NationStates Jolt Archive

There are lots of anti-war people who will cite the deteriorating conditions in Iraq as a principle reason as to why the war was a bad idea and why we should leave now. There are two main problems with this argument. Firstly, there is no real explanation given how removing our troops, which are currently providing a service to Iraq which is slowly improving things, will make things any better, and secondly (and much more seriously) it essentially means that the anti-war crowd think its ok to have a dictator in power as long as he keeps the streets safe, keeps the water and power on and keeps us in good stead etc. If your arguing "Things are worse now than when Hussain was there, ergo we shouldn't have gone" you are essentially saying that dictators are fine if they keep some peoples QOL at ok levels. Yes, we proberbly could have organised the war better so that things would be better now, but thats a long way off from suggesting that we shouldn't have gone at all.

I think the whole Iraq civilian population wanting troops out would be a good piece of argument or maybe the fact that all the troops stationed there are doing is giving batshit insane fundies something to rally support

and I'd choose a secular dictator over...well Afghanistan any day

it essentially means that the anti-war crowd think its ok to have a dictator in power as long as he keeps the streets safe, keeps the water and power on and keeps us in good stead etc.
So? The US school system and government has ingrained in students that a pure democracy is the best, and only, system of government there is and everyone should switch to it - except for the US itself which is a democratic republic. Which like every other government stance is hypocritical. Dictators are A-OK - as long as we overthrew the previous pro-anti-US-group government and instated them. We can't stay in Iraq indefinitely and whether we leave or not it is going to become a dictatorial, US-supported theocracy (like a number of other Middle Eastern nations). Totally better than a secular, impotent dictatorship that didn't like the US :rolleyes:

"life was better under saddam" is water under the bridge. not to mention that it is an unproven statement. WE dont get to decide if life in iraq is better or worse now--thats for the iraqis to judge.

but in the same way that it is a bad excuse for leaving iraq, its a bad excuse for staying and a lie to suggest that it was in any way a reason for our invading iraq to begin with.

Life sucked under Saddam, but life in iraq still sucks.

There was no reason to even consider a vacation there a decade ago, and there's no reason now.

Yes, Saddam is gone, but al-Sadr isn't much better.

There are lots of anti-war people who will cite the deteriorating conditions in Iraq as a principle reason as to why the war was a bad idea and why we should leave now. There are two main problems with this argument. Firstly, there is no real explanation given how removing our troops, which are currently providing a service to Iraq which is slowly improving things, will make things any better, and secondly (and much more seriously) it essentially means that the anti-war crowd think its ok to have a dictator in power as long as he keeps the streets safe, keeps the water and power on and keeps us in good stead etc. If your arguing "Things are worse now than when Hussain was there, ergo we shouldn't have gone" you are essentially saying that dictators are fine if they keep some peoples QOL at ok levels. Yes, we proberbly could have organised the war better so that things would be better now, but thats a long way off from suggesting that we shouldn't have gone at all.

Well, the problem is that you assume that everyone should value democracy over a dictatorship. In fact, you explicitly use dictator in a negative way. There are times when a strong leader with unlimited powers is best for a country. You've had democracy beat into you from the beginning, so it's no surprise that you'd see it like this.

As well, you also assume that everyone values "freedom" (a rather vague word by the way) over "security". There are quite a few people that value securty over freedom, just look at the patriot act (even if it's not popular with the majority, it's still very popular).

And furthermore, it's not a reason to leave so much as an example of how shitty the US has done there. If Iraqis deem US worse now than with Saddam, we've hit rock-bottom.

Small improvements don't mean anything either, if 9000 are dying instead of 10000 it's still a horrific situation. And no one knows what will happen when we leave either, for all we know there could be more peace, assuming that violence will increase with our leaving is an unproven assumption.

"life was better under saddam" is water under the bridge. not to mention that it is an unproven statement. WE dont get to decide if life in iraq is better or worse now--thats for the iraqis to judge.

but in the same way that it is a bad excuse for leaving iraq, its a bad excuse for staying and a lie to suggest that it was in any way a reason for our invading iraq to begin with.
QFT.

Also, I'd like to point out the obvious: Both statements -- "Life was better under Saddam/Life was worse under Saddam" -- are bullshit if spoken by anyone who did not live in Iraq under Saddam's control. The only people who know how life in Iraq under Saddam compares to life there now are the Iraqis themselves. I notice they have precious little to say in public about Saddam, but plenty to say about the US occupation. So, I'm going to guess that Saddam is irrelevant at this point.

I think the whole Iraq civilian population wanting troops out would be a good piece of argument or maybe the fact that all the troops stationed there are doing is giving batshit insane fundies something to rally support

and I'd choose a secular dictator over...well Afghanistan any day

Erm, most of the opinion poles say the Iraqies like what the troops are doing, but want them to go some time, obviously.

Firstly, there is no real explanation given how removing our troops, which are currently providing a service to Iraq which is slowly improving things, will make things any better,
It will deteriorate into hell whenever we leave. We may as well leave now and get it over with then poor trillions of dollars down the drain for it only to fail anyway. The people DO NOT want to live with each other.

and secondly (and much more seriously) it essentially means that the anti-war crowd think its ok to have a dictator in power as long as he keeps the streets safe, keeps the water and power on and keeps us in good stead etc.
Yes, I do agree with that. People in general don't really care about free speech and that stuff as long as they can put food on the table. When they lose that ability, they could care less about all the "freedom" they have. Dictatorship is the best from of government possible.

If your arguing "Things are worse now than when Hussain was there, ergo we shouldn't have gone" you are essentially saying that dictators are fine if they keep some peoples QOL at ok levels. Yes, we proberbly could have organised the war better so that things would be better now, but thats a long way off from suggesting that we shouldn't have gone at all.
I think it's primarily the fact that we shouldn't be knocking out leaders just because WE happen to think they're bad. After 50 years of that policy, we got our bill on 11 September 2001. It is not our place to decide whether any other government should stay or go. I mean would you like if Canada came in and deposed our government because they thought it was undemocratic and was basically a two-party dictatorship that were almost identical? (Excuse the fact that that is physically a virtual impossibility.)

Well, the problem is that you assume that everyone should value democracy over a dictatorship. In fact, you explicitly use dictator in a negative way. There are times when a strong leader with unlimited powers is best for a country. You've had democracy beat into you from the beginning, so it's no surprise that you'd see it like this.

Don't patronise me. For a start I'm not American and I'm not a child. I know that democracy is the best system not because I've had it "drilled into" me, but because it works best for a large plethora of reasons.


As well, you also assume that everyone values "freedom" (a rather vague word by the way) over "security". There are quite a few people that value securty over freedom, just look at the patriot act (even if it's not popular with the majority, it's still very popular).

Freedoms are not vague. Read the UN decloration of human rights. As you read it, you can see historical examples of where each of them have been breached and what horrors have happened when they were breached.


And furthermore, it's not a reason to leave so much as an example of how shitty the US has done there. If Iraqis deem US worse now than with Saddam, we've hit rock-bottom.

Pointing out the US is doing badly isn't really very helpful. Your essentially being a pathetic school child. Make out that your opinon is superior by instead of good argument, point out the failure of a diffrent opinon.


Small improvements don't mean anything either, if 9000 are dying instead of 10000 it's still a horrific situation. And no one knows what will happen when we leave either, for all we know there could be more peace, assuming that violence will increase with our leaving is an unproven assumption.

No, there would be more vilonence. The trend across Iraq has been practically universal. The more US troops there are in an area, the less viloence there is against the civilian population. And improvements up till now don't mean much, no. But what they do mean is that things are getting better which means things can return to normal.