Iraqi's Much Better Off Now

[Mr. Scott]

It seems to me that Iraq is much much better off now then during Saddam. Just about everything ended up positively. Despite the cost, the war seems to overall be successful and the Iraqi's are generally better off.

Iraq: Key Figures Since the War Began

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 4, 2010
Filed at 2:14 p.m. ET

U.S. TROOP LEVELS:

October 2007: 170,000 at peak of troop buildup.
Dec. 31, 2009: 112,000.

CASUALTIES:

Confirmed U.S. military deaths as of Jan. 4, 2009: at least 4,370.
Confirmed U.S. military wounded (hostile) as of Jan. 4, 2010: 31,613.
Confirmed U.S. military wounded (non-hostile, using medical air transport) as of Dec. 5, 2009: 36,562, a decrease from the Oct. 31, 2009 figure of 39,232. According to the DOD, medical air transport personnel data have been recently reclassified, resulting in lower totals.
U.S. military deaths for December 2009: 3, the lowest monthly death toll since the war began in March 2003.
Deaths of civilian employees of U.S. government contractors as of Sept. 30, 2009: 1,442.
Iraqi deaths in December 2009 from war-related violence: at least 383, up sharply from last month's 93, which was the lowest monthly figure since The Associated Press began tracking Iraqi deaths in May 2005.
Assassinated Iraqi academics as of Nov. 23, 2009: 432.
Journalists killed on assignment as of Dec. 1, 2009: 140.

COST:

Nearly $715 billion, according to the National Priorities Project.

OIL PRODUCTION:

Prewar: 2.58 million barrels per day.
Dec. 16, 2009: 2.45 million barrels per day.

ELECTRICITY:

Prewar nationwide: 3,958 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 4-8.
Nov. 30: Nationwide: 5,710 megawatts. Hours per day: N/A.
Prewar Baghdad: 2,500 megawatts. Hours per day: 16-24.
Nov. 30, 2009: Baghdad: N/A. Hours per day: N/A.

TELEPHONES:

Prewar land lines: 833,000.
Oct. 4, 2009: 1,250,000.
Prewar cell phones: 80,000.
Oct. 4, 2009: an estimated 19.5 million.

WATER:

Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water.
Oct. 12, 2009: 21.2 million people have potable water.

SEWERAGE:

Prewar: 6.2 million people served.
Oct. 12, 2009: 11.5 million people served.

INTERNAL REFUGEES:

Prewar: 1,021,962.
Jan. 2010: Approximately 1.5 million people are currently displaced inside Iraq.

EMIGRANTS:

Prewar: 500,000 Iraqis living abroad.
Jan. 2010: Approximately 2.3 million Iraqis, most in Syria and Jordan.
All figures are the most recent available.

Sources:
The Associated Press, State Department, Defense Department, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, The Brookings Institution, The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Committee to Protect Journalists, National Priorities Project, The Brussels Tribunal, and the U.S. Department of Labor.
AP news researchers Julie Reed and Rhonda Shafner compiled this report.

This is from the New York Times.

[Gauvin]

Yup. I still believe that 20 years from now those saying they were against the war will be ashamed to admit it.

[motiv-8]

Yup. I still believe that 20 years from now those saying they were against the war will be ashamed to admit it.

I doubt they will, because most of them don't actually care about Iraq nor Iraqis. They won't listen because they'll be too busy blaring on about how Bush should have been tried as a "war criminal" for starting an "illegal" war, thus continuing to try to vindicate their political agendas.

[Gauvin]

I doubt they will, because most of them don't actually care about Iraq nor Iraqis. They won't listen because they'll be too busy blaring on about how Bush should have been tried as a "war criminal" for starting an "illegal" war, thus continuing to try to vindicate their political agendas.

You might be right, either way I wouldn't expect them to admit they were wrong. But, I certainly admit I was wrong when I was not only against the war but fiercely anti-U.S.. I make amends for it now by being the least popular, and most hated person in every argument about the war, for being both pro-U.S. (a taboo nowadays), pro-Iraq invasion, and a neocon.

[Thorn777]

I doubt they will, because most of them don't actually care about Iraq nor Iraqis. They won't listen because they'll be too busy blaring on about how Bush should have been tried as a "war criminal" for starting an "illegal" war, thus continuing to try to vindicate their political agendas.

You give caring a whole different meaning - and like anybody does really.

[Tiberios]

I doubt they will, because most of them don't actually care about Iraq nor Iraqis. They won't listen because they'll be too busy blaring on about how Bush should have been tried as a "war criminal" for starting an "illegal" war, thus continuing to try to vindicate their political agendas.

exactly.

what about massacre of nearly 600000 iraqis.

Got any sources for that? Because the "massacre" implies genocide, and that is just ridicioulus.

The West isn't trying to destroy islam.

[Rapax]

I doubt they will, because most of them don't actually care about Iraq nor Iraqis. They won't listen because they'll be too busy blaring on about how Bush should have been tried as a "war criminal" for starting an "illegal" war, thus continuing to try to vindicate their political agendas.

Yes of course, because the war supporters only ever had the welfare of Iraqis in mind. The terrorist threat and WMDs never ever played a role in their argumentation, right? But let's just pretend that argument never existed and slam everyone for not caring about innocent Iraqis now.

[alhoon]

I doubt they will, because most of them don't actually care about Iraq nor Iraqis. They won't listen because they'll be too busy blaring on about how Bush should have been tried as a "war criminal" for starting an "illegal" war, thus continuing to try to vindicate their political agendas.

I'm anti-war, I believe Bush is a war criminal, I believe he started an illegal war and that he should be sent in prison. Also I believe the biggest motive there was to control the oil.

However: I'm glad that things seem to go better in Iraq than prewar and I'm optimistic that in the future things will be good for Iraq and I admit that (in the future) it may have a chance to become a democratic state that would be a model and inspiration in this trouble area of the world.

I certainly hope that 20 years from now, people in Iraq will say to their kids "and then USA came and toppled the evil dictator. It was very hard in the beginning but it was worth a few years of sacrifices and tears since it led us to this."
I really do hope that. And Kudos to the American soldiers that managed to accomplish as much as they have already.

Of course I also hope the end of the story would be "and about those years of sacrifices, don't worry! Saddam was executed and the people responsible, Bush & all are in prison as they deserved. They started the war for the sake of the war industry and oil companies to profit, not us, nor even their own people."

[Mr. Scott]

They started the war for the sake of the war industry and oil companies to profit, not us, nor even their own people."

As you can see by the statistics, oil production in current Iraq is lower then it was during Saddam. It wasn't for oil companies. What it might have been was to not have a nutjob in control of large oil reserves. Which as we know, gives them large political sway.

[alhoon]

As you can see by the statistics, oil production in current Iraq is lower then it was during Saddam. It wasn't for oil companies. What it might have been was to not have a nutjob in control of large oil reserves. Which as we know, gives them large political sway.

And not having that nutjob in control makes oil companies profit.

How much did oil companies made during the oil crisis of 2005?

[Last Roman]

Yup. I still believe that 20 years from now those saying they were against the war will be ashamed to admit it.

nope. was against it, am against it, will always be against it. I'm happy that Iraqis are generally better off, but that doesn't change fact that the US gov't lied to start a horribly expensive and unnecessary war, leading to a lot of dead innocent Iraqis and American soldiers.

[Azog 150]

nope. was against it, am against it, will always be against it. I'm happy that Iraqis are generally better off, but that doesn't change fact that the US gov't lied to start a horribly expensive and unnecessary war, leading to a lot of dead innocent Iraqis and American soldiers.

Precisely. Iraqi's may be better off, but why would that change peoples minds on the war being waged in the first place? If Britain and the US hadn't blatently lied going in, and instead came up with a valid reason for invading a country, then I might have supported it.

[TheTrainee]

I think even the notion that Iraq is "better off" disregards the entire question of "where would Iraq have been?" Is Iraq truly "better off" or just "better" than prewar? Opportunity cost.

[Corvis]

Precisely. Iraqi's may be better off, but why would that change peoples minds on the war being waged in the first place? If Britain and the US hadn't blatently lied going in, and instead came up with a valid reason for invading a country, then I might have supported it.

Probably because there wasn't an adequate reason. That's why people are looking at statistics to prove we did the right thing only 7 years after the fact.

[Lord Rahl]

Precisely. Iraqi's may be better off, but why would that change peoples minds on the war being waged in the first place? If Britain and the US hadn't blatently lied going in, and instead came up with a valid reason for invading a country, then I might have supported it.

Bull crap.

I'd like you or someone else come up with a "valid" reason for the invasion of Iraq. We kept Saddam in power because we did not want to create a power vacuum if the dictatorship was overthrown. The Gulf War was a slap on the wrist to Saddam. We destroyed his military but left him in power. It wasn't meant to be a long-term solution to anything because George H. W. Bush didn't want to have a long war. Saddam's administration committed genocide and launched a war against Kuwait, among other things, and the result of the Gulf War left Iraq no longer a military threat to the region, but it didn't resolve the problem of Saddam.

What I'm trying to say is, there isn't a reason that people who don't support the current Iraq War in its justification would accept. What has happened happened, and if you don't think taking down Saddam's administration is a good enough reason, then there would never have been a reason "valid" enough.

[Azog 150]

Bull crap.

I'd like you or someone else come up with a "valid" reason for the invasion of Iraq. We kept Saddam in power because we did not want to create a power vacuum if the dictatorship was overthrown. The Gulf War was a slap on the wrist to Saddam. We destroyed his military but left him in power. It wasn't meant to be a long-term solution to anything because George H. W. Bush didn't want to have a long war. Saddam's administration committed genocide and launched a war against Kuwait, among other things, and the result of the Gulf War left Iraq no longer a military threat to the region, but it didn't resolve the problem of Saddam.

What I'm trying to say is, there isn't a reason that people who don't support the current Iraq War in its justification would accept. What has happened happened, and if you don't think taking down Saddam's administration is a good enough reason, then there would never have been a reason "valid" enough.

There wasn't a valid reason, and I agree with your last paragraph. What I was basically trying to say is we should never have gone in and thats that (Although it would have been better if he was just toppled in 1991 although i understand why he wasn't). I said if they could come up with a valid reason- but there wasn't one.

However, although I did not support entering Iraq in the first place, I was fully aware that once we had gone in we couldn't just leave.

[Mr. Scott]

nope. was against it, am against it, will always be against it. I'm happy that Iraqis are generally better off, but that doesn't change fact that the US gov't lied to start a horribly expensive and unnecessary war, leading to a lot of dead innocent Iraqis and American soldiers.

Uneccessary. It may have not been necessary in 2003, but I promise you it would have been necessary by 2013.

The war would have happened regardless. Saddam was never going to back down. All that would change if the US didn't go in is that it would happen later after Saddam prepped himself and the whole world would have gone into iraq instead of the US and a few allies.

Regardless, the war would have taken place.

[Poet]

Yup. I still believe that 20 years from now those saying they were against the war will be ashamed to admit it.

question is that what made you think that you need to "free" iraqi people from dictator, this is not a hollywood movie but real world, that dictator was your beloved one and when he started challenging you you just invaded his country, ok some how we can manage american rogue invasion as courtesy to Iraqi people but what about loot of oil, what about massacre of nearly 600000 iraqis and what about destruction of ancient places and theft from museums and etc which show that you did not go their to help them, tos does not allow otherwise i would show you a picture of american carrier ship on which it is written with something *Beep* Iraq.Even if you give one gold mountain to every Iraqi you would not make them forget loss of lives , rape and abu ghuraib and many more much. Bush is definitely a war criminal this is a proven fact, and nothing can erase war crimes from his profile.

[Dr Zoidberg]

The only difference is that a dictator (similar to US-backed dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc) has been replaced by a weak, ethnically and religiously divided and a corrupt 'democracy' where people vote but everything else remains the same - poverty, unequal income distribution, discrimination, lack of law and order, terrorists gangs, etc.

Because all these things are clearly the US's fault Do you honestly think the only reason the Governments of Saudi Arabia & Egypt are in power because of US backing? The fact that they're totalitarian police states has nothing to do with their social inequality, does it...

Iraqis will never forget the ill-planned US intervention in their country that has left hundreds of thousands brutally murdered.

Never mind the fact that the majority of said brutal murders occurred at the hands of Islamic insurgents... but why let the facts get in the way of the "truth".

question is that what made you think that you need to "free" iraqi people from dictator, this is not a hollywood movie but real world, that dictator was your beloved one and when he started challenging you you just invaded his country, ok some how we can manage american rogue invasion as courtesy to Iraqi people but what about loot of oil, what about massacre of nearly 600000 iraqis and what about destruction of ancient places and theft from museums and etc which show that you did not go their to help them, tos does not allow otherwise i would show you a picture of american carrier ship on which it is written with something *Beep* Iraq.Even if you give one gold mountain to every Iraqi you would not make them forget loss of lives , rape and abu ghuraib and many more much. Bush is definitely a war criminal this is a proven fact, and nothing can erase war crimes from his profile.

[Kjertesvein]

You can gently *** that appology so far up the *** ****!!!

Regards,

~Wille