Would Iraq be better with Saddam?
Uncle Leo
Posts: 1,059
Over the years, discussion of the Iraq War often includes someone from the "pro" side saying "Would it be better for Iraq if Saddam was still in power?" This was usually a rhetorical question.
However, I am posing this not as a rhetorical question but as a straight-forward question. Would Iraq be better off had Saddam just been left in power? Short run? Long run?
However, I am posing this not as a rhetorical question but as a straight-forward question. Would Iraq be better off had Saddam just been left in power? Short run? Long run?
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
One day something would've had to of been done to deal with saddam, I'm just not sure that killing 100.000 + the 1 million via sanctions was the way.
But as it is, the world and iraq was safer with him in power.
short run: yes
long run: he would be dead, since he's becoming old...
2007: Copenhagen, Werchter
2009: Rotterdam, London
2010: MSG, Arras, Werchter
2012: Amsterdam, Prague, Berlin
2014: Amsterdam, Stockholm
2007: Copenhagen, Werchter
2009: Rotterdam, London
2010: MSG, Arras, Werchter
2012: Amsterdam, Prague, Berlin
2014: Amsterdam, Stockholm
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
Democracy ??? strange democracy they're living in... Their live will certainly be better in 10, 20 or 30 years, but I don't think Iraq is a place to be... democracy or not...
2007: Copenhagen, Werchter
2009: Rotterdam, London
2010: MSG, Arras, Werchter
2012: Amsterdam, Prague, Berlin
2014: Amsterdam, Stockholm
Maybe that's what you heard from the people you must have spoken with who lived under Saddem, or who currently live in Iraq. I heard something different with the people I have spoken with.
correct me if i'm worng but didn't they have running water and stable electricity as well as being able to walk outside under saddam?
and before you make your extreme reply no, i'm not saying he was a good man
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
well, when they were polled they said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
asked if the invasion did more harm than good:
46% said more harm
33% said more good
are we occupiers or liberators?:
71% say occupiers
19% say liberators
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Funny how the media doesn't do exactly that...
We don't get many human interest stories about families in Iraq. Guess it would be unpatriotic to show that. guess the fact that no effort is made to show what they have to say - tells us an aweful lot about what they have to say.
Actually, I saw a documentary not so long ago where Iraqis said things were better under Saddam, shitty yes, but better.
I'm going to see if I can find it, I think it was from BBC.
naděje umírá poslední
more stable, yes
less of a threat, yes
i think that most people have to realize that a large majority of people lived safe, stable lives under Hussein. as long as you didn't dissent, you were generally okay. At least you could go to the market, or walk the streets without fear for your life.
sounds "better" to me.
The trend is also wholly American. Our relationship with Hussein was a matter of convenience...as much as we disliked him, we have had it in for Iran for much longer...and it served our purposes to be aligned with Hussein during the cold war, so we could engage Iran. Once that was over, it was only a matter of time for Hussein.
I predict the same outcome for our relationship with Pakistan. They serve a purpose at the moment. Once we have the trans-afghani pipeline in place, we will not be so buddy buddy with Pakistan.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
very true. to me, pakistan is one coup away from an enemy with a nuclear weapon. the U.S. has historically supported dictators because if nothing else, dictators provide stability.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
Kabong, they were using technology from the forty's when the British occupied, their water pumps and power stations were so fucked to begin with, the coalition decided to replace rather than repair. Looters didn't help the cause either.
Really? Who's lives? Those that will have been lucky enough to survive the carnage? That figure is getting less and less every day. Maybe some people think that they will all be better off dead rather than alive under Sadaam?
maybe if we took out the man we wanted instead of the whole nations infastructure.
we took out a strongman and now we are dealing with many. dealing with one pesky bee is difficult but how do you deal with a swarm.
ask the women of iraq who have lost freedoms because of religous rule. ask those dragged out of their houses and shot because of their faith or even their names
how many ied's destroyed vehicles and lives in bagdad under saddam.
how would you like maybe 1 hour of power (maybe) per day.
if the place didnt have oil we wouldnt be there
You ever heard of the Baath party? Them and the Fedayeen used to go around killing anyone who wasn't a Baathist or wouldn't join the Baathists. This included, shiite sunni or Armenians. They took control in like 68' or something, that's a long time of cold-blooded killing, a lot more than the horrible americans 3 years spree.
And as far as the power thing goes, they easily had more than one hour a day in 03' and probably greatly exceed that today. Ask me how I know?
I lived in a college in NW Baghdad after fighting through the ground war and then staying for the initial occupation for a grand total of 13 straight months. We went through the same shit the locals did on my forward operating base and had no other luxuries Iraqi nationals didn't have.
Don't believe everything the media tells you.
That's why i can't answer for the average Iraqi person, but for the region, yes it was better under Saddam.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I don't understand this, what about Kuwaiti's, Iran and Israel.
The Kuwati's were drilling into Iraqi oil fields. That's why Saddam asked for our permission to invade them in the 90s. When we didn't say "NO", he assumed that our less than firm position on the matter gave him a gren light to protect his natural resources from Kuwaiti piracy.
That was a big mistake, but IMO, one that America helped him to make, and needed him to make.
As for Iran, they've been hosed since we toppled their freely elected democratic government in the 60s and installed the Shah. IMO, they have never recovered from what transpired after that.
Israel has the bomb. They can take care of themselves.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Allegedly "slant" drilling into Iraqi oil fields.
I thought a US ambassador showed dissinterest to military troop buildups in the south by Saddam. Was a solid understandable question actually proposed to the US regarding invasion? Cause he HAS stacked the border before also.
I don't understand your Iran statement, Iraqi's hate Iranians and vice versa dating back a shit long of time ago. Saddam chose to invade in 80'. Tons of people died.
And where was Israels bomb when saddam launched scuds at tel aviv? And why during this war did we send 600 missile defense guys to Israel, if they could take care of themself why 600 specialty troops then?
So back to the question, could you better explain why life was so much better under Saddam Hussein in the middle east as a whole?