With the daily increase in violence, and the spread of Civil War, would Iraq have been more secure under the old regime? Considering that Bush has claimed the war was primarily about liberating Iraq, has the war effort failed?
2006-07-12 12:23:01 · 7 answers · asked by reality check 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
WAAAAAAAAAY BETTER!!!!
i'm not saying that saddam was a good guy though! he was a SOB no doubt about that.
but lets take a look at iraq under Saddam hussein's regime!
religious tolerance actually existed!! ( under a Sunni government )
women ( muslim/christian) had a lot more freedom. they wore jeans uncovered their hair and had jobs.
NOW.
with all the current events and the way every thing looks. it's more likely that the shea muslim will be in charge.
which is already in effect in many parts of Iraq right now.
for example Al-Sadr-city.
al sadr city is controlled by a guy named Muqtada Al Sadr a radical muslim fundamentalist. ( just as bad or even worse than Iran's president ) this guy is currently running for presidency he also is the leader of Al Mahdi army who were fighting the coalition forces in Baghdad but after making an alliance with the US army his militia is now fighting the Sunni militia in Baghdad.
both militias are responsible for the death of thousands of innocent iraqis and US soldiers. it's like a civil war going on right now.
the Al Mahdi army also Polices the Al Sadr City. they kidnap , torture and kill many innocent civilians.
women are no longer allowed to uncover their hair and work freely. christians are having troubles practicing their faith.
if this AL Sadr guy becomes Iraq's next president!!!! say good buy to Iraq. we are there to spread democracy? well you will see with your own eyes what kind of democracy Iraq is going to be.
it will be worst the Iran.
and the thing that amazes me is that the american army actually made an alliance with those terrorists. talk about democracy :(
2006-07-12 13:20:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
properly, being plunged into poverty when you've been a stepped ahead usa? i'd say sure. there became better possibilities in Iraq lower than Saddam's rule. there's a flow of refugees from Iraq to tutor this- those those who stayed in the course of the dictatorship of Saddam at the prompt are fleeing the rustic. And what alternatives have they were given? no longer only have they were given to concern terrorists, yet also US protection rigidity's blunders. The infrastructure has damaged down, and there are not any jobs except starting to be a member of the police or the protection rigidity, or the utmost paid- starting to be an extremist fighter. --- Iran, did no longer have an useful nuclear guns software (they nevertheless do not), and Iraq became regulated strictly by technique of the international community so as that it may under no circumstances change right into plausible back (yet, us of a nevertheless attacked).
2016-12-01 04:14:52 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Come on? Where does this kind of talk come from? First, we are there - we went to war. Are men are dying there and we need to stand behind our government and our soldiers. During WWII people asked the same questions.
They were saying then; "Do you think it was worth going after Hitler"?
We have 2 serial killers and a serial rapist on the loose in Phoenix; so do you think we should risk putting a few policemen out there on the line? They have only killed 8 people after all?
Come on, we have to get some common sense here.
America does not have a policy to overthrow other leaders of nations. But, this was a special case. We let this man go during the Gulf Wars, when our intelligence tells us he has intentions of doing us harm we have every right and responsibility to our children to take action.
Granny
2006-07-12 12:46:32 · answer #3 · answered by pmac 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends who you talk with the liberals think so ... motive the White House... The Republicans.. motive the spread of peace and prosperity through the world and eliminate terror ... and I don't think you are right about the primary reason to liberate Iraq.. I thought it was about 3000 of my fellow American being killed and over flowing into Iraq .. you might want to check your self ...
2006-07-12 12:37:35 · answer #4 · answered by ralphtheartist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No but WE would have been better off with Iraq under Hussein.
2006-07-12 12:30:28 · answer #5 · answered by Who cares 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They may not have been but over 1500 US and British soldiers would have been alive to see for themselves! May they rest in peace.
2006-07-12 12:27:25 · answer #6 · answered by marc k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You answer that, what if your mom or sister or wife (girlfriend) were just walking down the street and was kidnapped and brought to one of Saddam's rape rooms where she was rapped over and over again by Saddam's son's?
2006-07-12 12:27:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋