Do you think Iraqi people are bettter off after their "liberation"?

sxt

]Do you think the Iragi people are better off since the american "intervention"

Do you think the Americans are concerned that local war lords will enivitably take over when they are gone?


The secretary of state of the U.S.A , as shown in youtube video below,reasoned that it was okay to sacrafice half a million innocent iragi children in 1996, do you think that a decade later ,they have the kids future in their minds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_...War_casualties




According to UNHCR estimates, over 4.7 million Iraqis have been displaced since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003

---

Were those deaths post 2003 justifieds, Does anybody seriously believe that Iraq and the iragi people have benefited from this in some way?

Athlone_Bhoy

I think anyone who seriously believes this was about WMD needs their heads checked. Look at Bill O Reilly he said himself on the Letterman show that it all about the oil then next day he goes how great it is the the Iraqi people to free. Have to say it made me laugh.

All the deaths to get rid of Saddam was it worth? I wouldn't say so. Think of all these dead people what's their families thinking? They want pay back.

Even British MP's said it was about the oil. People murdered for what? At look at the price of oil now you'd think freeing Iraq would bringing down the price.

Einhard

I think anyone who thinks it was about WMD needs their heas checked. However, anyone who thinks its about oil are also just as deluded. I read today that the relatively insignificant intervention against gadaffi has cost the Americans half a billion dollars. Even going on the pre-war best case scenarios, intervantion in Iraq would have been calculated at tens of billions. Why risk so much money and lives, when the Americas could have done what they do witht he Saudis, and cosy up to Saddam? Embrace him, claim he's rehabilitated, and claim the benefits. It would have been the obvious thing to do. Instead, they embarked on a ruinously expensive war, at the end of which, most of the large oil contracts went to companies from other nations! Recently, the rights to one of the largest Iraqi fields was auctioned, and won by a Chinese state company, in conjunction with a British partner. There wasn't an American company in sight. And this is being repeated right across the board, as rights are auctioned on a purely commerical basis. America is seeing no tangible benefot from her intervention.

So, it's not that I'm reflexively pro-American, but I really fail to see the logic in the claim that the invasion of Iraq was premised on oil. I think it's a lazy argument, often convenient to those who dislike America, and for both those reasons its parroted almost reflexively.

As to the original question, I believe the Iraqi people are better off now than they were. They are, at least, in charge of their own destiny. Huge problems remain of course, not least the political factionalism of the new parliament, but even that hides a positive- the parliament was freely chosen by Iraqis. Over 60% of Iraqis approve of their choice. Over, and almost, 70% approve of the army and police respectively. This doesn't of course demonstrate that people are better off than before the war, but I think such a high degree of approval for the basic institutions of the state indicates something similar. Indeed, the fact that Iraqis are actually being polled surely demonstrates a significant positive shift.

It's noteworthy that a small majority of Iraqis believe the country is going in the wrong direction, but this pessimism does not arise from a comparison between post- and ante-bellum Iraq, but rather from the recent turmoil as the various parties strove to form a government. Indeed, in the 2009 poll, most Iraqis felt the country was going in the right direction, an indication I think, that Iraqis feel better off since the toppling of Saddam.

(http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2010%20September%2016%20Survey%20of%20Iraqi%20Public%20Opinion,%20June%203-July%203,%202010(3).pdf)

In terms of her economy, Iraq has come on in leaps and bounds. Inflation is relatively stable, unemployment is down, and at 15%, is about the same as Ireland's, and living standards have improved. Before the war, less than a million Iraqis had access to a telephone. Now more than 1.3 million have landlines and some 20 million have cellphones. Before the invasion, 4,500 Iraqis had Internet service. Now, more than 1.7 million do.

69% of Iraqis rate their personal finances positively, up from 36% in March 2007.

Basic services are better, but still bad. Electricity production is up by 40 percent over pre-invasion levels, but because there are so many more air-conditioners and other appliances, widespread power failures still occur.
In February 2009, 45 percent of Iraqis said they had access to trash removal services, which is woeful, though up from 18 percent the year before. Forty-two percent were served by a fire department, up from 23 percent.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/opinion/31brooks.html; http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr1072.pdf; http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf)

Clearly then, Iraqis are better off than they were before the war and, more importantly, they feel better off too. This is significant, and is too often overlooked in the rush to condemn the invasion, and everything that stemmed from it.

I think that a mistake too often made by Western commentators, especially those with a negative attitude to the war and America, is to project their feelings onto Iraqis. Thus, if Joe in Brighton thinks the war has destroyed Iraq and brought no benefits, then Abdul in Baghdad must think the same. However, that's not necessarily the case, as Iraqi attitudes to the American "occupation" illustrate. Over 50% of Iraqis actually opposed Obama's withdrawl of American combat troops. This is a hugely interesting and surprising statistic, and far from that of a population suffering the depradations of a foreign occupying force.

(http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/08/24/117503.html)

Of course, none of this is to justify the war, or to claim that the improvements in the lives of Iraqis is worth the lives lost in the invasion. However, it is necessary to point out these things to counter-balance those who refuse to acknowledge any positives from Iraq, and by refusing to do so, actually do a grave disservice to the Iraqis. It's time we looked at the situation in that country from the POV of a neutral observer, and stopped using Iraq and her citizens as a political football, to be used and manipulated for partisan purposes.

Fallschirmjager

i have something to add regarding WMD in the form of a question. do you believe saddam would never had made WMD again if the sanctions disappeared...?

yes i know that was not a reason for war but its a reason i am glad the psycho is dead and his psycho sons, who raped their way across baghdad.

i always am reminded of the israeli bombing of his nuclear facilities and the hell they had to put up with at the time. the same moaners were strangely quiet during gulf war 1 and afterwards.

also the dead iraqi children was in response to a UN embargo on saddam who took it out on the iraqi people. its his fault, i would say blame him, but of course...hes dead...

now onto the lancet figures. 700,000 dead was the estimate (well i think it was 680,000 but since they are fabricated numbers lets keep going.

the population of Iraq is around 27 million during the timeframe.

to get the 700,000 number they interviewed 1,849 people in 47 clusters out of a population of 30 million. Now the lancet argued they interviewed 13,000 so choose which figure you believe. either way 47 clusters for a country that size is incredibly small, unless you have an agenda.


So here is what the lancet is saying: between 2003 and 2006 the US military with 150,000 troops had to be killing 500 iraqis a day every day for 40 months. 2.5% of the Iraqi population was killed and buried somewhere...apparently, and 27 million people sat there and took it and in the meantime 150,000 us troops have not admitted it. is that believable to you?

It shows the depth of emotion, that some people latched on to this to prove a point, it was irrelevant so long as it jammed home their argument.

do i believe the iraqis are better off. yes i do. war is a terrible terrible thing. its not clean and clinical, its messy and squalid and the above in no way is trying to demean the suffering by everyone.

i will say this over 4,000 Americans died and they were screamed at that they were there for the oil. we were told they were an imperialist nation on a war rampage. well judging by the oil figures they got, they maybe good at killing a fake 500 a day but they are really p1ss poor at getting oil for themselves from it.

the most disgusting part for me was all the hupla by the french about rights and who was in there skulking around looking for oil rights immediately after the invasion -- french oil companies.

in about 20 years, we can all look back with cooler heads i suspect. as usual with war everyone will be wrong. the politics of this war over shadowed everything. it also exposes a strange western racism on the left that 'those' people just wont be able to handle representative democracy. i am always amazed at that comment by the left. do i think the iraqis can do it...i dont know, i have no crystal ball...but i do know this...they have a chance and they didnt have that under saddam.

spank_inferno

As time goes by I do think they will feel it was worth it.

Democrcy will take time to take root and even more time to flourish.

Manic Moran

It is difficult to express the general 'party atmosphere' that existed in Mosul during the January 2005 elections. They certainly appreciated the opportunity to vote in fair elections which had been denied them, little things like the occasional mortar attack were not going to deter these people.

If this was worth the invasion, I'm not sure, though it certainly wasn't a bad side-effect. But once that decision had been made, it seems the 'humane' thing to do to hang around and try to make the place better. Ultimately, they're people just like anyone else, primarily interested in a good life for their kids and a fair price for their vegetables down the local market. If these goals are achieved, then good.

Are they achieved? The people to answer that are probably going to be the Iraqis. Poll two months ago.

http://www.iri.org/news-events-press-center/news/iri-releases-survey-iraqi-public-opinion-1

NTM

James Cessna

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

I think anyone who seriously believes this was about WMD needs their heads checked. Look at Bill O Reilly he said himself on the Letterman show that it all about the oil then next day he goes how great it is the the Iraqi people to free. Have to say it made me laugh.

All the deaths to get rid of Saddam was it worth? I wouldn't say so. Think of all these dead people what's their families thinking? They want pay back.

Even British MP's said it was about the oil. People murdered for what? At look at the price of oil now you'd think freeing Iraq would bringing down the price.

Most Iraqis today prefer life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam.This earlier survey was very interesting.

A survey of Iraqi public opinion finds them surprisingly upbeat after four years of war. London based Opinion Research Business (ORB) conducted and self-funded the survey, which has been reported in the Times here and here. A press release, raw data, charts, and tables available here.


A team of 400 interviewers conducted face-to-face interviews. The findings are both awful and encouraging:

• Some 26% of Iraqis – 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shi’ites – have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad.
• Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not. 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.
• By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.
• 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer. Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba’athist regime (51%) while the Shi’ites (66%) preferred the Maliki government.
• The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.

Some interesting anecdotal evidence as well:

This weekend comments from Baghdad residents reflected the poll’s findings. Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets, although horrific bombings have continued. “The Americans have checkpoints and the most important thing is they don’t ask for ID, whether you are Sunni or Shi’ite,” said one resident. “There are no more fake checkpoints so you don’t need to be scared.”

The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: “Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq.” It would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago. Residents said they noted that armed militias were off the streets.

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

“We’ve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government,” said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. “Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism.”

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

This, however, isn’t so good:

One statistic that bodes ill for Iraq’s future is the number who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain — 35% said a family member had left the country.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/iraqis_say_better_off_than_before_war/

HavingCrack

I think it very much depends who you talk to. I know an Iraqi doctor from Baghdad who says it's too dangerous for him to return home as his family warn he would be kidnapped for ransom. As a result a lot of the Iraqi middle class have emigrated taking their engineering, law, medical, teachign skills etc. with them. He said life was undoubtably better under Saddam for his family anyway. As he said, with Saddam every neighbourhood had a gangster running it, these days every street has one.

I imagine poorer Iraqi people have a different story however.

Da Shins Kelly

Doesn't really look like it, does it? That country is still a shambolic mess. America are just going to put in place the government they want so they suck the resources out of the country. It's never going to get better over there for the ordinary people.

CIE

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Doesn't really look like it, does it? That country is still a shambolic mess. America are just going to put in place the government they want so they suck the resources out of the country. It's never going to get better over there for the ordinary people

So how come that hasn't happened yet, and instead the people are voting for a government that's friendlier and friendlier to Iran?

Oh, and for "suck(ing) the resources out of (countries)", look no further than who has the oil contracts (China has the biggest one, and note the dearth of US companies now). The EU's getting just as good as China at resource-sucking, if you look at what's going on in Africa (where there's no US presence at all).

spank_inferno

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

America are just going to put in place the government they want .

Its a democracy!.... You must have noticed, or were you too blinded by preconceived notions to notice?

Einhard

CIE wrote: »

So how come that hasn't happened yet, and instead the people are voting for a government that's friendlier and friendlier to Iran?

Oh, and for "suck(ing) the resources out of (countries)", look no further than who has the oil contracts (China has the biggest one, and note the dearth of US companies now). The EU's getting just as good as China at resource-sucking, if you look at what's going on in Africa (where there's no US presence at all).

Enought with your inconvient facts! The lad has a world view, and it's not gonna be changed by pointing out the reality of things!!

Chuck Stone

Einhard wrote: »

I think anyone who thinks it was about WMD needs their heas checked. However, anyone who thinks its about oil are also just as deluded.

So what was it about?

man.about.town

i believe the mission was a success and over the next decade, the iraqi people will no what it is like to be a free people. god bless america

Chuck Stone

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/23-0

If you think oil was not a factor in the invasion of Iraq then it is you who needs your head examined.

Also, Saddam was banging the drum for oil to be traded in currencies other than the U$ dollar which was pissing them off mightly.

Chuck Stone

man.about.town wrote: »

i believe the mission was a success and over the next decade, the iraqi people will no what it is like to be a free people. god bless america

What was the mission?

Success for who?

Chuck Stone

Manic Moran wrote: »

.

http://www.iri.org/news-events-press-center/news/iri-releases-survey-iraqi-public-opinion-1

NTM

Lol using a poll conducted by the IRI as an argument. So much LOL.

What exactly is the IRI?

Manic Moran

Well, according to wiki, if you took the trouble to look it up, it "is a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 1983" and "funding comes from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US State Department, and the National Endowment for Democracy (Itself a Congressionally funded organisation)."

Don't read too much into the name. How many 'Democratic Republic ofs' in the world were actually Communist dictatorships?

Now, are the poll results wrong?

NTM

Chuck Stone

Manic Moran wrote: »

"is a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 1983" and "funding comes from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US State Department, and the National Endowment for Democracy (Itself a Congressionally funded organisation)."

Don't read too much into the name. How many 'Democratic Republic ofs' in the world were actually Communist dictatorships?

Now, are the poll results wrong?

NTM

Let's just say I'm skeptical of this instituion and find it's claims to be partisan laughable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/international-republican-institute-sigir_n_662923.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/200503180005

As for the NED

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]T[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]he misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects "soft money" into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections "promoting democracy." How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?[/FONT] Senator Ron Paul

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul79.html

Lol democrarcy my ass.

Manic Moran

What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States

Stupid me. Here's me thinking all this time that the entire US electoral system seems to revolve around various corporations and individuals injecting money into the coffers of preferred candidates to help them get elected. I believe President Obama is aiming to raise over $1bn to help him in his next electoral bid.

Ah, it seems I'm correct.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/04/barack-obama-re-election-run

Barack Obama has formally launched his campaign for re-election to the White House next year, hoping to raise a record-breaking $1bn (£620m) in funds as the Republicans struggle to find a clear challenger for the presidency.

Do you want to tell him it's illegal, or let Mr Paul do it?

NTM

Black Swan

Chuck Stone wrote: »

"How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?"... Senator Ron Paul

From a NY Times Magazine article on the 2000 Al Gore presidential campaign:

"Johnny Chung, the California donor who recently told Federal investigators that some of the $400,000 he had contributed to Democrats (since returned) came from the Chinese military."

Was this a unique event where Al Gore campaign got caught, or has this been more common, where foreign powers (and perhaps foreign corporations and investors) have attempted to influence elections in the United States for both Democratic and Republican candidates?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/09/magazine/al-gore-s-money-problem.html?pagewanted=7&src=pm

Chuck Stone

So the US appears to not take kindly to cash from foreign states being used to distort the democratic process.

Does the US hold itself up to those same standards?

Certainly not.

Manic Moran

Do the foreign nations in question have the same laws?

What if it's not being used in a direct contribution to the electoral candidate, and is simply a matter of providing resources for a local national to make his voice heard? Is there anything in US law prohibiting me from receiving a gift of $5,000 from an Irish body to allow me to put up banners extolling the merits of democracy?

NTM

cyberhog

There could be trouble ahead for Iraq as Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to reactivate the Mahdi Army if US troops do not leave by the December 31st deadline.

Mr al-Sadr's top aide, Salah al-Obeidi, said threats against the US still stand if the troops stay, echoing Mr al-Sadr's pledge to unleash the Mahdi Army if Iraq reneges on the December deadline.

"We will be obliged to fight and do our best to liberate our country," Mr al-Obeidi said.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Mahdi-Army-protests-over-US.6775055.jp

jackiebaron

man.about.town wrote: »

i believe the mission was a success and over the next decade, the iraqi people will no what it is like to be a free people. god bless america

Success my arse. 1 million dead. 5 million displaced. 1 in 5 Iraqi kids are now orphans. Oh and let's not forget the legacy of cancer and birth defects thanks to depleted uranium......the gift that keeps on giving:


http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html

cyberhog

Looks like the Shiite militias are not making idle threats.

BAGHDAD – Five American soldiers died Monday when a barrage of rockets slammed into a base in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad — the largest, single-day loss of life for U.S. forces in Iraq in two years.

The attack follows warnings from Shiite militants backed by Iran and anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr that they would violently resist any effort to keep American troops in Iraq past their year-end deadline to go home.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

It's going to get very ugly if the U.S. try to stay in Iraq.

cyberhog

Seymour Hersh on the looming crisis in Iraq.

whatever you’re hearing, Iraq is going bad. Sunnis are killing Shia. It’s sectarian war. And the big question is going to be whether we pull out or not. And there’s going to be a lot of pressure to keep them—we’ve got 40,000 or 50,000 Americans there—to keep them there. I don’t know how it’s going to play out, but I’ll tell you right now, there are Sunni Baathist groups in Damascus, in various places, in the United Kingdom—Leeds is one place—ready, as soon as we get out, to declare an alternative government, a provisional government, and announce that they’re going to retake Iran from the Shiites and from—Iraq from the Shiites, who they believe are totally tied in to the Iranians, which probably isn’t true, but that’s always been the fiction we have, or the fear we have: Iran controls Iraq. There’s a mutuality of interests, but Maliki is a very tough customer. You know, Maliki worked for 21 years in Syria as a cop for the Mukhabarat, for the secret police. He was working as a sergeant there for 21 years in Syria, before he went back as an exile after we kicked out Saddam. He is nobody’s patsy. But there’s going to be a holy hell there. It’s going to be probably the biggest problem the President has next year, along with gas, along with the crazy Republicans that are running against him. He’s going to—and along with Afghan and along with Iran, it’s going to be Iraq. We’re going to be back looking at Iraq, as that country goes berserk.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/3/seymour_hersh_on_the_arab_spring

Eggy Baby!

I dunno, would anyone be happy after their liberation in inverted commas?