U.S. either 'invaded' Iraq, or "liberated" Iraq, or "launched pre-emptive actions" to remove W.M.D ?

Question

All depends on your particular 'spin' on events. My question is ... do you think 10 years from now, ordinary Iraqis will be better off, worse off, or have basically the same lives as they've always had [ poverty / secular violence , etc. ] ?

Note to desertviking : - Interesting link, tho' it contains the phrase "weapons of mass destuction" 8 times ! None were found ? In any case my 'prefix' as you put it would still be correct "pre-emptive action" ?

Answer 1

Many Iraqis ARE happy that Saddam is no longer in power.

However, the general lawlessness that has engulfed Iraq is causing much greater hardship and suffering than was encountered under Saddam's regime, at least for most people.

The big problem that the Iraqis have right now is not just the violence but also that they no longer have any control over their own economy. The multinational corporations that won the reconstruction contracts for Iraq now run their economy.

Despite the vast need for construction workers in Iraq, most Iraqi construction workers were put out of work by these corporations who imported labour from elsewhere. All the money that is theoretically being poured into the Iraqi economy, most of it goes right back out again. The Iraqis are considerably poorer now than they were when Saddam was in power, despite severe economic sanctions.

As for what Iraq will look like in 10 years, it's hard to say with any certainty. If a strong leader could emerge in Iraq that would unite public opinion behind him, he could restore control of Iraq into the hands of Iraqis. I think that is necessary before Iraq's fortunes will change. As long as they lie in the hands of other nations they will not have peace.

Answer 2

Good question, certainly time will tell. 10 years from now, the Iraqi citizenry will probably be better off. This is not to say that is anything in particular that the US has done, but people and society tend to evolve over time. You could look at it this way, even if the situation gets worse in ten years, that just means it will be much better in 30 or 40 years.

If in 10 years Iraq is better off economically, which is should be, the rise will also increase education, funding for utilities, etc. to help the country. With a less impovershed nation, the sects will be less likely to fight, there is less incentive. We could see this happening, especially considering that we all know that the US troops are not leaving for quite some time, whether we agree with it or not. The US does not want another black mark in history that certainly reminds us of Vietnam.

If it is worse off in ten years, then great. I am not some jerk or anything like that, but a worse off Iraq could be beneficial for its people in the long run. Say sectarian violence continues and intensifies, to the point where the US cannot control it anything (if they are right now) and leaves. The country would basically have a civil war, lots of bad things would happen over the next ten years. But, out of these ashes would probably spawn one if not more new countries. I would bet that the Kurds in northern Iraq would break away (althought I dont know what Turkey would say about that) but we could see the Shia and Sunnis develop into two seperate entities and break away from one another, economically and geographically. It would be much the same as the Palestinian state. The West bank and Gaza strip both have two distinct sets of religions, but we are going to call them all one nation? The eventual disolvement of Iraq would lead to stability as the sides would stop warring and realize the advantage of peace (as it looks like they may be doing now). The question is, how much are they willing to work for it.

Answer 3

The preface to your question is wrong. The reasons for the U.S. taking offensive military actions against Iraq are clearly laid out in the law. A link to that law is found below. I believe in ten years that Iraq will have found its own solutions to sectarianism, perhaps in a loose confederation of three autonomous regions along the lines of the three kingdoms which existed prior to the British fusion of the early 1920s.

Answer 4

I think that they will be the same. They are better off without Saddam, but the amoung of sectarian violence and the general breakdown of the rule of law in Iraq is going to leave them in just as bad a spot.

Answer 5

The spin stops here. The Bush regime invaded Iraq. There were NO W.M.D. to remove. These people are hardly liberated. They are dying a lot faster than when Saddam was in charge. In 10 years, Bush will have been out of power for 9. How could it not be better?

Answer 6

Instead listening to the pundits on YA, why don't we ask the Iraqis? The ones coming home from Syria seem pretty happy though.

Answer 7

Or the US launched a terror attack on Iraq. Of course Iraq is worse off. US violence always kills. The US is a out of control war machine.

Answer 8

No doubt about it whether or not it was an invasion or liberation it was Pre Emptive. Worse, we totally destroyed billions of dollars woth of infrastructure.

Answer 9

with capitalism, that we like to spread, their oil will end up in the hands of american corps and a few elite politicians in iraq

socialist programs are the answer for creating peace