How is the world safer/better since the war in Iraq?

I am a supporter of the war in iraq. I am currently writing an article for a school newspaper about the war and how the world is a better/safer place because of it. Can anyone give me any facts/stats/ideas to support the argument.

I’m looking for things like “Saddam was an evil dictator and since he has been removed from power, women have rights” Any help is greatly appreciated.

Opinions are welcome as well.

Aren’t you in the least struck by the irony of supporting the war, but being unable to develop your own reasons for why the war was a good thing?

That’d make a pretty good column.

I’m not about to contest the first half of that sentence–I very much agree that Saddam was an evil dictator–but you’re confusing Saddam with the Taliban. Just as an example, from the Wikipedia article on Saddam Hussein:

Women had rights under Saddam… it was just that they might be kidnapped off the street and raped by one of his sons, just as a man might be kidnapped off the street and tortured for expressing anti-Saddam views*.

  • I am not pretending to be an expert on the Hussein regime, and apologize if I’m repeating unproven accusations.

Perhaps as the opinions come in, you’d reach the opposite conclusion. Let us know if you change your mind.

You really cannot ansewer that question , in the limited time that the previous regime has been deposed, the country is just now on the path to recovery and its test of time, will be first electing someone , and then the ulitmate test , would be when the incumbent comes up for elections , loses ,and then has to hand over power to the new guy.

The invasion , has put both Iran and Syria in difficult positions , which may lead to further military actions. The United Nations has been proven to be ineffectual in dealing with beligerent nations , the russians have been removed from the board in terms of being able to balance the super power scales , the Chinese are not quite there yet, Britain and Australia sided with the States ,and France and Germany decided they would pursue their own agenda.

So on the whole , I would opine that its going to take minimum ten years for the dust to settle , if everything goes alright and none of the axis powers decides to engage in military activities, in the short term ,I would hazard to say that most nations are awaiting the outcome of the elections in November, before implementing their national policys.

Should George Bush win in November ,I would expect that Iran and North Korea will be the next two dominos to fall.

If Kerry wins , no idea , its up in the air.


I suspect that Iran would be harder to defeat than Iraq, because more of the locals would support the current regime, anmd almost all would prefer it to a regime imposed by the US.

I think the US would be insane to attack North Korea, given that North Korea has atomic weapons and might well be crazy enough to use them if attacked, e.g. on one of the cities of Japan or of South Korea.

Saddam was an evil dictator and since he has been removed from power the threat that he would attack the US with WMDs directly or by proxy went from being a low probability to being a very low probability.

Man, I thought even the Bush administration had given up on the WMD issue. It’s a dry well.

Let’s not forget Turkey. The Kurds getting a good chunk of political power in Iraq could strengthen a sepratist movement among Kurds in Turkey and end up fracturing that nation. I would expect something similar to the Chechen rebellion in Russia. Turkey wouldn’t take kindly to that and even if military action does not occur I would expect at very least strained relations between the new Iraqi government and Turkey. Turkey has not been all that important a trade partner with Iraq in the past so barring military action there is probably not that much of a threat from bad relations. Of course having very little economic influence probably means that the Turks would respond militarially, but we can still hope it doesn’t come to that.


Well, the world POTENTIALLY is a better place whenever a dictator is over thrown…if what replaces him is better than what was there before. The jury is still out on if the new Iraqi government will be better than what was there before. I’m reasonably confident that it will be, reguardless of what it turns out in the end to be (i.e. and Iranian styly theocracy or something resembling a democracy). It could hardly be worse (though the possiblity certainly exists).

This is a moral or social ‘better off’ for the world of course…there is POTENTIALLY less suffering in the world due to Saddam being removed. From a practical perspective, the oil, which is a vital natural resource for the world is POTENTIALLY more secure and accessable (or potentially will become so in the months and years to come). Also, from a REGIONAL perspective, its a good thing because POTENTIALLY there is one less nation state that is aggressively expansionist (even if they were pretty inept at being expansionists…just look at the Iran/Iraq war or Iraq’s attempt to anex Kuait). And as the REGION is pretty vital to the world, I’d say thats a good thing.

First, you will need to get your facts straight. Saddam was undoubtedly an evil dictator of the first order of bastardy, but he was a SECULAR evil dictator. Women actually had pretty liberal rights in Iraq before the invasion (‘liberal’ in comparison to much of the rest ofthe ME of course). Also, this is a different question than how has Saddams removal helped the world…this is asking how has Saddams removal helped the Iraqi’s. You might want to focus on one question or the other.

FWIW, my understanding is that, at least in the short term, womens have actually lost some of their rights in war torn Iraq from what they had under Saddam (less the occational rape or bullet to the head of course)…it remains to be seen if they will get them back when the situation stabalizes (it depends on what kind of government ultimately comes up on top).

Oh, come on guys. He’s not asking ‘Was the war a good idea’…he’s asking if there were any positive things that came out of it. You don’t have to support the war to see that some positive things came out of it. Doesn’t mean that the positive things outweighed the negative (which I don’t believe they do)…just that there were certainly positive things that came out of it that benifited the world.


First you’re going to have to decide are you talking about Iraq being better/safer, which is a debatable point, or the world being better/safer.

The removal of Saddam certainly indicates possible improvements in Iraq, but I think you’ll find that doesn’t mean much to the safety of the rest of the world. The whole WMD angle is a joke; Saddam was no significant threat to the world. And all other opinions are that the Iraq war has increased the threat terrorism for everyone. Just about the only person who disagrees is Bush himself, and he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Well, sure, but he did preface his post by saying “I am a supporter of the war in Iraq.” He then moves on to ask for any “facts/stats/ideas to support the argument.” This comes off sounding like he’s saying “I support the war - can you guys tell me why?” I’m a little surprised at how measured the response has been, frankly.

And asking Dopers to limit their remarks to only one side of the equation may be too much to ask. It’s analagous to the situation when some sweet young thing from Greenpeace or PIRGIM comes to my door with a petition, but doesn’t understand the issue she’s so passionate about and can’t argue her position beyond predigested talking points. Even if I’m in agreement with her (arbitrary gender assignment, by the way), I’m strongly tempted to argue the issue with her just to wake her up and get her to pay attention.

Not only would I argue that the world isn’t any safer, since I never saw Saddam Hussein, as evil as he was to his own countrymen, to have been any kind of real threat to the world, but I would argue that Iraq isn’t even safer, even after his overthrow.

For an insider’s look at the unrest and instability there, just read some posts by our esteemed madmonk28, who happens to be an aid worker in Iraq. Here are some examples: link, link, link, link, link, link.

I found this particularly interesting:

Can you imagine feeling safe in your own country, where, if you get into a fist fight, a member of a foreign military that’s occupying your country could raise a rifle to your head to make you break it up!!! We don’t tolerate that shit here, but we actually do it to people over there? What the hell is that?!

I thought I done good,

Oh all right. Halliburton stock did very well. There have been no more Iraqi nationals flying planes into buildings. Iraqi soldiers are no longer conducting torture in Iraqi prisons. All the WMDs that were discovered were detonated safely.

Also, Iraq won’t be invading Iran in the near future.

There there, **SimonX ** - I thought you done good too. There’s a distinct possibility that the subtle nuances of your post were lost on at least one doper, though.

Iraq was never a threat to the United States. They were crippled militarily and deterred from taking any agressive action. Their military was so weak that they didn’t even launch an airplane in their own defense. Not one. But…

That’s all you need to know right there. That’s what this war boils down to. It was about the oil, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

If he had asked what the pros and cons of Iraq were, I’d happily give pros and cons.

Instead, the OP demonstrated the worst kind of intellectual laziness. Worse yet, it was a student being intellectually lazy: he’s already come to his conclusion, and now he’s seeking facts to support it. Cecil would turn over in his grave. (You know, if he were dead.)

Since there’s no kind of intellectual curiousity in the question, I’ll just post links to some Ann Coulter columns. There’s sure to be something in there that can be used in the article.

“The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone’s expectations – certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals.”
" Liberals may see Saddam’s mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty."
" The New York Times ran a front-page news story on Sunday about how life was better for Iraqi girls under Saddam Hussein – living under Saddam, that is, not the girls who were literally under Saddam, Odai and Qusai while they were being raped."

One could say the world is safer after the US began the war* in one fact. Bush’s UK lapdog, Tony Blair, might be impeached. Removing someone that would so readily agree with Bush/Rove rhetoric could be one step closer to a peaceful world.

*I almost typed after the war, but it’s not really over, mission isn’t accomplished, is it?