Baghdad is "worse than under Saddam" (Spanish Foreign Minister)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=193192&n=33

Madrid, Nov 25 - Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio has criticized the security situation in Iraq, describing life in Baghdad as worse than under former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, reports said Tuesday.

There was a "very serious security problem" in Iraq, said Palacio, whose country was one of the staunchest US allies during the Iraq war and has 1,300 peacekeepers stationed in Iraq.

"Everyday life, especially in Baghdad, is in a worse condition than it was under Saddam Hussein," Palacio told state television TVE.
<snip>

[Nlighten1]

1. This guy will be issuing an apology this afternoon

Or he will get sacked.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. She tempered it a bit by saying things were better in Southern

Iraq.

[itcfish]

3. Ana Palacio

is what the Spaniards call the Cabbage Patch rightwinger who supported Bush in this invasion against the will of the Spanish people. A little too late now Ana.

[Capt_Nemo]

5. Right on! F*** you Ana Loyola de Palacio!

[Romulus]

4. BFD

Mussolini got the trains in Italy to run on time. You could just as well say that "things in Italy were better under Mussolini."

Or in Spain under Franco, for that matter. :eyes:

[Neutrino]

6. If you take the subject of Saddam out of the equation--

Baghdad had a low crime rate, every person wanting a job had one,
health care and education were free of charge. An article in the NYT
poked fun at letters gathered from the old Baath Party, an example
of which was a man who wrote to the Party requesting $75.00 to
help him with his farm expenses. The Baath Party sent him a check
for $25.00--which might be humourous unless you think about the
response you would get from Washington, D.C.

So are the people of Baghdad better-off or worse-off since the
invasion? The answer is obvious.

[Neutrino]

7. If Saddam were really the issue, he is gone from Power--

so why is the killing and destruction escalating? Because Saddam
was an excuse for deeper and darker motives that are finally seeing
the light of day.

[Neutrino]

8. Along those lines, this interesting commentary from Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1092595,00.html

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

9. Spot on analysis. Thanks for the link.

<snip>
A superpower does not have moral imperatives. It has strategic imperatives. Its purpose is not to sustain the lives of other people, but to sustain itself. Concern for the rights and feelings of others is an impediment to the pursuit of its objectives. It can make the moral case, but that doesn't mean that it is motivated by the moral case.
<snip>