The whack-a-mole game continues in Iraq...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

... and The Surge fails miserably. Numbers of deaths in Baghdad remain about the same, prior to the troop build up, but the violence in other parts of the country has sky rocketted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070826/...nting_the_dead

What was supposed to be a way of gaining control over Iraq has just forced the violence into other regions.

[Flash Walken]

It was doomed from the beginning.

I don't know how anyone would think otherwise.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Agreed. A temporary "surge" of 20,000 troops isn't a new strategy. It's just polishing the brass knobs on the old one. Not to mention the fact that they told everybody where those troops were going to be deployed....

[I_am_Beast]

1000 years of tyranny is better than a year of anarchy

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by I_am_Beast

1000 years of tyranny is better than a year of anarchy

That's a bold statement. Not sure I agree.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That's a bold statement. Not sure I agree.

Ditto.

I can see where the sentiment would come from but at least with Anarchy there is a strong possibility of change for the better (IE, what the citizens want) whereas with tyranny the same possibility does not exist.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Dis, the tyranny you know is better than the anarchy you don't. Has it ever dawned on you that maybe we live in a controlled society and that maybe we aren't as free as we like to think? We think its okay, because that's what we know. How would we know any better unless we had a chance to live under something different?

Bill Maher had Damien Cave (NY Times) on his show this past Friday, live from Baghdad, and he was very frank about things in Iraq. He said that the people were better off under Saddam. He said that Saddam was not a nice guy, and that much of what he did was wrong, but he kept the country together and maintained a level of peace that allowed people to have regular lives. People now go to work (well, those lucky enough to have jobs) and they say goodbye to their loved ones like it is the last time they will ever see them again. I can't imagine living under those conditions. Those people must be aging prematurely every time they get out of bed. He said the worst thing is the displacement of people. He said that hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes in hopes of saving their lives. When you consider those two situations, Saddam is a better alternative. If you were a law abiding citizen, you had very little to worry about under Hussein. If you're a law abiding citizen under American occupation, your life is on the line every morning you wake up.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'm sure they were better off under Saddam than they are now. The real question is will they be better off 5 years from now, 10 years from now...a generation from now than they were under Saddam.

BTW...even though I often disagree with Maher's points of view (not always mind you) I really like him and his show. He always gives the people who disagree with him a fair shot to explain their point of view.

Used to love to watch him and Ted Nugent...and trust me...Bill Maher (despite their differing viewpoints) LIKES Ted Nugent. You can just tell.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm sure they were better off under Saddam than they are now. The real question is will they be better off 5 years from now, 10 years from now...a generation from now than they were under Saddam.

It might reach a point where life is better in 2015 than it was in 1995. But even then, the question will always be whether that improvement in life was worth a decade of upheaval and tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of dead. Telling an Iraqi that he has a better standard of living now (or will have, in the future) is little consolation for the death of his brothers and sisters. At this point, Iraq could be transformed into Eden itself and I doubt the Iraqis would consider it a fair trade-off.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It might reach a point where life is better in 2015 than it was in 1995. But even then, the question will always be whether that improvement in life was worth a decade of upheaval and tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of dead. Telling an Iraqi that he has a better standard of living now (or will have, in the future) is little consolation for the death of his brothers and sisters. At this point, Iraq could be transformed into Eden itself and I doubt the Iraqis would consider it a fair trade-off.

Really?

I'm guessing their are plenty of peoples throughout history who have been through similar or worse and would say it was more than a fair trade off.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Really?

I'm guessing their are plenty of peoples throughout history who have been through similar or worse and would say it was more than a fair trade off.

What you say is probably true, but the only people who say it is worth it are the people that come out better on the other side.

The problem is that we don't KNOW that things will be better in 5 or 10 years. Maybe it will be much worse?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

What you say is probably true, but the only people who say it is worth it are the people that come out better on the other side.

The problem is that we don't KNOW that things will be better in 5 or 10 years. Maybe it will be much worse?

No, we don't...and I didn't say we did.

I certainly hope it is better.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

No, we don't...and I didn't say we did.

I certainly hope it is better.

Yep, nobody said you did. Just pointing out that a reference to folks who may say the process is worth it would be the lucky ones. We don't get to see interviews of people that either a) died in the process or b) the process lasts longer than their natural lives.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Yep, nobody said you did. Just pointing out that a reference to folks who may say the process is worth it would be the lucky ones. We don't get to see interviews of people that either a) died in the process or b) the process lasts longer than their natural lives.

I'm guessing a good portion of those would say it was worth it as well. There are a lot of selfless people in the world, especially when they think about their children and their children's children.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Really?

I'm guessing their are plenty of peoples throughout history who have been through similar or worse and would say it was more than a fair trade off.

I'm not saying there aren't examples, but I'd be curious to know what you see as an equative to Iraq. You've got an external power that moves in during a time of relative peace to overthrow a despot and plunge the country into a civil war that lasts for years and claims hundreds of thousands of lives. Certainly there are people who have gone through worse, but in most cases, the external force moves in to prevent bloodshed or genocide, or at the very least to aid an existing resistance movement.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Why does their have to be a similar circumstance to compare it to? How the bloodshed began doesn't change the bloodshed.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

How the bloodshed began doesn't change the bloodshed.

Completely disagree. How can you say that how something started doesn't matter? If a guy goes into a bar and gets into a brawl where he kills someone in self defense, that differs greatly from the guy who goes in trying to rob the place and ends up gunning down a half dozen innocent patrons. And that is completely different from the guy who tells all his friends that he's going to go and rob the store and he doesn't care if he guns down a half dozen innocents, and he's bringing extra ammo if that event should occur. How the bloodshed began matters greatly. As octothorp said, the United States unilaterally made the decision to invade a nation at peace, without provocation, and unleashed hell on the citizenry. Someone has to pay the ferryman.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Why does their have to be a similar circumstance to compare it to? How the bloodshed began doesn't change the bloodshed.

It changes the way that people remember the bloodshed, the way individuals and cultures heal themselves. A hundred thousand people killed in a struggle for independence is very different from a hundred thousand people killed because of a unilateral and unnecessary invasion.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by octothorp

But even then, the question will always be whether that improvement in life was worth a decade of upheaval and tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of dead.

Its interesting that the fact, 10s of thousands were killed every year under Saddams reign, has been forgotten. Or that he gassed his own ing citizens, started 2 wars which killed how many thousands??? The thing is no one reported every time Saddam lined up 50 people infront of the firing squads on CNN like every incident in Iraq gets reported now. Perhaps if every time someone was killed in Iraq before Saddam was removed was splattered all over western media we'd have a better guage of how bad the violence in Iraq actually is now compared to then, in reality we don't have a clue.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Its interesting that the fact, 10s of thousands were killed every year under Saddams reign, has been forgotten. Or that he gassed his own ing citizens, started 2 wars which killed how many thousands??? The thing is no one reported every time Saddam lined up 50 people infront of the firing squads on CNN like every incident in Iraq gets reported now. Perhaps if every time someone was killed in Iraq before Saddam was removed was splattered all over western media we'd have a better guage of how bad the violence in Iraq actually is now compared to then, in reality we don't have a clue.

do YOU have a clue? the Iraqi people themselves say life was better under Saddam (the same Saddam that the US gave all that power to btw). so who am i going to believe, the guy in front of a computer half a world away, or the Iraqi civilian who has lived through it all?