I'm open to reasonable counter arguments either way, but are we better off with Saddam out of power? And who is 'we'?
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The bodies of 15 strangled men were found in west Baghdad on Tuesday as Iraqi leaders, under heavy pressure from Washington, began intensive talks to form a national unity government. The killings came as Iraqi politicians started talks to form a broad-based government, widely seen as the best chance of bringing stability to Iraq, but participants played down the chance of any breakthrough.
I have no doubt Iran and Al Qaeda are better off. We took out their number one, secular Arab enemy, and left a big power vacuum in one of the most oil rich nations on earth right next door to them. Not to mention leaving our military weakened, our equipment and ordinance stocks depleted, and our Treasury flirting with bankruptcy. Maybe the Chinese or North Koreans are better off for similar reasons. Are the Iraqis better off? Probably depends on who you talk to. Via Tristero:
Iraq (AP) -- Police found the bodies of at least 85 people killed by execution-style shootings in the past 24 hours -- a gruesome wave of apparent sectarian reprisal slayings, officials said Tuesday.
Are the Saudis or the Kuwaitis better off? Possibly, although the quality of life enjoyed by billionaire oil sheiks wasn't something I really worried too much about in the first place. I'm sure the innumerable crooks in Iraq that ripped off billions and have it cooling in numbered anonymous accounts are better off. Maybe a handful of zillionaire CEOs are better off, because you know how horribly trying their lives must have been beforehand ...
But if 'we' means the American rank and file, clearly the 20,000 odd dead and maimed working-class Americans and their families aren't better off. How about the rest of us in the USA? Saddam couldn't attack us in the first place in any significant way, so it's tough to imagine that we're safer now. There is some mild satisfaction at the idea of Saddam in jail. But good grief, if for whatever reason the idea of Saddam being in power was keeping someone up at night or causing depression, wouldn't an Ambien or a Prozac have been a better solution for that problem, as opposed to feeding thousands of service men and women into a meat grinder and pouring half a trillion dollars into a sink hole?
So, I feel it's a fair question at this point: Are WE better off? And, however you define 'we', how would you respond--in soundbite format--to the claim that we are better off?