involved! And that's an Exit Strategy RIGHT THERE!"
hahaha, I love it.
Civil War for Iraqi's to fix America's biggest F-UP. (ok, perhaps, maybe, next to Vietnam)

The peace loving Iraqis want the US to leave!!

Perhaps the insane or mentally deficient ones do, but the ones that one their country to be stable in the least want US troops to stay. They realize that if US troops leave, there will be a total power vacuum and sectarian tensions will reach a boiling point and the civil war will spill out. The only thing stopping large-scale civil war is the US. Without the US, Iraq is completely screwed.

Iraqis feel that their security will improve when the US troops leave.

And I feel that crime will decrease if we eliminate the police force, and that fires will decrease if we get rid of the fire department.

According to the respondents of this poll, and according to Iraqis, the vast majority disagree with your statement.

Then obviously the vast majority of respondents don't know the reality in Iraq, so they suggest stupid solution like withdrawing US troops. Hell, only a very small minority of Iraqis want US troops withdrawn immediately, and I'm willing to be those are the insurgents.

You are one sad sad fellow aren't you Neu Leonstein? Come on now. Stop being so pessimistic.
I could probably give you about a billion links to all sorts of horrible truths about how things are going.
In the US, those are being reported a little bit strange, because in the name of not wanting to be "biased", news stations are always concerned with bringing out at least as many "good news" as "bad news".

Which is really a symptom of how media reporting in the US has become such a political issue - if even the facts have ideological value...

At any rate, I'll just give four examples:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,409710,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,407315,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,405164,00.html
And especially:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

oh my god. I cannot believe this! I really cannot believe this. How soon we forget history.
Indeed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87)

Leon, what Saddam did was launch an operation against the Kurds and used gas to kill them. That is the fine art of Genocide. He will not get off on that charge as it is a known fact known around the world.
He also used gas to kill Iranians. Does that mean he wanted to wipe the Iranian people out of existence?
What about the Shi'ites. He didn't use gas against them, but he killed more Shi'ites than Kurds.
What about the Communists? His party killed them in their thousands. Genocide?

Genocide is a very tightly defined legal term. There are things like democide, which are somewhat easier to prove.
Genocide requires a proof of intent, clear established lines of command that can be traced back to the leader and it must be established that the leader knew what was happening on the ground. For neither Saddam nor Milosevic is that really possible.
We've seen what happened at the Milosevic trial, where they decided to go ahead with the genocide charges. As a result, Milosevic was free to call thousands and thousands of witnesses and make the trial last years.

The only way the same thing wouldn't happen in Saddam's case is if they don't grant him the right to defend himself in that way. Which is exactly what will happen.

In some senses, better. In some senses, worse.

Better:


People are allowed to speak their minds.
Iraq is no longer a pariah amongst the international community.
Iraq is now a democracy.
More foreign investment.


Worse:

People may be allowed to speak their minds, but they get blown up by suicide bombers because of it.
Iraq is no longer a pariah, because now it's considered a puppet of the United States.
Iraq is a democracy, but the people (mostly) vote along tribal and ethnic lines.
The infrastructure only recently returned to pre-war levels.


So, it's a trade off. I believe that if Amerika can hold out until 2010, then we'll have won. However, America has shown before that we aren't willing to hold out for too long. Granted, we can leave if we give the U.N. more control, but if we just pull out these last 3 years will have gone to waste.