Why not?
Is 4,400,000 Iraqi refugees supposed to be a success?
Will you never stop offering empty apologetics and insults ? And in what way is it hyperbole ? Saddam DID do a better job running Iraq than us.
And comic book villains are generally both smarter and less evil than Bush; a classic example of truth being stranger than fiction.
No, it’s not. We have ruined Iraq. And we are not going to stop ruining it for some time. If Iraq ever ends up better than it is now, it will be in spite of us, not because of us. This war and occupation is a brutal assault, not a surgical procedure like your pathetic analogy.
Because to the sort of people who support the war, Iraqi lives don’t matter as much as American lives, if at all.
I understand you have dont have much appreciation for subtleties, but if you actually read what I wrote you would have noticed that I never once compared the war in Iraq to the wisdom teeth. I was referring to your “if something is good, making it better should be easy!” attitude, which is very simplistic, to put it kindly.
I said that it is NORMALLY easier, which is the simple truth.
And this isn’t a very subtle situation. We want to pretend that it is, that it’s all a matter of shades of grey, because if we admit that it’s as simple as it looks, we have to admit that we are very much the villains in the Iraq disaster.
Apologetics? Who am I apologizing for/to? Insults? I thought the rule here was ‘attack the post, not the poster’. I’m attacking your hyperbolic, bullshit ridden POST…not YOU. See the difference?
- obvious and intentional exaggeration.
- an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
So, to answer your question…your post is pretty much the definition of ‘hyperbole’. So, a better question might be…in what way WASN’T it hyperbolic? Why don’t YOU answer that. What metrics are you using? What are you basing your opinion on? Are you basing your opinion that “Saddam Hussein was doing a better job than us !” on…what? Which population group? Sunni? Shia? Kurd? The Iraqi elite? Your wishful thinking? What?
When you say "His Iraq was safer, more prosperous and more free than our Iraq. ", what metrics of comparison are you using (again)? Based on what? How are you defining ‘more free’…and who are you defining that for? What basis are you using for ‘prosperous’…WHO is more/less prosperous? Again, the Iraqi elite? The population as a whole? During what period Saddam was in power? Over all? First 10 years? Last 10? Some fantasy Iraq that is only in your head?
Certainly…but what proofs do you offer besides your opinion? I could very well believe that during an invasion and insurgency teetering on civil war that Iraq is ‘less prosperous’ than, say, pre-Gulf War I. Sure. Maybe even AFTER Gulf War I…depending on your definitions. But ‘more free’? Based on what exactly?
Were we talking about Bush? :smack: Oh…I forget. All roads lead to Bush! Sorry.
Sort of like reading your posts…they are DEFINITELY stranger than fiction. And less in touch with reality. I don’t get it. You are a smart guy…sometimes. But on this subject and religion you are just…out there.
-XT
You are being an apologist for America and Bush, like you always are. And your constant harping about comic books is an attempt to ridicule my position without actually arguing against it.
All ways.
The majority of the population.
By what “metric” were things not better ? They had everything from more freedom to better education, to electricity and drinkable water all hours of the day.
The majority of the population, again. And they were more free in any number of ways; women especially.
The majority of the population, and for decades.
If we are talking about Iraq, we are talking about Bush.
“Normally” can mean as frequent as 50.1%. If thats your best algorithm with stakes such as this, I suggest you review your IT department.
Seriously? You seriously believe this? You think a society as old as the one in Iraq, which could very easily be the birthplace of humanity and have the oldest civilizations currently on the planet might not have one or two nuances that escape your amazingly omniscient grasp? I find it hard to believe that anyone might believe that it does NOT have subtlties beyond their current POV.
Convenient. Now, no matter what happens, no matter how prosperous and successful Iraq hypothetically becomes, it’s impossible for you to be proven wrong.
Everyone is worse off or no better off. The Kurds were already independent in all but name under US protection. Women were not oppressed by fundies. The rest were not walled into ethnic ghettos, subject to random death from terrorists or the occupation forces, or too frightened to venture out of their ethnically cleansed neighbourhoods. They had electricity. Sewage was under the streets not flowing though them. 4 million had not fled abroad.
Those who gained - basically the politico’s at the top of the heap - may have gained temporarily but they’ll all be dangling from a rope two minutes after we pull out.
What do the Iraqi’s think?
And the last quote is the killer. Our metrics don’t matter. It’s how the Iraqi’s see things that count.
What happened to Iraq is about as subtle as a Neanderthal caving in his neighbor’s skull. We went into Iraq, we wrecked the place, and we squat there doing more harm every day. Whatever cultural complexity the place has was either smashed by us, or is overlain by the overwhelming disaster of our conquest. You might as well talk about the cultural sophistication of a man who’s just been gutted.
No, I’m simply pointing out that Iraq cannot improve until the effects of out attack upon it are erased. The reason that Iraq, if it ever ends up better it will be in spite of us, is because our effect there has been so overwhelming malignant. They cannot become better off in any other way than in spite of us; there is no other way for Iraq to improve than by overcoming what we’ve done to them.
If Iraq has a stable democratic government in ten years, I’d say that’s an improvement that would’ve been impossible under Saddam. Wouldn’t you agree?
Depends on the cost. Besides. This is not our call to make. Who are we to say causing so many deaths, setting loose the beast of fundamentalism with the dreadful impact this is having on women, the fostering of ethnic cleansing, etc etc etc is a reasonable price for someone else to pay?
Besides - in 10 years time Iraq will be ruled by one of those Saddam-Lite Strongmen we’re so fond of because democracy will lead to a hostile Iran-friendly government and that won’t be allowed to happen.
I’ve been hearing the same thing in the mainstream press. Particularly from reporters coming back from Iraq. It appears to me that a change in course took place with the appointments of Gates followed by Petraeus. The subsequent surge as well as cooperation with Sunni tribal leaders who are now helping US forces to exterminate al Qaida seems to play a big part.
Reading a lot of the previous replies, I wonder why it is so important to rehash the negative history of this conflict. That will change nothing. I’m sure everyone would like to see some hope of American troops leaving a stable Iraq.
Tell it to the Iraqis, who as the ABC Poll shows, do not share your rosy view of the situation. And their perception and opinions are the only ones that count.
With respect, what is actually happening and what is perceived as happening are two different things.
And the selective presentation of ‘facts’ by the US Govt and military, a third. I’m going with the facts as perceived by the only people who count.
Tried to add this but it timed out.#
And puppies might rain from the sky too !
If they, or anyone else in that region goes for democracy, it’s going to be in spite of what we’ve done. We’ve done an excellent job of convincing people that democracy means American collaboration, economic and social collapse, mass death, and widespread suffering; the sort of things the anti-democracy people like to claim. We’ve strangled the democracy movement in the ME.
And as said, we’ll never allow a real democracy in Iraq, since it will inevitably be our enemy
And in ten years Saddam would likely have been dead or out of power or both. There’s no telling what would have replaced him, but the chances of it being a democracy “in ten years” were larger then than they are now. And it’s not like the Iraqis asked for us to come in and mass murder them for their own good.
Here’s how we get out. Step one: Declare victory. AlQ is on the run, and AlQ is the number one problem…AlQ is the* only * problem. It was always about AlQ, everybody knows that. Remember, the whole thing about mushroom clouds and anthrax was Saddam giving them to his BFF, Osama.
Pass a bill to get our troops home before the next Super Bowl. It will be six hours longer, with a half-time extravaganza themed “Golly, Do We Ever Love The Leader! No, Really!” I mean a full scale extravaganza - Toby Keith, Chuck Noris, Yakov Smirnoff - topped off with drawing and quartering of Rosie on the fifty yard line. Now thats entertainment!
The President will be offered the opportunity to raitfy the Constitution with his signature (Remember! it was never signed by a President, hence isn’t entirely legal!) This will give him the opportunity to add a signing statement, outlining just which amendments are actually applicable to him. “Mr President-For-Life Bush” will appeal to him, after that pesky amendment is clarified.
Will he fall for it? Remember, you’re asking: Is he stupid?