2006-09-04 04:14:18 · 28 answers · asked by slyry75 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. There is terrible violence going on there now, but it is nothing compared to the brutality and killing that went on under Sadaam.
400,000 Kurds were exterminated by Sadaam just because they were Kurds. I would also like to point out that he used WMD on the Kurds. Chemical weapons are classified as WMD.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm.
Don't forget the rape rooms and all the torture chambers.
When the harassment at Abu Graib became public I saw an interview of an Iraqi man, he said "You call that torture!? Those are the men that threw my father of a 20 story building! They buried my mother and sister alive in a car. You want to see torture? Let me near them!"
The Iraqis have a tough job ahead taming their country but with our help, they will eventually be able to.
As to the success of imposing Democracy on a country formally run by brutal fanatics.
Look at Japan and Germany. They are 2 very different cultures. They both got involved dreams of world conquest.
For the past 60 years they have lived under the democratic government that we imposed on them.
We do not have to worry about either country trying to rule the world now.
2006-09-04 04:37:33 · answer #1 · answered by Freddy B 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Not that the US wants to get out of Iraq, but they will put a puppet in power which is the normal procedure. The US is constructing 14 bases in Iraq. Noone is going anywhere soon.
In 1952, the US did not approve of the election of Jacobo Arbenze,in Guatamala so the CIA asked his V.P. to take over. Diaz agreed and the first thing the CIA told him to do was execute 25 Communists of their choosing. Diaz refused so they put their own man in power. In 10 years over 100,000 Guatamalans were murdered including nuns,priests and a Cardinal. It was John Foster & Allen Dullus, with some help from Cardinal Spellman of N.Y. that set the whole thing up.
Also in the 60s, the US put the Shah of Iran on the throne, He built up a Secret Police that would put the KGB to shame. Thousands were tortured and killed. That is why it was so easy for the Ayatollah to take over when the Shah went to the states to be treated for cancer.
1971-Chile Nixon & Kissinger had the CIA make arrangements to have Salvador Allande, Chile's elected Pres. murdered and put Augusto Pinochet in power. Again thousands died.
The list goes on . Human right's is not a US priority. They support many dictators throughout the world.
So as I said, in order for the US to ever leave they will have to make sure they have a stong dictator in place that will be co-operative.
I'm not exactly sure of the date the Shah was enthroned, but like it or not the rest are right.
2006-09-04 17:06:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a very good question , I would say yes , they would have utilities and homes and while many may still be murdered I doubt it would match the several hundred thousand who have died with the combined Bush Sr. and G.W. . No weapons of mass destruction , no plan we had no business there except G.W. Bush's private agenda . The only difference now is Americans are dying also . They were previously beaten down to the point they posed no threat to us. It's nothing but a ruse by our president to appear to be fighting a war on terror . For him the appearance of doing something is enough .
2006-09-04 11:26:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
not only the Iraqi people but the world in general. yes he is a bit heavy handed when it came to keeping people in line, but the past few years have shown us that is what it takes to keep order in that region. i guess you could say he put the fear of Allah in them. on my view of the world he kept Iran in check. they were to busy worrying about Saddam to have time or the money to build nukes. and if they did he would have wiped there reactors off the face of the earth. instead now we have to get involved and act as the Calvary and get dragged into another area of the middle east. besides i asked the same question a mionth ago
2006-09-04 11:22:48 · answer #4 · answered by stanyazfan 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Sadam or Bush -Both are not interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people.Sadam a self-centred dictator. And Bush an Imperialist politician!
2006-09-04 11:23:36 · answer #5 · answered by mathu 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's what I heard on CNN. They said the country was in better shape then. (They had power etc..) Also, there is sort of a civil war going on now, which Sadaam wouldn't have let happen.
2006-09-04 11:17:03 · answer #6 · answered by Suspended 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They would in my opinion be better off without the Americans there. I believe that intervening has and will make things worse, and will build Anti-American sentiment. Why are we there? To save the nation from Sadam Hussein's evil dictatorship? Ummm, maybe. To ensure American hands on the oil and wealth of the nation, not rightfully theirs? Of course.
2006-09-04 11:22:20 · answer #7 · answered by jenesaisquoi 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.
Some say yes, but the fact remains he really was a tyrant killing off thousands of people and torturing even more daily.
It is of my opinion that it really does not matter if he is replaced there will always be strife there for the simple fact that it has been that way for thousands of years.
2006-09-04 11:17:16 · answer #8 · answered by Biker 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What a politically incorrect question! In many ways I think they would be better off if or government hadn't invaded! It might have been bad, but I bet more people are being killed now, and life is worse than it was.
Iraq is a Bush war, and his administration. Weird government!
2006-09-04 11:17:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not the Kurds and not the Shiites (outside of Baghdad). The Sunnis are definitely worse off.
2006-09-04 11:15:40 · answer #10 · answered by Brand X 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋