Women's rights, for instance.
Are women better off with their rights guaranteed under a Constitution, or under an Islamic theocracy? (Very simple question. Islamic theocracy is operative now in most of the country.)
And some other matters.
Housing. Are people better off living in peace with each other in a secular society, or in the midst of a religious civil war facing assassination? (Again simple.)
Livability. Are people usually considered better off with power, sewers, good water, or without those things? (I know, they're better off with a McDonalds in the neighborhood.)
Livability II. Are people considered safer in a society where laws are enforced, or in a society with foreign troops marauding through the neighborhoods, killing, torturing, stealing and raping without accountability to local laws? (For most people, a simple answer will suffice.)
As simple as these questions are, I'll bet you don't answser, can't answer, or obfuscate. No matter what, the "Saddam was worse" mantra doesn't work, and frankly, that's tragic.
Arf
Current Events » in reply to "Why Bush's Iraq is Worse Than Saddam's"
The reality: Neither WMDs, nukes, "democracy", nor "Saddam was worse" flies any more.
The whole thread (9 posts)
- BAGHDAD, Iraq - "Four years ago this was a city where people mixed freely -"
