Is Iraq better of now that the US destabilized Iraqi society?

Question

Before 2003 Iraq and the region was more stable,

and incapable of civil war.

If the USA had a ligitamate excuse to invade Iraq then why did it have to resort to false grounds for justification?

1) WMD's were destroyed in 1991 by the UN, and no evidence was ever found after the invasion.
2) The supposed link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam was found to be groundless by US congressional investigation.

How many suicide bombings were in Iraq before the US invaded in 2003, and destabilized the situation?

*****
Nothing makes Al-Qaeda more happy than the US continued stay in Iraq -

1)it justifies Arab hatred of US in the region, AND

2) killing americans in Iraq in MUCH easier than killing americans in the USA.

WHEN WILL AMERICANS REALIZE THEY ARE JUST PLAYING INTO THE HANDS OF AL-QAEDA, BY INSISTING ON STAYING????

AMERICANS ARE TOO STUBBORN TO ADMIT THAT THEY ARE BEING OUTSMARTED BY AL-QAEDA, THUS THEY CONTINUE TO STAY!!

I

Answer 1

Certainly there was a better society for the majority of Iraqis even though Saddam was a ruthless and cruel dictatator who had the unquestioning support of the USA and Europe until he invaded Kuwait.
The invasion has made a bad situation worse and resulted in the destruction of normal life for most Iraqis.
The Americans have also done the Iranians a big favor by destroying two of their main enemies in the region, Saddam and the Taliban.
The American occupation of Iraq is now the biggest cause of terrorism in the world.

Answer 2

You have so many nice misconceptions that it's almost a pity to disturb your self delusions with a few facts.
Before 2003 the region was not stable. It was the location of 3 major wars which cost the Iraqui people some 1,3 milion dead (Iraq-Iran war, Civil war against the marsh arabs, Kurdish civil war) and that's not counting the Kuwait war.

The reasons for the continuation of war were there- non compliance with cease fire agreements. The whole problem was that the people who were supposed to supervise it (UN) were bribed (look up the "oil for food" scandal).

About 500 chemical warheads were found after the invasion. Not enough it seems to make the headlines.

Al quaeda had a camp in Iraq and there's enough evidence to connect them with Saddam's secret services in several attacks worldwide. Of course that's also not enough to shake the preconceived views of media and Congress

who was supposed to do suicide bombings before 2003? Saddam's secret police against themselves? Before 2003 they did their murders in the light of day. There's at least 600 000 skeletons in mass graves which testify to that.

Al quaeda happy about the US in Iraq? GOOD! because we're real happy they are there too. Because they never needed reasons for hating the US and they are much easier to kill over there too.

Seems that the way you see it, if we let them win- they lose? And if we anihilate them, we've lost? Well, it sure is a novel approach.

Answer 3

"WMD's were destroyed in 1991 by the UN, and no evidence was ever found after the invasion."

No, miss, they were not. The UN inspectors were ejected from Iraq in 1998 or 99, under protest. You may think you can lie to some of these people because they weren't alive, or old enough to have been watching the news, but, some of us know differently. This is a blatant lie, and the UN supports my stance on this particular point.

Shame on you, in that respect.

However...

With none of Iraq's neighbors actually trying to help calm things down in the region, our prolonged presence IS a contributing factor to the situation. Too bad Iraq's neighbors aren't very helpful, or our troops could have been home, long ago.

Answer 4

Honestly I didn't read your whole question because it is statement and not a question. If you call having a dictator killing thousands of people a stabilizing factor your right. Yes Stalin was very stabilizing in Russia also. Maybe the Reverend Hillery will be very stabilizing also. Would anything I say change your mind? I doubt it very much. Like most liberals you will not be happy until this country is destroyed or taken over by some other power. Why don't you try lowering your standard of living maybe you will feel less guilty. Better yet, pack your bags and move to some other country.

Answer 5

Have either of you lived in Iraq? Stabilization or destabilization for that matter is hard to determine from a warm comfy seat here in the states.

Answer 6

I think Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMD and meanwhile he paid $25K a head to families of suicide bombers to encourage more suicide bombers. I understand why we went to take him out.

But he has been gone a long time, and we can't prop up another government once we gave the Iraqis a chance to get one in place.

As to whether Iraqi's are better off I would suppose it would depend on if you were going to be one of the thousands disapearing into his prisons or being tortured, or whatever. Governments shouldn't do that sort of thing. (Ours either.)

Answer 7

Not only is Iraq not better off, we are not better off. Sadam was left in place to counter the Shia's in Iran. We have tipped the balance and Iraq will be controlled by friends of Iran if a democracy survives there. Every president before Bush understood this and left him in power but did what it took to 'contain' him. This change in the balance of power is very dangerous and will haunt us in the future.

Answer 8

Strange...if Saddam was so great then why were they celebrating in the streets after his downfall?? Ask the countless people that were fed to Uday's tigers. Ask the people whose daughters were raped by Uday. Ask the thousands of Kurds that were gassed. Ask the hundreds of thousands in the mass graves. Ask all of these people how great saddam was. Wake up you liberal idiot - would you rather have the suicide bombers there or here??

Answer 9

If they wanted America to stay they wouldn't attack the troops. Next bad argument....

Answer 10

I could go on, but at this moment all I can say is follow the money.