Why does everyone assume that America is bad and Iraq was better under Saddam?

Answer 1

Because they're dumbazz sons of biatches!

Answer 2

I don't believe people are assuming or thinking that Saddam was in anyway a good dictator... The issue is really why did we go into Iraq, extending the rhetoric of creating a democratic environment to fight terrorism. There are have been certain members in the government, now in positions of power in the executive branch, such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who have wanted to invade Iraq since the early 1990's. They were looking for a way to push the "new" doctrine of pre-emption even during the reign of Bush senior, to no avail. They were again sidelined during the Clinton administration but found an ally in the current administration. The folks supporting taking down Saddam and the Bush Doctrine are often referred to a neo-Reaganites or neo-Conservatives. So we are no longer managing our foreign policy globally but we are begin to force it through pseudo-colonization and nation building. On one hand, Saddam was pretty evil and it is good to see him out of power but on the other, the area is unstable and not getting much better...

Answer 3

People remember that American troops were not dying in Iraq before March 2003, and now they are.

But they don't stop to think what would have happened had the invasion not taken place.

My guess is that there would have been more months of cat-and-mouse inspections, all with 150,000 US troops cooling their heels in Kuwait or wherever else they were being stationed. They would have been the target of terror attacks there too. Plus, our planes were being targeted in the no-fly zones and one would probably have been shot down sooner or later. Then Saddam would have had hostages.

And people would still be blaming the US for the UN sanctions that were "starving Iraqi children," not knowing about the UN kickbacks for the oil-for-food program. (Interesting how people frequently accuse Bush, Cheney, etc. of greed and profiteering, but seldom note the profit motive of France, Russia, the UN, etc. in keeping Saddam in power!) Finally, as Saddam was counting on, world opinion would have forced people to curtail inspections or otherwise give some phony "clean bill of health." (Remember, it was Saddam's burden to comply, not ours to play hide and seek. Why didn't he?) And then what? Would Saddam have foresworn all ambitions to get WMD? Would he have stopped aiding terrorists? We would have had 25 million people still under the oppression, the US shown as not being willing to fight, and a madman still plotting. Plus, we never would have captured all those documents that are still being reviewed and translated. Plus, we would never have found out about the oil for food scandal.

One thing I'll say is that MAYBE this proves that you can't launch an attack for mere treaty violations, that you have to wait until you get attacked first in order to have public support. But that gives our enemies "one free shot."

Answer 4

i think because even though Saddam was a evil dictator and all and he needed to be put out of power.when he was in power he kept those terror groups at bay there was far less car bombings and the like when he was in power.I'm not saying he was a good leader or anything but bush could have came into Iraq a much better way to minimize the chaos.not come into Iraq like a freaking cowboy.

Answer 5

Because

A> We hurried to invade Iraq based on false information, even as they were attempting to comply, and requesting help to comply, with the UN resolutions we were supposedly enforcing.

B> Look at all the death & destruction going on there still, with no real end in sight.

Nobody's saying Saddam was a saint, but that doesn't mean we made a good or even honest trade.

Answer 6

I don't think America is bad, and many of my European friends don't think so either. I and my Euro. friends certainly don't think Iraq was better under Saddam either.


However, by Americas jumping into conflicts with the whole concept of verify later (IRAQ) we are now precieved as a bully. Not too many other nations are impressed with our actions. We totally disregarded the qestions and conserns on Iraq from the UN and that made us look even worse. (Not that the U.N. is really any good any more - but the concept of them in theroy is a good idea.)

Iraq today is plagued by extreemest groups and civil war uprisings, so its not fair to say that they were better under the reign of Sadam, however the terrorist were not stupid enough to challege Sadam, and steered clear from him. Once we took him out it opened the door for everyone who wants to inflict terror on inocent people and American soldiers. Iraq has a long way to go, but they will get there in time...... America has to let them find their way and support them and not tell them how to run their country. Its one thing to set the example and hope others follow vs. making people follow, I think its important for us not to force a goverment to govern one set way.

America used to be about fighting for people who couldn't fight for themselves, to even up the anti, and fight horrendece genicides and maltreatment of peoples. Lately we've seemed to drift away from that, now there has to be something in it for us, (oil). America has always been the "Big Brother", watching out for other countries in need and despair, we still try, but I think our greed has gotten to us more than our humanity.

The people of America are not bad, unfortunately its the people we have elected to represent us, are greedy and corupt and they are making our wonderful nation at heart look bad, bully like and giving us a bad reputation.

Answer 7

I doubt that anyone would say that Iraq was better under Saddam.

but I thought we were going after Osama. We went to Afghanistan, to get him. Then all of the sudden we were in imminent danger from Iraq. Oh crap no Weapons of Mass Destruction, now we are there to bring democracy to the desert. What the hell happened to Osama? Stay the course.

Saddam was a sadistic son of a ***** and Bush senior should have finished the job he started.

Answer 8

I think Iraq was in bad shape either way, but now it seems to be a haven for terrorists.

I don't think I can really answer this question, because I don't know much about how Iraq was before we invaded.

Answer 9

At least under Saddam people were not blowing each other up to get away from invading homosexuals

Answer 10

Not everyone does. However, we sure didn't hear about bombs going off each and every day in Iraq, indiscriminately killing innocent mothers, fathers, and children before Saddam was "removed." Each and every day.