# South Africa, better or worse? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2006, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968 "2006-03-19T03:58:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/61 "2006-03-25T05:46:05Z")
And what I said was: [QUOTE=GIGObuster] just before or when it happened [/QUOTE] 2004 was not just before, the invasion was early in 2003, I already acknowledged what you are saying here (which makes your so called “gotcha” even more amusing), you are actually pretending that was a point. What I am saying is that what I see is that indeed Iraqis did not approve of the invasion just before or when the invasion happened or today, in 2004 they indeed had more hope but since the same crew that mishandled the intelligence continued to mishandle it, Iraqis are not amused finding now that torture, violence, incompetency, corruption and oil profits going to others are the rule now; well, justified discontent is bound to grow under those conditions. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/visitctr/whatnew.htm](http://www.globalpolicy.org/visitctr/whatnew.htm) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/62 "2006-03-25T07:19:14Z")
[QUOTE=New Iskander] Will you please scrape your brains together? [/QUOTE] will you please refrain from personal insults in **GD**? [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/63 "2006-03-25T15:41:55Z")
That was intended not as insult but an admonition. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/64 "2006-03-25T16:09:20Z")
[QUOTE=New Iskander] Apartheid gov’t was rich, strong, resourceful and determined to stay. Which also underscores the important fact how quickly they folded **once US and UK took a stand against them (however half-heartedly)**. [/QUOTE] I’[ve already showed this to be bullshit. They’d already folded. They were no longer rich, strong nor determined to stay. Mostly because of a change of heart of the youth and intelligensia, but that’s not important. What’s important is that you keep repeating this little canard, when I’ve already shown it to be bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/65 "2006-03-25T16:40:11Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] (hint: you were implying when you wrought the point that they were the current opinion) [/QUOTE] I wsn’t implying nothing. I posted a statement by Iraqi blogger, > [@](#): > > Today I **relive those historic moments** and **remember** the way my mind accepted and welcomed **those moments** like all, or say most Iraqis did as we were praying to see Saddam overthrown without even bothering to think of the consequences or results…all we wanted was to see Saddam out of power, period. to which I later added, > [@](#): > > …majorities in Iraq and US support\*\*-ed\*\*\* the invasion. That support appears to be dwindling. which was supported by your own cite, > [@](#): > > …a survey carried out by the BBC in **March 2004** in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it. Where is the insinuation? Granted, the subject is sensitive and provokes emotions; all the more reasons to keep a cool head. The question is, why Saddam removal has less support then Apartheid removal? Why make more fuss about horrors of present Iraq situation, then it was made about horrors of South Africa through the 1990-s? The picture emerges that it is due to a combination of reasons, uniting people that do not always agree with each other. Main reasons appear to be: rejection of any invasion, distrust of Bush, mortification of prolonged fighting against determined foe; in short, hardly anything new. * * * - - I admit, when I end a verb with **-ed** , I strognly imply that it is in past tense. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/66 "2006-03-25T18:37:20Z")
Was it worth the trouble dismantling apartheid? If you were a white, with all the attendant privileges, probably not. If you were a black, subject to discrimination, restrictions on movement and arbitrary arrest, then I’d say so, wouldn’t you? People may kvetch about rising crime rates, anarchy, etc but one should remember the chilling predictions of mass bloodshed, war between the races and general armageddon that supposedly lay in the future for South Afrtica. Everybody knew that the Nationalists would never relinquish their power and privileges voluntarily. Everybody was wrong. Everybody said that it would be a miracle if there were a peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa. The miracle happened. Of course there are problems in the country, Of which country could that not be said with equal truth? In short, it was most certainly worth it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/67 "2006-03-25T19:00:53Z")
[QUOTE=New Iskander] I wsn’t implying nothing. I posted a statement by Iraqi blogger, [/quote] :rolleyes: Your original post that started this distraction: [QUOTE=New Iskander] I leave it to the Iraqi people. Here is a sample of [what the majority of Iraqis think](http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/03/third-anniversarysacrifice-fear-and.html). [/QUOTE] **Iraqi people** , that is all of them. **THINK** , that was present tense, not past. > [@](#): > > to which I later added, > > …majorities in Iraq and US support-ed\* the invasion. That support appears to be dwindling. :rolleyes: And I acknowledged that already. It is amusing you think that makes a point. > [@](#): > > which was supported by your own cite, And still there was nothing wrong with what I am trying to point, here you are just doing argumentum ad nauseam. wich is indeed a form of Chewbacca defence. > [@](#): > > Where is the insinuation? As the discussion shows, your cite proved NOTHING, it has statements that go both in favor and against what you are saying, using that as a defense and bringing it to this debate was silly. > [@](#): > > Granted, the subject is sensitive and provokes emotions; all the more reasons to keep a cool head. > > The question is, why Saddam removal has less support then Apartheid removal? Why make more fuss about horrors of present Iraq situation, then it was made about horrors of South Africa through the 1990-s? Because he was already contained by sanctions and had enforced military no fly zones. The intelligence of other nations, even if they admitted to possible possession of WMD, concluded he did not have enough or he was a shadow of what he was before, **not an immediate threat**. > [@](#): > > The picture emerges that it is due to a combination of reasons, uniting people that do not always agree with each other. Main reasons appear to be: rejection of any invasion, :rolleyes: Many moderates, the majority of the world and even members of the left, myself included, approved the invasion of Afghanistan. (you know, where the Taliban was protecting Al qeada?) > [@](#): > > distrust of Bush, Before 9/11 the administration was saying Saddam had virtually no power to attack, that suspiciously changed after 9/11, as soon I noticed the evidence of a Saddam-Al qaeda connection was shaky and the expose by Powell in the UN was found to have holes then the distrust was JUSTIFIED. > [@](#): > > mortification of prolonged fighting against determined foe; And that is by incompetently ignoring that there are like 3 different factions composing the insurgency. > [@](#): > > in short, hardly anything new. What it is new is that you are still looking for reasons to equate Saddam’s removal with Apartheid removal when evidence is here already showing you don’t have any reason to do so. Bush already succeeded by falsely equating Afghanistan with Iraq, there is no need to keep digging yourself into a hole **NI**. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/68 "2006-03-26T18:12:36Z")
> [@](#): > > According to a survey for the period 1998 - 2000 (6 years after 1994 elections) compiled by the United Nations, South Africa was ranked first for murder by firearm (both absolute and per capita) and rape per capita. It was also number two for assault and murder (by all means) per capita. Your talking about apolitical street crime NOT ethnic slaughter. The two are not comparable. There HAS been an increase in apolitical non-ethnic murder, rape, kidnapping etc. in Iraq (possibly even worse than in SA), but it has gone almost unnoticed next huge upsurge to the sectarian violence. It is the sectarian violence that is the reason people are pessimistic about the future of Iraq (and why people were pessimistic about SA in the last days of aparteid). And, as I pointed out on several occasions, in South Africa the intertribal violence died down after free elections and the end of the white-only regime (By your own figure from 5000 deaths a year before the elections, to 1000 deaths year afterwards). By 1996 (three years after the fall of the aparteid regime) the violence had died away completely, in 2006 three years after the invasion and deposing of the Saddam regime, the violence is reaching new levels of brutality (30 decapitated bodies found just today). > [@](#): > > Violence occurred mainly between Zulu/IFP and Xhosa/ANC. In four years of violence leading up to the dismantling of apartheid, 4000 people died in the violence. Between 1990-1994, up to 20,000 had died, and between the elections of April 1994 and June 1995, an additional 1100 perished in violence. . . ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/69 "2006-03-26T18:18:30Z")
[QUOTE=New Iskander] Not the case with Saddam, who was holding on for twelve years through defeat in Kuwait, sanctions and bombing campaigns. Those who maintain Saddam was not dangerous should ponder that fact, I think. [/QUOTE] Thats a testament to his tenacity, it says nothing about how dangerous he was. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/70 "2006-03-26T19:36:04Z")
[QUOTE=griffin1977] Your talking about apolitical street crime NOT ethnic slaughter. The two are not comparable. There HAS been an increase in apolitical non-ethnic murder, rape, kidnapping etc. in Iraq (possibly even worse than in SA), but it has gone almost unnoticed next huge upsurge to the sectarian violence. It is the sectarian violence that is the reason people are pessimistic about the future of Iraq (and why people were pessimistic about SA in the last days of aparteid). [/QUOTE] To the contrary, it was noticed. Last year a report was issued and well received by all opponents of US invasion in Iraq. [Iraq Body Count data: Key points](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm) This report states that insurgency actions account for only 9% of all the killings of civilian population, while “predominantly criminal killings” account for 36%. Which means that for every life taken by insurgents, criminals kill four people. Thus out of control criminals are much bigger problem for Iraq pacification then insurgency is. [QUOTE=griffin1977] And, as I pointed out on several occasions, in South Africa the intertribal violence died down after free elections and the end of the white-only regime (By your own figure from 5000 deaths a year before the elections, to 1000 deaths year afterwards). By 1996 (three years after the fall of the aparteid regime) the violence had died away completely, in 2006 three years after the invasion and deposing of the Saddam regime, the violence is reaching new levels of brutality (30 decapitated bodies found just today). [/QUOTE] There was a concrete atrocity (sacred mosque bombing) that provoked recent clashes. Most likely it was a work of Al Qaida. You were lucky to do without it in SA. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/71 "2006-03-26T19:54:45Z")
Firstly… I meant “noticed” as in commented on in the press (I’m sure the victims of said crimes “noticed” them). I have NEVER seen crime issue discussed in the television news, or anything more than mentioned in most print articles. Secondly those number are over a year old, I imagine the percentage killed in sectarian violence has increased siginificantly since then. Thirdly look at the numbers you are quoting they are all post fixed by “as defined by Iraq’s Health Ministry”. So any death that NOT attributed to a an “offical” terrorist attack will be marked as “predominatly criminal”. > [@](#): > > Mortuary deaths should therefore be considered as primarily, > but not entirely, crime-related – as the LA Times reported, “In some cases, authorities say, the motives are so opaque that they cannot tell whether they are investigating a crime disguised as an act of war or a political assassination masquerading as a violent business dispute.” While that assumtion may, or may not, have been valid a year ago. It is CERTAINLY not valid now. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/72 "2006-03-26T20:33:50Z")
[QUOTE=New Iskander] There was a concrete atrocity (sacred mosque bombing) that provoked recent clashes. Most likely it was a work of Al Qaida. You were lucky to do without it in SA. [/QUOTE] No that was a “straw the broke the camels back”. The tensions and the sectarian violence were there long before the mosque attack. You forget just as Al Qiada are trying there best to stir up sectarian civil war, there were elements in the security forces doing there doing exactly the same thing in South Africa. Besides which This is where the SA/Iraq analogy breaks down… the Al Qiada angle is the BIGGEST most most outstanding reason why the invasion of Iraq was such incredibly, mind-numbingly, BAD idea. Anyone with half a brain would have realized they were going to take advantage of it just as they have. Forgetting all the moral and regional implications of the invasion, look at this from OBL’s point of view. On the “con” side for OBL and his buddies, we have given Al Qiada the biggest recruiting scheme, training base, and general morale bost possible. On the “con” side ? AT BEST one apostate regime had been replaced with another apostate regime(at WORST we might end up replacing a Socialist secular dictatorship with a theocracy). ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/73 "2006-03-27T00:38:59Z")
[QUOTE=griffin1977] I have NEVER seen crime issue (_in Iraq_) discussed in the television news, or anything more than mentioned in most print articles. [/QUOTE] Me neither. Funny, that, isn’t it? [QUOTE=griffin1977] You forget just as Al Qiada are trying there best to stir up sectarian civil war, there were elements in the security forces doing there doing exactly the same thing in South Africa. [/QUOTE] I remember hearing that. Just like I remeber doomsday prognoses about future of new South Africa. As **aldiboronti** said: > [@](#): > > one should remember the chilling predictions of mass bloodshed, war between the races and general armageddon that supposedly lay in the future for South Afrtica. [QUOTE=griffin1977] Forgetting all the moral and regional implications of the invasion, look at this from OBL’s point of view. On the “con” _(pro?)_ side for OBL and his buddies, we have given Al Qiada the biggest recruiting scheme, training base, and general morale bost possible. [/QUOTE] Please, none of those trite platitudes again. I declare, try talking about positive things in Iraq and critics will demand all sorts of statistical minutae, but the same critics will freely spout completely unqualified and absolutely unsubstatiated statements about Iraq as “Al Qiada the biggest recruiting scheme, training base, and general morale boost”. With all due respect, where is your statistics about Al Qaida recruitement rates, where are “training bases” witnesses, where are your cites about Al Qaida “morale boost”? Nobody has any! For all I see, they are a bunch of killers disposing of a small army of suicidal maniacs. Is that what you call “the morale boost”? Manic depressives driven to suicide? Enough already! I am sick and tired listening to such inconsequential loony talk like we made Zarqawi a star of international jihad or somesuch… What’s the upshot of this? That we couldn’t touch Saddam because of Al Qaida? Are we establishing a _connection_ here? [QUOTE=griffin1977] On the “con” side ? AT BEST one apostate regime had been replaced with another apostate regime(at WORST we might end up replacing a Socialist secular dictatorship with a theocracy). [/QUOTE] This is simply wrong. Whatever imperfection of present Iraqi politicians are, they are nowhere close to Saddam. Iraqi people lead dangerous lives, but they are immeasurably more free then before the invasion. And Saddam was not just “Socialist secular dictator”; he was a typical Fascist. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/74 "2006-03-27T01:29:49Z")
[QUOTE=New Iskander] Please, none of those trite platitudes again. I declare, try talking about positive things in Iraq and critics will demand all sorts of statistical minutae, but the same critics will freely spout completely unqualified and absolutely unsubstatiated statements about Iraq as “Al Qiada the biggest recruiting scheme, training base, and general morale boost”. With all due respect, where is your statistics about Al Qaida recruitement rates, where are “training bases” witnesses, where are your cites about Al Qaida “morale boost”? Nobody has any! [/QUOTE] You really like to keep on digging eh? > **[Consortiumnews.com](https://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/020206.html)** > > The Consortium is a website dedicated to independent investigative journalism > [@](#): > > Sunni Resistance > > It was not until a speech on Nov. 30, 2005, that Bush finally admitted what U.S. intelligence and military officials had long concluded – that the insurgency was mostly fought by Iraqi Sunnis who were resisting foreign occupation and the political dominance of their longtime rivals, the Shiites. > > In that speech, Bush divided up the “enemy in Iraq” into three groups – the Sunni “rejectionists,” who resent having lost their privileged status; the Sunni “Saddamists,” who retain loyalty to the ousted dictator; and the smallest group, the foreign “terrorists,” who had entered Iraq to fight the American invaders and generally spread chaos. > > Though Bush didn’t put percentages on the three elements, most analysts estimate that the foreign “terrorists” comprise only about 5 to 10 percent of the armed opposition. Plus, many Sunnis resent the presence of these outsiders who are tolerated only to the degree that they share in the fighting against the Americans and the dominant Shiites. > > **If the Americans left, there is a strong possibility that not only would the flow of new jihadists into Iraq dry up but that the shrunken al-Qaeda contingent in Iraq would be hunted down by both Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites.** > > There have been some signs of this already. For instance, on Aug. 13, 2005, in the western city of Ramadi, Sunni members of the Dulaimi tribe set up protective perimeters around their Shiite neighbors and reportedly fought the foreign jihadists who were trying to dislodge the Shiites from the Sunni-dominated city. [Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2005] > > The biggest loser from an American withdrawal might well be Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist leader of al-Qaeda forces in Iraq. Not only would his recruiting likely suffer and many of his current fighters desert, but he would no longer be of much use to the Iraqi Sunnis. > > Globally, the loss of al-Qaeda’s principal recruiting pitch – the U.S. occupation of Iraq – also could damage bin-Laden’s long-range plans. > > These concerns were expressed in the so-called “Zawahiri letter” that was purportedly sent to Zarqawi but fell into the hands of U.S. intelligence last year. The letter depicts an embattled group of extremists fearful that a sudden U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq would leave them isolated and battling to defend a few small enclaves inside Iraq. > > The letter does raise the notion of establishing an Islamic “caliphate” along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, known as the Levant, but depicts this idea as designed to keep the jihadists from simply going home once the United States departs Iraq. > > The letter states that the “caliphate” was mentioned “only to stress … that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.” > > In other words, al-Qaeda leaders see promoting the dream of an unlikely “caliphate” as a needed sales pitch to keep the jihadists from drifting back to their everyday lives. > **[Australian News Headlines | Yahoo News Australia](https://au.news.yahoo.com/)** > > Breaking news and stories that really matter to Australians. From cost of living and politics, to weather and the environment - get all the latest updates. > [@](#): > > Iraq war a ‘gift’ to Osama: CIA analyst > **[BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Iraq is 'terror recruiting tool'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4358640.stm)** > > Iraq is the "single most important recruiting tool" for suicide bombers, a BBC Panorama reporter tells MPs. > [@](#): > > Iraq is ‘terror recruiting tool’ > Panorama journalist Peter Taylor, who made a three part investigation of the “new al-Qaeda” for the BBC, said Prime Minister Tony Blair was wrong to suggest terrorists were just using Iraq as another excuse to commit atrocities around the world. > > Mr Taylor told the foreign affairs committee that, in his view, this was “patently not true”. > > He said Islamist terrorists were using the situation in Iraq to “recruit, to propagandise, to fund raise, to train and also to plan and operate”. > > And it was his “understanding” that violent jihadist propaganda filmed in Iraq had been discovered by security services on lap top computers belonging to the 7 July London bombers. > > It was “simple” for al-Qaeda to make videos of suicide attacks on coalition forces and post them on the internet for propaganda purposes, Mr Taylor told the committee - and there was nothing that could be done to stop it. The bolding there was mine because I concluded that a long time ago what this reporter also points out here. One of the current biggest lies of the administration is to say that Osama would win if we leave Iraq, I don’t think Al qeida is liked in Iraq, they are being used right now, but the reality is that in other circumstances (like the USA not being there) they hate each other. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/75 "2006-03-27T01:31:24Z")
[QUOTE=New Iskander] With all due respect, where is your statistics about Al Qaida recruitement rates, where are “training bases” witnesses, where are your cites about Al Qaida “morale boost”? Nobody has any! For all I see, they are a bunch of killers disposing of a small army of suicidal maniacs. Is that what you call “the morale boost”? Manic depressives driven to suicide? [/QUOTE] What you don’t beleive me… just look at the numbers… Typically there is well over one suicide bombing per day on average (as well as dozens of of other attacks) some months this average is as high as 4 per day. Unlike other attacks these suicide attacks are predominantly carried out by Foreign Jihaddists. If all these were actually just terrorists who would, if the US had not attacked Iraq, have be attacking the US elsewhere. Where were they in 2002 ? Show me one place in the world were even CLOSE to this number of attacks were happening in 2002 ? Let alone which the number have attacks has FALLEN as the local Jihaddists have sauntered over to Iraq for there shot at the great satan. Thats all you need to do to prove your side of the argument. If the Iraq war has not been the biggest Al Qiada recruitment fair in history, then show me this country that which was beset by hundreds suicide bombings a year in 2002, but which has been magically free of them since the iraq war began. Remeber the actual bomber is just the “ordinance”, more dangerous are the people who And thats just considering suicide bombings, although all the evidence shows most of the thousand of conventional insurgent attacks (IEDs, ambushes, massacres) are from Iraqis, if only a fraction of the are from Al Qiada they represent the biggest guerillla offesive in the organisations history. Again where were they carrying out these attacks in 2002 ? On the other side of the coin, although the evidence suggests most of the sucide attackers are non-Iraqi, there are now a reasonable number of IRAQI suicide bombers (the female bomber in Jordan being a case in point). That is an undeniable acheivement of the invasion. Previous to the invasion there was NONE, not a SINGLE iraqi suicide bomber in the whole history of Iraq. Now they happen regularly. [QUOTE=New Iskander] And Saddam was not just “Socialist secular dictator”; he was a typical Fascist. [/QUOTE] Facists are typically secular. Neither Hitler or Mossulini had much time for the church, unless it was completely controlled by the policitical establishment, as (just a like saddam and islam) they saw it as potential rival source of authority. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/76 "2006-03-27T01:39:39Z")
[QUOTE=New Iskander] Whatever imperfection of present Iraqi politicians are, they are nowhere close to Saddam. Iraqi people lead dangerous lives, but they are immeasurably more free then before the invasion. [/QUOTE] Does OBL care about that ? Even if things turn out ok, and by some miracle a secular stable democracy emerges it is no worse for him than a brutal seculat dictatorship, they are both godless apostates. If anything its advantage, opposition to the Saddam regime, whether genuinely democratic or islamist, was effectively suicide, but as the Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezzbolla have shown recently there is easy for islamists to take prosper in a democracy. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/77 "2006-03-27T01:43:04Z")
And one more thing… The CIA’s own think tank, the NIC. said the following about Iraq: The al-Qa’ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq. We expect that by 2020 al-Qa’ida will have been superceded by similarly inspired but more diffuse Islamic extremist groups, all of which will oppose the spread of many aspects of globalization into traditional Islamic societies. \*\*Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are “professionalized” and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself. \*\* Foreign jihadists—individuals ready to fight anywhere they believe Muslim lands are under attack by what they see as “infidel invaders”—enjoy a growing sense of support from Muslims who are not necessarily supporters of terrorism. [http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC\_globaltrend2020\_s4.html](http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s4.html) ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968/78 "2006-03-27T06:59:37Z")
We are doomed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-africa-better-or-worse/348968.md?page=3)