Reasons for Why Iraq Was Better of Under Saddam…

Here is a “for and against” analysis for the above statement…

Against: “Saddam killed many people”
For: Today many people are still getting killed, it could still get worse, and so far so bad it seems destined to stay out the hands of both the occupation and the government which it has only somewhat successfully installed.
For: Saddam brought social and civil stability to Iraq. Today he isn’t killing people but social and civil stability has yet to be installed almost anywhere other than “the green zone”.

Against: Under Saddam people were not free
For: Iraqis get their heads cut of, blown up, abducted, tortured, kidnapped, for saying the wrong thing(s).
For: Unlike under Saddam people no longer loose their lives for violating a clear set of rules or conventions. Instead this has been extended to conflicting rules and conventions of one of the major 17 insurgencies, including the many other local ones.
For: Iraqis still need to fear the security services because they are infiltrated by both insurgents and criminal gangs. It’s a daily event for people to be killed and even slowly mutilated alive so that body parts can be delivered to the families or who are ether unable or unwilling to pay the ransom.

Against: Under Saddam there were U.N sanctions which killed many people. In the early years (I think before the oil for food programme had started) Madam Albright was asked if the price of 500,000 worth it. She infamously agreed
For: The U.N sanctions were imposed by the U.N and not by Saddam.
Saddam had complied by getting rid of his WMD’s programmes. Therefore if it had not been for the invasion one would assume it would be only a matter of time until justice would prevail?

Against: Saddam killed the Kurds
For: He is believed to have gassed about 5 thousand Kurds because they were believed to have been supporting the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war. And it is true that some of them were. In fact that is the reason why the whole Iran Iraq war began. Saddam had tried had handed over some border land (including a section of the river Tiqrese) in exchange for the Iranians not bribing the Kurdish tribal leaders to steer up trouble inside Iraq.
About 6 months later Saddam claimed the Iranians had not kept their side bargain. This is disputed by the Iranians; in ether case it’s what he used to justify the offensive against Iran. (The Iran Iraq War was a war in which over a million people lost their lives and also a war in which America and other western nations supplied weapons to both sides) (Germany and France are believed to have supplied most of the ingredients needed for chemical weapons).


Other arguments…


For: According to the white house the Iraq war may have cost about 30 thousand civilian lives. Although the U.S military doesn’t bother counting or estimating civilian deaths this white house figure was based on various media reports. This is the same method used by Iraq Body Count which has been able to record the deaths of over 100,000 deaths in the media. (And not all deaths will be reported in the media)

Against: We needed to invade Iraq because it had oil, and it was an enemy of Israel.
For: Iraqi oil production is often below what it was under Saddam because the insurgents keep blowing up the oil pipe lines, and killing various contractors. Many Arab countries are an enemy of Israel; can we really justify the war in Iraq on that basis?

For: Saddam spent more of his countries oil wealth on his own people than any other Arab leader. Before the first Gulf War Iraq had over 90% literacy, a high quality education and health system of a often western standard.

For Saddam’s government demanded that Iraq be a secular society. Therefore the rights of woman were often respected, and you could often see them in Western clothing. Today the fundamentalist Shiite majority demand that woman obey Islamic Law (both fundamentalist and secular).

For This war has cost America hundreds of billions of dollars, and a figure fast reaching 3000 lives. Many others have been injured for life (mentally as well as physically).

For (Unlike under Saddam) Iraq’s education system is being constantly attacked by insurgents for various reasons. Educated people are constantly being picked up by rival sections of Iraq society and subsequently killed or held to the ransom of hostage takers. (The result of a combination of points I’ve made above). But the effect is a brain drain, ether because people are fleeing Iraq, being killed in it for getting involved in politics (legal or insurgency related). Few people move to Iraq like they once did before the 1991 Gulf war.
If we had just lifted our sanctions we would have cheap oil, and the country would be getting richer. Instead we have disrupted oil production and a multisided civil war.

So what do reckon?
Was Iraq better of Under Saddam or do you believe Tony Blair’s propaganda? “we have a government of unity that crosses all boundaries. Iraqi people able to write the next chapter of their history themselves” Tony Blair Monday 21st of May 2006.
If Iraq was better of under Saddam it does not mean we were wrong to remove him; just that we have managed to fail in the task of delivering a government that’s better than him. Personally I think Democracy in a tribal society (were 60% of people are Muslim fundamentalist Shiite) is just a joke (however only time will tell!!).

Is there anything I’ve missed out that you would like to include? I couldn’t be bothered with links this time because everything I’ve said has been public information. Challenge me for them if you will, or find them yourself.

I don’t mean this as an insult, so please don’t take it this way: Your argument is shallow, and misses the big picture entirely.

You are speaking of policies and generalities that have nothing to do with the reasons things aren’t better now. You are speaking of affects, not causes. And you simply cannot accurately make comments like you have while ignoring the causes.

Iraqis really, truly, and passionately wanted freedom from Saddam, they wanted it back in 91’, few people would or could refute this. Iraqi’s were generally happy to see coalition troops rolling through the streets in 03’. REALLY, ask them, they will tell you.

But today things did not work out the way the Iraqi’s thought they would. Why? Outside (and inside) forces and influences that have/had nothing to do the interests of the Iraqi’s themselves.

Religious, political, and business forces have dramatically altered the way this whole conflict has transpired. Iran, Syria, Russia, France, The UN, Halliburton, ex Saddam regime figures, all had a hand in the instability Iraq has suffered since the fall of Saddam, and most importantly: Not one has had the Iraqi’s interests at heart.

So, the invasion and topple of Saddam was a wonderful thing, especially to the average Iraqi citizen. But all the foreign greed and agendas have spoiled this opportunity for them (so far). And the Iraqi’s themselves are partially to blame: They have allowed non Iraqi interests to spoil this opportunity for them.

So you list then and now comparisons, but that’s simply a narrow minded way to perceive what had happened, and frankly its irresponsible.

And as much as I don’t want to admit this, its not your fault you have this narrow view, it’s the media’s. FACT: For everything we hear about in Iraq that’s bad, there are many, many more stories of good and progress. Its simple fact. But you have gone and made this terrible post about how Iraq was better under a brutal dictator who lived as a god at the exploitation of his people. IRRESPONSIBLE!

The day after that Saddam statue fell, most of Iraq was in utopia. But the forces that be, the ones that do not have the Iraqis interests at heart, started their campaign to ruin it. And I can tell you, as a lifelong and patriotic American and a representation of every American in Iraq, that every single US soldier in Iraq at that moment wanted nothing but the very best for each and every Iraqi and that country.

For: Saddam brought social and civil stability to Iraq.

You have to kidding here? Where did you dig that one up?

Against: Under Saddam there were U.N sanctions which killed many people.

The sanctions were there for a reason. Food for oil was the deal. Except the food went to Saddamns finest. The other people he governed, most of whom were weak and impoverished, died.

For: Saddam spent more of his countries oil wealth on his own people than any other Arab leader.

You mean he spent it on his finest, and linned his own pockets? How many of the Iraqi's actually benefited from this?

Before the first Gulf War Iraq had over 90% literacy, a high quality education and health system of a often western standard.

They have never had a health system which is anything like a western one. Saddamn had his own medical team for himself and his finest. The average Iraqi had to make do with what you see every day on the news now. Things have not changed in years.

Saddam’s government demanded that Iraq be a secular society. Therefore the rights of woman were often respected, and you could often see them in Western clothing.

Womens rights in Iraq under Saddam? You are joking right? They never had any rights.

I have had enough of quoting for now. I could go on and on and get no where. Some of the comments you have made Liberal1984, are your own opinion, and i respect that. My comments are based on what i have read and seen.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Bikereddie]

iThis is like asking was England better off with a king or the goverment they now have.
Most of your statement mirrors that.

Even Iraq’s media isn’t very hopeful about the new government… news.bbc.co.uk...

But if positive events are not being reported in Iraq by the overseas media is it really because of political bias? Or is it because things like the opening of a new classroom for 50 children are genuinely overshadowed by other things like the deaths of 50 police men? (The sort of thing you would expect when large sections of a country’s police is infiltrated by terrorists).

If you believe that the mass media has an politically biased attitude against reporting progress in Iraq then I would suggest you look at these facts…
1. The mass media in the west suffers from a lack of independent competition
2. For example one man Rupert Murdoch (the founder of News international) owns: Fox news, Sky news, 200 sky channels, over a hundred newspapers world wide, and in the U.K this includes: The Sun, Times, Star, and News of the World (4 out of countries largest 12 national newspapers).

For complete overview of this media companies influential assets look here: www.ketupa.net...

3. People like Rupert Murdoch often end up driving government policy. Tony Blair even invites these people to Downing Street and then refuses to disclose details of what was said or happened. news.independent.co.uk...
4. The U.K government won’t even change its foreign policy to the European Union without consulting companies like News International news.independent.co.uk...

Now the trouble is Rupert Murdoch publicly supported the war in Iraq. In fact out of all 172 news titles owned at the time, a mere all 172 of his news titles supported the war in Iraq. So my point to you Skippytjc is that if the mass media is politically biased against reporting good stuff in Iraq, then it must be a very, very small section of the mass media. Timewarner isn’t so different to News International, accept that it lacks a central all powerful figure like Murdoch who everyone can slag of at.
But look at the asset inventory of just one company like News International, and then try and not and laugh next time you say there isn’t justice being done to the good news in Iraq.

The toppling of the statue of Saddam by “Iraqi people” (that’s U.S troops) was a great example of good news being manufactured. Google search “Saddam statue staged”
www.twf.org...
newstandardnews.net...
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.commondreams.org...
What I think is shameful Skeppytjc is that there so much good news coming out of Iraq that the coalition has to make it up (or at the very least exaggerate it big time). What I think is shameful skipptic is that the mass media is geared to making a quick profit out of a bad storey that it sometimes forgets to mention completely the sacrifices of communists like Murdoch.

And I assure you Skeppytjc that I am not a shallow person. Hay maybe I'm insane but I would rather live under Saddam (even under U.N sanctions) than I would live there today. At least you knew where you stood. At least you had a leader who was secular and not wife gagging Muslim fundamentalist (gagging as in politically and putting a veil over her face whether she likes it or not). It might be shallow to think if we hadn’t interfered with Iraq it would be better, but how shallow is shallow if shallow is true?

I'll Reply To The Other Comments Soon (just want them to build up so I can get them all done in one).


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

It just this place is now under 24hr news coverage and we see alot more of whats going on. The bad part is when he was in charge they just killed each other, dont bring up 9/11 that was Bin Laden. Now they are killing Americans too. That country is a mess and is going to be for decades to come.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
You have to kidding here? Where did you dig that one up?

he DID bring social stability to his country.

You mean he spent it on his finest, and linned his own pockets? How many of the Iraqi's actually benefited from this?

alot actually.

They have never had a health system which is anything like a western one. Saddamn had his own medical team for himself and his finest. The average Iraqi had to make do with what you see every day on the news now. Things have not changed in years.

Wrong again. From Wikipedia:

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Womens rights in Iraq under Saddam? You are joking right? They never had any rights.

yes they did. Under him, they were given freedoms they didnt have before. They were also able to hold high positions in government and industry,

Saddam Hussein may have been a dictator, but i have to agree. Overall, Iraqis were better off before. Which is sad, but still true.

wikipedia...saddam hussein

[edit on 25-5-2006 by geek101]

[edit on 25-5-2006 by geek101]

[edit on 25-5-2006 by geek101]

[edit on 25-5-2006 by geek101]

Nice one geek 101 But you stole some of my fire
The tactic I was using this time was get people to ask the questions, rather than to answer them their questions before they are asked them.

On The Media
It's not people's fault that they don't realise the good aspects of Saddam. We have a almost completely centrally owned mass media. It's not really owned by the government, or none profit organisations that have some basic standards. It's owned like Murdoch. One the reasons he is successful is because interest groups will by into his organisation to get favourable political bias over just about any one of all the English speaking nations combined. And type of people who are likely to be buying shares in his company range from China, to Friends of Israel (I actually believe the Iraq war has a lot more to do with Israeli interests than American or Western ones).

Of course we are not some kind of traditional dictatorship. Hence the fact that alternative media still exists (like the links I gave) (or come to think of it this website). The trouble is it's all very small in terms of the power and type of audience it has. We may all rightfully have one vote, but it means the truck drivers of the sun are more likely to make up more people than say those on this website. And being perhaps less disillusioned they are probably more likely to vote effectively.

It's people like Murdoch who have caused a great tragedy for Western democracy, by in effect creating a second kind of lobbying which in some ways is even more corrupting than the lobbying of congress men in America (as it directly effects the public mind directly) (often through deliberate deception in the forum of controlled knowledge, and edited facts).
And as long as the majority of the public continue to get their information from such centrally biased competition, there is precious little hope of any real media competition in the way we like to imagine it.

I am sure (but unaware) that Hamiburton and other like companies may have had a hand in winning people like Murdoch over for a war in Iraq. I doubt Murdoch supported it out of morality.

BACK TO IRAQ
Saddam was a good leader as far as many in the region go. But Skippytjc was quite right to say many Iraqis wanted freedom from him, even back in 1991. What’s important here is not to stop your brain there. Instead ask: Who were these people (within Iraq’s many peoples) who wanted freedom? And (more importantly) why did they want it?
The last question is far more intelligent than it seems. Because the answer to the first question is that the vast majority of the people wanting out with Saddam were Shiite Muslims. They make up the majority of Iraq’s population and they are Muslim fundamentalists, they aren’t very interested in western ideals like democracy. They are far more concerned with things like banning alcohol, having woman with rags veiled around their faces, and introducing Islamic Holy Law. In fact the type of democracy they would be looking for (if they could somehow choose it) would probably be something very similar to Iran’s. In fact did you hear recently about Iraqi politicians talking about supporting Iran if the U.S attacked it? Does it really take a genius to wonder why that fancy talk would be a vote winner? They had rebelled because…
1. Saddam had lost the Gulf War
2. Saddam was a Secular Muslim who up and till then had incorporated western living into Iraqi life.
3. Saddam was a Sunni and therefore not one of them in any case.

Unfortunately for your argument Skippytjc democracy was not very high on their agenda. Just a “more holy” dictator. And I know that’s stupid, but sadly that’s how a lot of very clever Muslim fundamentalists think.
Of course these people (Shiite’s) were happy to see us. We had just turned up in their country and removed this western style dictator. However that was about all they wanted from us. They knew we would need to install some kind of government, and didn’t care too much if it was a democracy because being a 60% of the population they would be able to make things go their way and become “more holy”. They still want that today. They just want us to go home, so they can complete Iran No.2; which is exactly why we are still keeping a military presence there. When we say “if we go things will all fall apart” that is what the propaganda means. Things might actually get better for many Iraqis, but on the international stage Iraq will be Iran’s brother in arms.

We (the west) have basically liberated a bunch of savages. To avoid offence I point out that they are only “savage” in the sense that many hold little or no respect for western democracy, values and female liberty (well in the western sense anyway).

Under Saddam (and before 19991) Iraq had been close to western style living standards. You saw those roads and street lights when the country was being bombed? (all put there by Saddam). Yes Saddam built just over 60 palaces, but he was only a multi billionaire. He had risked his life to gain (like these people do) and one of his first acts was to kick out the British and American oil companies, by nationalising them. The money he saved for the Iraqi state from this act alone would probably be more than all the money he spent on his palaces.
Saddam did not enforce Islamic Holy law, instead he made a point of modelling Iraqi society around America (which is one of the reasons he once enjoyed such a close relationship with America).

Of course every now and again the Shiite would get a bit rebellious, and some of them would have to be tortured and killed. But it was ether that or Iran No.2.
The worst thing about where we are heading is that Iraq isn’t just heading to being an Iran.2. But in spite of that; people are still being killed, and small mass graves are still being dug.
However rather than it being an organised state doing it to bunch of Muslim fundamentalists who have little respect for freedom (as we know it) themselves. It is now Iraq’s highly educated Sunni class (who were favoured under the old regime for being of Saddam’s ethnic origin, and being of secular Muslim faith) who are now being abducted and executed as an ethnic minority within their own country.

These people are most like us. They are also most likely to be part of the Resistance because they know it is our hands who have put a bunch of Muslim Fundamentalists in charge of Iraq. If we ever withdraw, and if power can’t be theirs; then Iraq will be an Iran No.2. Thanks be to giving democracy to people who don’t care for it. In future people with western eyes (if not polluted with media lies) will look at Saddam and say he was a good Western leader.

The reason why I actually quite like him is because he was (like most Sunni Arabs) a Secular Muslim. Now notice the “Secular” word. Because in some ways I'm quite right wing; I don’t mind Arabs, and don’t mind Muslims providing they are Secular (or if they are fundamentalists they are Secular tolerant). I really don’t care if you kill people just because they can’t understand a picture of Mohammed in western newspaper, in a western country for a western public has nothing to do with them. I loose all beliefs in liberalism to people who don’t recognise liberalism. Maybe I'm extreme but it doesn’t change the quality (at least in material terms of Saddam’s leadership). The U.N sanctions were evil, but unlike Iran or Korea at least he complied with them (even if we didn’t keep our end of the bargain) (not to mention the bit about relieving the Iraqi people of their suffering). Over 80% of oil food money was to go on Iraqi war reparations (mostly to Kuwait). It was changed only when Saddam suspended the oil for food programme. And he still provided well for them all things considering everything from generator parts to chlorine for tap water (which kills cholera) wasn’t allowed to be imported.


If you think gassing the Kurds was wrong them remember they were just 5000 people whilst what we have killed is many times greater. They were believed to have been supporting Iranian military action. Furthermore Saddam wasn’t the first to come up the idea: www.globalresearch.ca...
(Do a Google search and use words “Winston Churchill gas the Kurds”)

If you think invading Kuwait was bad remember it had been part of Iraq for thousands of years just 60 years before. Saddam did it because they were flooding the market with cheap oil at a time the country had Iran war debts to pay. He was scared fundamentalist sections within the army would rebel if he didn’t give them something to do, and because initially intercepted CIA info led to him to believe he would get away with it.

It was bad and very unwise, but still in quite different context to what most believe.



[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Liberal.....i am sorry
Didnt mean to steal your fire there. Anyway, you answered things in those last two posts, far better than i could have done.
I agree with your main point, of the media portrayal. Its easy to see Saddam as the big bad evil, but the truth is slightly different.

Originally posted by geek101
Its easy to see Saddam as the big bad evil, but the truth is slightly different.

Have you bothered to ask the opinions of those hundred thousand or so Iraqi family members, loved ones, and friends of those individuals that Saddam literally butchered, murdered, and tortured if indeed Saddam was not a "big bad evil" and if the truth that you see as being "slightly different" is likewise to them?



And Liberal1984, your defence of Saddam is making the defence team of Saddam look like crap. Maybe you should consider becoming part of that defence team or maybe, you could even start an advocacy group/organization whose main goal and purpose would be to have Saddam reinstated as leader of Iraq? Accordingly, how many of those now free Iraqis would like to see him back or better yet, have him back as their beloved leader, despite yours and others defence of him?

Ponder that a bit, and afterwards, perhaps then you will realize just how ludicrous your Iraq-better-under-Saddam-defence position really is...






seekerof

[edit on 25-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Saddam was a dick, but Liberal1984 does make some valid points IMO. We may very well have created a future of even less tolerance in Iraqi society, and the Iraqis who do not want to be ruled by strict Islamic law will proabably blame the US for generations to come. How can we stop Iraq from going in that direction? I believe we would have to maintain a strong military and political presence there indefinitely, which was probably the plan all along....

Liberal1984 I can't help but feel sorry for you. To be that discconected from reality, to be so eager to cst US foreign policy as a mistake that you would justify evil is just sad.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Have you bothered to ask the opinions of those hundred thousand or so Iraqi family members, loved ones, and friends of those individuals that Saddam literally butchered, murdered, and tortured if indeed Saddam was not a "big bad evil" and if the truth that you see as being "slightly different" is likewise to them?
[edit on 25-5-2006 by Seekerof]

And I suppose that we couldn't ask the opinions of those hundred thousand or so Iraqi family members, loved ones, and friends of those individuals that Coalition Forces have murdered, that ended up being civilians?

Anyone that thinks those people are better off over there really should do a reality check. It's amazing that all you have to do is blot some ink on fingers for an election, stick it on the front page of MSM outlets worldwide, and suddenly you are the wonderful liberator who has save Iraq from someone that wasn't very different from those that are in today.

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by Seekerof
Have you bothered to ask the opinions of those hundred thousand or so Iraqi family members, loved ones, and friends of those individuals that Saddam literally butchered, murdered, and tortured if indeed Saddam was not a "big bad evil" and if the truth that you see as being "slightly different" is likewise to them?
[edit on 25-5-2006 by Seekerof]

And I suppose that we couldn't ask the opinions of those hundred thousand or so Iraqi family members, loved ones, and friends of those individuals that Coalition Forces have murdered, that ended up being civilians?

Anyone that thinks those people are better off over there really should do a reality check. It's amazing that all you have to do is blot some ink on fingers for an election, stick it on the front page of MSM outlets worldwide, and suddenly you are the wonderful liberator who has save Iraq from someone that wasn't very different from those that are in today.

Whats even more amazing is that you think any comparison between Saddams atrocities and coalition caused casualities is apt.
We killed people by mistake, he intentionally tortured, raped, and slaughtered men women and children. His soldiers put children into plastic shredders feet first, ours hand out candy and toys.

And before you quote Gahndi, it doesn't matter to the dead, it matters to the living.

Originally posted by niteboy82
And I suppose that we couldn't ask the opinions of those hundred thousand or so Iraqi family members, loved ones, and friends of those individuals that Coalition Forces have murdered, that ended up being civilians?

Certainly "we" could ask, and in some cases do--did Saddam?
Ironic you want to ask such when Saddam is removed, but when he was in power, your questioning of his brutal, murderous, and torturous acts were to be found where exactly?

Anyone that thinks those people are better off over there really should do a reality check.

Keep your absolutes to yourself and relegated to your own thinking and commentary. "Anyone" is relative, yet you use it as an absolute to deliver your 'a' stereotypical "reality check." How about instead of thinking, which amounts to assumptions, try using some Iraqi blogs or Iraqi sourcings and see if things are better off now then under Saddam, you think?!

It's amazing that all you have to do is blot some ink on fingers for an election, stick it on the front page of MSM outlets worldwide, and suddenly you are the wonderful liberator who has save Iraq from someone that wasn't very different from those that are in today.

No, whats "amazing" is how your downplaying what these Iraqi people now have versus when they were under Saddam. Ironic, huh? Spare me.






seekerof

It's difficult to believe this thread even exists as a "serious" topic. How in the world can anyone even begin to believe Iraqi's were better off under Saddam?

Originally posted by Astronomer70
It's difficult to believe this thread even exists as a "serious" topic. How in the world can anyone even begin to believe Iraqi's were better off under Saddam?

When you start at the assumption that Bush/USA/Republicans/ETC are the worlds greatest evil its not a far leap.
Looking at the world even partially objectivly, its a different story.

Niteboy82,

It is interesting that in another forum, when asked whether you would accept an RFID chip when the "inevitable" police state arises, you said you "probably would choose death" rather than accept it. However, for a police state (which Iraq was), where the government maintained files on anyone who dissented against it, where families members informed on each other, where the intelligence services infiltrated every aspect of society, where phones were routed through government departments so that they could eavesdrop on the population, the Iraqi people were apparently better off under Saddam.

I'd be interested to know your opinion (and the other apparent liberals) on the recent phone-tapping allegations against the NSA. By the logic you have presented above, you should be fine that the government does this as it will promote stability and security, despite the inconsequential restrictions on freedoms.

So, which is it to be? The ability to fight to be free (an opportunity afforded to average Iraqi that wasn't available under Saddam), or a society of restricted freedoms and government intrusion, but at least you are alive?

Originally posted by Willard856
Niteboy82,

It is interesting that in another forum, when asked whether you would accept an RFID chip when the "inevitable" police state arises, you said you "probably would choose death" rather than accept it. However, for a police state (which Iraq was), where the government maintained files on anyone who dissented against it, where families members informed on each other, where the intelligence services infiltrated every aspect of society, where phones were routed through government departments so that they could eavesdrop on the population, the Iraqi people were apparently better off under Saddam.

I'd be interested to know your opinion (and the other apparent liberals) on the recent phone-tapping allegations against the NSA. By the logic you have presented above, you should be fine that the government does this as it will promote stability and security, despite the inconsequential restrictions on freedoms.

So, which is it to be? The ability to fight to be free (an opportunity afforded to average Iraqi that wasn't available under Saddam), or a society of restricted freedoms and government intrusion, but at least you are alive?

Nice post Williard, but I think that you are missing a small point here. This isn't about Iraq at all. It is about the fact that Bush is in office. They still haven't gotten over the belief that the 2000 election was stolen and if 200 was stolen then 2004 had to have been fixed. If Gore would have won it is my belief that we still would have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Gore would have had the same intelligence info that Bush got. Hell we would have probably gone nuclear after 9-11. Remember that Kerry voted in favor of the invasion. It wasn't until he had the luxury of 20/20 hind sight that he came out against it. The Liberals just can't get over their hatered of Bush. No matter what had happened, they would still be just as rabid. I can't wait until 2009 and see what happens with the next President.