Is Iraq Better Or Worse Since the Invasion?

[Duke]

The question is, is Iraq better or worse since the Coalition invaded in 2003? I bring this article for discussion as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/06/baghdad.agony.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- In 2003, when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, a woman named Hamdiyah al-Dulaimi had three handsome sons. They were good men with wives and families, the shining accomplishments of her life.

In hindsight, it was a much better life than she realized at the time. Most certainly better than it is now, four years after the fall of Baghdad.

On April 9, 2003, the people of the city cheered invading U.S. soldiers in the city square. Leaders of the coalition troops promised liberty, freedom and life without tyranny.

But Baghdad still has none of those things. And al-Dulaimi has no sons.

One day last spring, a dozen men in black uniforms knocked down her door. They screamed "Filthy Sunnis!" and handcuffed her sons, Haqqi, 39, Qais, 37, and Ali, 31.

"Why? What did my boys do?" the mother cried as the gunmen dragged their new prisoners across the floor.

Al-Dulaimi dropped to her knees, clinging to the ankles of a kidnapper. She begged, kissing his shoes. "At least leave me one. Take the other two. Leave me one."

They beat her unconscious with their gun stocks and took her sons.

The next day, her sons' corpses were on the sidewalk. Haqqi's body was headless. The bodies of Qais and Ali had been mutilated; some parts were missing.

Like so many others, their grieving mother fled -- to Syria, in her case.

She left behind deprivation and corruption, mayhem and madness. Baghdad is a city that is hemorrhaging many of its best and brightest, while many of those left behind are brutalized and traumatized.

Notwithstanding Sen. John McCain's stroll through a city market last week -- "Things are better," he insisted -- Iraqis wonder: Can a place where men blow themselves up in street markets, cars explode at traffic lights and kidnappings occur in broad daylight ever recover?

I would say the situation in Iraq has worsened


Duke

P.S.: My internet hiccuped, and I didn't get a chance to set up the poll; could a mod do so for me please? The options I had in mind were 1) Much Better, 2) Somewhat Better, 3)The Same, 4) Somewhat Worse, and 5) Much Worse.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

WORSE!!!
Look at buShs hands. They should be RED from all the BLOOD from all the needless killings because of him.
If Saddam was still in charge of Iraq her sons, 3,000+ of our Troops would still be living and we would have captured Osama and his gang of thugs and they would not have been all rebuilt again.
:toilet: BuSh:toilet:
________
And there you once again have the truth from >>>>>>>>:2usflag: "sergeant STINGER1:2usflag:

 

[Billo_Really]

A half a million people would be alive today if we had not attacked.

There would be no civil war if we had not attacked.

We would not be complaining about Iranian influence in Iraq if we had not attacked.

al Qaeda would not exist in Iraq if we had not attacked.

 

[RightOfCenter]

The question is, is Iraq better or worse since the Coalition invaded in 2003? I bring this article for discussion as well:

War bleeds Baghdad of its best and brightest - CNN.com



I would say the situation in Iraq has worsened


Duke

P.S.: My internet hiccuped, and I didn't get a chance to set up the poll; could a mod do so for me please? The options I had in mind were 1) Much Better, 2) Somewhat Better, 3)The Same, 4) Somewhat Worse, and 5) Much Worse.

Things are worse, but what can we do about it without making a bad situation terrible?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightOfCenter
Things are worse, but what can we do about it without making a bad situation terrible?

We can leave.

I don't think things will get worse if we do. Did you see that letter intelligence services intercepted of a high ranking al Qaeda member expressing concerns if the US leaves, it will be harder for them to maintain control and gain more members. If the US leaves, al Qaeda loses their reason for existance in Iraq. I mean, who in their right mind would want a bunch of psychotic car bombers running around their neighborhoods? The only reason they put up with that now, is because they target Americans. And most Iraqis want us out of THEIR country.

 

[RightOfCenter]

We can leave.

I don't think things will get worse if we do. Did you see that letter intelligence services intercepted of a high ranking al Qaeda member expressing concerns if the US leaves, it will be harder for them to maintain control and gain more members. If the US leaves, al Qaeda loses their reason for existance in Iraq. I mean, who in their right mind would want a bunch of psychotic car bombers running around their neighborhoods? The only reason they put up with that now, is because they target Americans. And most Iraqis want us out of THEIR country.

If we leave we will have only have helped create another state to sponsor further terrorist attacks on the world. Whoever manages to gain control in Iraq will most definately be anti-American and will most definately be supportive AQ and other groups like them.

 

[Duke]

Things are worse, but what can we do about it without making a bad situation terrible?

That's a good question, I suggest making a poll about it.

But back on topic: I fully expect this thread to eventually degenerate into partisan bickering, but I have found answers given to this question very telling. For example, when people say everything would be happy and pretty in Iraq had we not invaded, ignoring the fact that Saddam was a totalitarian butcher, it's a clear indication that the answer was not formulated objectively. On the other hand, when people refuse to recognize that the situation in Iraq is worse now than it was before, it shows me that they are willing to set fact aside in order to defend what they perceive to be their side.

I believe that Iraq was out of whack before we attacked and that Iraq was out of whack after we attacked (Poetic, no?), but considerably more out of whack. It's very simple: When a totalitarian government collapses and nothing of substance appears right after it, anarchy erupts. And so it has. I hated Saddam, but despite his record of genocide and cruel murder, he managed to keep that country in much better shape than it has been able to do on its own or with American involvement.


Duke

 

[Duke]

Bill: Do you have a link for said Al Qaeda letter?

If we leave we will have only have helped create another state to sponsor further terrorist attacks on the world. Whoever manages to gain control in Iraq will most definately be anti-American and will most definately be supportive AQ and other groups like them.

There's a paradox here that you may not know of. Do you know what Al Qaeda's rationale for hating America is? It's American soldiers on Muslim soil. Bin Laden is very explicit in his fatwa on this topic. We can expect anti-American sentiment right after we pull out (but assuredly less than we feel now), but the radicals will no longer a rallying point, and the ire will fade. I think we can better protect American lives on our own land than in somebody else's; if they wish to stage an attack on us, they can do so with or without troops in Iraq. But it's a helluva lot easier to prevent such attacks in the US than it is in Iraq.


Duke

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightOfCenter
If we leave we will have only have helped create another state to sponsor further terrorist attacks on the world. Whoever manages to gain control in Iraq will most definately be anti-American and will most definately be supportive AQ and other groups like them.

Well, were the ones who put the Iranian-loving Shia's in power.
They came in on the back of our tanks.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Bill: Do you have a link for said Al Qaeda letter?



There's a paradox here that you may not know of. Do you know what Al Qaeda's rationale for hating America is? It's American soldiers on Muslim soil. Bin Laden is very explicit in his fatwa on this topic. We can expect anti-American sentiment right after we pull out (but assuredly less than we feel now), but the radicals will no longer a rallying point, and the ire will fade. I think we can better protect American lives on our own land than in somebody else's; if they wish to stage an attack on us, they can do so with or without troops in Iraq. But it's a helluva lot easier to prevent such attacks in the US than it is in Iraq.


Duke

Even if America was to remove all of it's troops from the Middle East the extremists rallying point would become Israel, and there just isn't an easy solution to that problem.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Well, were the ones who put the Iranian-loving Shia's in power.
They came in on the back of our tanks.

Yes, it's our fault. It's our mistake. And we have to deal with it. Leaving Iraq to it's own designs is not dealing with it. Though I'm very inclined to say **** it and let the world sort out it's own problems we have a responsibility to do all we possibly can to stabilize the country. But it hasn't been working for four years, so will it ever?

 

[Hatuey]

I think we've reached a point where we're backed into a wall. Our politicians are unwilling or unable to send in the necessary number of troops to quell this insurgency. The Iraqi government isn't picking up the slack. Our allies have been withdrawing and our occupation is pushing more and more moderate muslims towards extremism. If Bush decides to bing back up the number of troops to 250K and begin a non stop offensive on the insurgency this whole mess would be solved in a matter of months. However he's got the nation so split on this war it would be unwise for any politician to back such a move. Specially when the elections are right around the corner. Leaving Iraq seems like a good move but at what cost? Iraq would become another Iran and that is something we must not allow. I think the best option would be to split the country into three(Kurds/Shiites/Sunnis) and help out those who want out help and are willing to renounce violence to get that help. One thing is certain. Allowing Iraq to become another Iran is unacceptable and we should do everything in our power to stop that from ever happening.

 

[Duke]

Even if America was to remove all of it's troops from the Middle East the extremists rallying point would become Israel, and there just isn't an easy solution to that problem.

But there's a difference. If you are an Iraqi citizen, and one day you see tanks that you are told are American tanks rolling through your city, bombs that you are told are American bombs falling from the sky, and soldiers that you are told are American soldiers patrolling your streets, and you hear your religious leader telling you to fight, fight the Americans and fight for your holy land, you might just do so. But if you hear about a country that you've never seen full of people you've never seen doing things that you can't see but you are told are bad (Israel), you are considerably less likely to do anything. Israel will always be a target. Are you saying that the extremist rallying point against America would be our support for Israel if we pulled troops out of the Middle East? I think the fact that we are giving terrorists an excuse to recruit is only one problem with our ongoing occupation of Iraq, though, and I don't believe that we shouldn't pull out simply because the terrorists would try to rally their forces with our support for Israel.


Duke

 

[Duke]

Yes, it's our fault. It's our mistake. And we have to deal with it. Leaving Iraq to it's own designs is not dealing with it. Though I'm very inclined to say **** it and let the world sort out it's own problems we have a responsibility to do all we possibly can to stabilize the country. But it hasn't been working for four years, so will it ever?

I hear the word "responsibility" tossed around a lot. "We have a responsibility to fix Iraq". But that seems to me to be an oversimplification. How do we "fix" Iraq? I haven't heard any bright ideas. Our fixing tactics so far have been failing miserably. And America has other responsibilities, too. Responsibilities to its people, for example. Every dollar we spend on our responsibility to help Iraqis could and should be spend on Americans, the Americans who's dollar it is in the first place, and the Americans who have spoken in majority against this war.


Duke

 

[Hoot]

How do we fix Iraq?

We begin troop withdrawals immediately, into defensive positions, and concentrate only on training Iraqi troops, and reconstruction efforts...PERFORMED by Iraqi workers, and not outside, money grubbing war profiteers.

 

[RightinNYC]

No matter how much people on here want to go back and forth about the topic, none of us know. So why don't we listen to the people who do know, the people who this question is most relevant to:

March 19th, 2007
Sponsored by the BBC, ABC, ARD German television and USA Today, this poll surveyed over 2000 Iraqis in all provinces of the country. MOE +-2.5%

Question 2:

Compared to the time before the war in Spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, or much worse?

Much Better: 14%
Somewhat Better: 29%
About the Same: 22%
Somewhat Worse: 28%
Much Worse: 8%

That breaks down to a 43 - 34 margin saying that they think things are better now than they were before the war when it comes to their individual lives. However, when they are asked about the country as a whole, we see a slightly different result:

Compared to our country as it was before the Spring 2003 invasion, would you say that things are much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, or much worse?

Much Better: 11%
Somewhat Better: 27%
About the Same: 12%
Somewhat Worse: 30%
Much Worse: 20%

That breaks down to a 50-38 margin saying that they think thinks were better before the war when it comes to the country as a whole.

One possible interpretation for this disparity is that although people are now hearing more frequent reports of deaths, bombings, murders, etc. that were hidden from the public during the Saddam era, they are actually experiencing an increased degree of personal freedom and happiness.

Another worthy bit of data from the survey:

Q27 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave?

Leave Now: 35%
Remain until security is restored: 38%
Remain until Iraqi gov is stronger: 14%
Remain until Iraqi sec. forces can operate independently: 11%

That cumulatively provides a 63 - 35 margin against having the US troops leave now.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
Another worthy bit of data from the survey:

Quote:
Q27 How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave?

Leave Now: 35%
Remain until security is restored: 38%
Remain until Iraqi gov is stronger: 14%
Remain until Iraqi sec. forces can operate independently: 11%

That cumulatively provides a 63 - 35 margin against having the US troops leave now.

This doesn't add up when you look at this poll question from the same link...

Which shows support for the coalition in steady decline the longer we are there. I'm not sure if "coalition" is the right word these days for the occupation forces.

To get an idea of the demographics of the pollsters, just look at the this question asking "...are things overall in YOUR life much better now..."

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
Question 2:

Compared to the time before the war in Spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse, or much worse?

Much Better: 14%
Somewhat Better: 29%
About the Same: 22%
Somewhat Worse: 28%
Much Worse: 8%

...as opposed to what those very same posters think about the country on the whole...

Or if you pose the question how things in Iraq are overall compared to prior the invasion, you get...

And if I could bring it all home for the reader, how can life possibly be good when you consider (in terms of your own life if you had to go through this) the poll question...

Note the obvious editing for the poll results above was necessary due to the fact the poll graphic straddled two pages on the link RightatNYU provided in his post.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A half a million people would be alive today if we had not attacked.

Load of horseshit continuously disproven time and time again on this board.

There would be no civil war if we had not attacked.

There isn't one now, there is a coalition government made up of both Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, none have pulled out of said government, that can hardly be considered a civil war.

al Qaeda would not exist in Iraq if we had not attacked.

Nope they would exist in the U.S. since they would not have put all of there resources into Iraq which even OBL admits is the central front in AQ's jihad.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Load of horseshit continuously disproven time and time again on this board.

You haven't disproven anything. In order to do that, you would have to know (not think or believe) as to what the actual death count is. And the truth of that matter is, no one knows.

So why do you act like you do?

Or know someone who does?

Or think people are so stupid, that they actually believe you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Nope they would exist in the U.S. since they would not have put all of there resources into Iraq which even OBL admits is the central front in AQ's jihad.

Have you no faith in TSA (Thousands Standing Around)?

 

[Navy Pride]

There was a recent polltaken by the British and the Iraqi people said they are much better off.........Personally I believe its to early to tell.......I think in another 2 years we will ahve that answer.......

 

[dragonslayer]

WORSE!!!
Look at buShs hands. They should be RED from all the BLOOD from all the needless killings because of him.
If Saddam was still in charge of Iraq her sons, 3,000+ of our Troops would still be living and we would have captured Osama and his gang of thugs and they would not have been all rebuilt again.
:toilet: BuSh:toilet:
________
And there you once again have the truth from >>>>>>>>:2usflag: "sergeant STINGER1:2usflag:

Sergeant Stinger, I could not have said it better my self. We invaded a sovereign nationfor no reason, we create terrorist, we caused warfare between Sunni and Shia. We bomb there cities. We have killed many many thousands of Iraqis. How in the name of God, could things possibly ever be considered better in Iraq, since the Invasion.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You haven't disproven anything. In order to do that, you would have to know (not think or believe) as to what the actual death count is. And the truth of that matter is, no one knows.

So why do you act like you do?

Or know someone who does?

Or think people are so stupid, that they actually believe you?

lmfao, you claim that half a million deaths have been the result of this war then go onto say that no one knows how many people have been killed, make up your ****ing mind Billo. Bottom line, your figure of `1/2 million dead is complete and utter bullshit and everyone knows it.

 

[Duke]

No matter how much people on here want to go back and forth about the topic, none of us know. So why don't we listen to the people who do know, the people who this question is most relevant to:




That breaks down to a 43 - 34 margin saying that they think things are better now than they were before the war when it comes to their individual lives. However, when they are asked about the country as a whole, we see a slightly different result:



That breaks down to a 50-38 margin saying that they think thinks were better before the war when it comes to the country as a whole.

One possible interpretation for this disparity is that although people are now hearing more frequent reports of deaths, bombings, murders, etc. that were hidden from the public during the Saddam era, they are actually experiencing an increased degree of personal freedom and happiness.

Another worthy bit of data from the survey:




That cumulatively provides a 63 - 35 margin against having the US troops leave now.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf

On the other hand:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/

The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/iraqpoll/poll5/flash.htm
78% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

57% of Iraqis think coalition forces should leave immediately.


Duke

 

[Duke]

There was a recent polltaken by the British and the Iraqi people said they are much better off.........Personally I believe its to early to tell.......I think in another 2 years we will ahve that answer.......

This is the perfect example of someone putting obvious reality and fact aside in order to take a stance that is in accordance with his party. On the other hand, Bill is willing to use questionable statistics and more questionable claims to paint his picture.


Duke