Altho im in the military so am directly involoved in the middle eastern conflicts.. did u know under Saddam Hussain in 25 years he killed an approx 450,000 people but in the 3 YEARS since allied forces entered there have been approx 650,000 deaths. Maybe Iraq was better under Saddam!? What do you think? BTW this is just a bit of info and in no way my opinion. Just wanna know what u think of that.
2006-10-26 10:15:59 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I think reading the comments so far the comedian David Cross summed it up when he said " you cant win a war on terrorism cos its like having a war on jealously! It just cant work! What are they gonna do,.. kill every one and go "yup everyone loves us now!!" "
2006-10-26 10:24:31 · update #1
Yes, I heard that... puts things into perspective, about just how screwed America is by starting this war. Not just the numbers of dead (and so many people believe "it's only Arabs, so who cares!") but the amount of ill-will we have generated against us that will come back and haunt us for generations. We have recruited terrorists, not diminished them! It's not that Iraq was a great place under Saddam - he was an exceptionally cruel and greedy leader who should have been deposed - but THE WORLD IS NOT BETTER OFF! Period.
2006-10-26 10:20:53 · answer #1 · answered by Mama Gretch 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The 650,000 deaths is an estimate made by one group: I think it is a possible figure, but it's hard to know for sure--I'm sure it's near there though. If you remove the reason of WMD's, and remain with the reason "to give the Iraqis democracy"...your end resulting thought is right on.
This country has no business bring a different government to a country by force. I would have to admit that Iraq was no Garden of Eden under Saddam, but this region (apparently) needs a strong man type to rule it...at least in this era. I would bet that the next "real" leader of Iraq will be a strongman as well and if there is an elected parliament, it would take a back seat to this man. I have read that the ideology of Neo-Conservatives, compared to more traditional conservatives and Liberals, has an ideology of bringing democracy to third world countries so that they could become part of the Western capitalist system and that they are very willing to use force to see it through...hence Iraq. I am a Conservative Democrat and believe no such nonsense. Although the most powerful country on Earth, we cannot hope to change the minds and hearts of people in other countries...it is hopeless idealism on the part off the Neo-Conservatives.
Prediction: we will be there for 2 more years, another hundred thousand will die, the insurgents will still be there, the government will be unstable and the entire region will be worse off for it for years to come....at least we could have controlled Saddam with airstrikes and the like...kept him from developing nuclear weapons....we had the right to do so and could have kept doing it a lot cheaper and with less lives lost on either side.....BETTER TO HAVE THE ENEMY YOU KNOW, HE'S LESS DANGEROUS THAN THE ONE YOU DON'T KNOW
2006-10-26 10:29:18 · answer #2 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
OK lets get out of loony land. the fight in the gulf was never about protecting Iraqis. after all when Saddam gassed the Kurds the rest of the world did not bat an eyelid. Saddam was put into power by the western world and was always going to be removed by the western world when it suited them. and that is when the western world started to loose its grip on the middle east. the middle eastern nations are building up to becoming a dominant world power as the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, British, German and Russians were before them. the only one which did not fall was the British empire she prostituted herself with America to become an Anglo-American world power when America came into the second world war and defeated the Germans. from then they realised in this partnership they could influence the rest of the world. it is a shame that this relationship will probably be the downfall of the UN as it was with her predecessor the league of nations and if a few people get crushed in the process then well that's life. so look forward to a long stay in the middle east it will not be over soon.
2006-10-26 12:37:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It proves that war does not solve war. Two wrongs dont make a right and no human is greater than the other etc. Man, no matter what race or colour cannot bring a final end to war because there will always be one more man who wants and desires the power it brings, costing the lives of thousands of people, innocent or not. How can anyone be 'better' off with any leader/power who rules with arms and destructive measures.
2006-10-26 21:21:41 · answer #4 · answered by indianspirit 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My husband has been reading a book (Dusty Warriors)about his old regiment in Iraq and told me this story.
A 12 year old girl was talking to some british soldiers and her father was so angry at this that he beat the girl up.Later on as a result of this the squadies then beat up the father for what he did to his daughter.
And how did the father react to this? He cut his daughters throat!
He did this just to save face in front of his fellow villagers.
I don't think that anything we do will make Iraq a safer place to live
as this is the only way they know how to.
2006-10-26 10:48:13 · answer #5 · answered by kerrie h 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is true, apparently. Saddam Hussein was kept in power by many Countries for most of that time, with plenty of military equipment sales. Now the powers that be are considering putting in another strong leader.
Our military should never have been sent in. George W was determined to finish off the job his Father left incomplete when he was in power.
2006-10-26 10:29:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Being an Afghan and knowing the life ppl lead in "3rd world countries" i think there is no better way... either way ppl suffer... Saddam may have killed and tortured for his benefits... but eventhough the country may seem democratic... there will Political Corruption and other sorts of torture people will have to go through...only time will tell....
2006-10-26 10:41:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe those deaths are the reason that many Iraqi are now calling for the Americans to leave. They have not been given freedom, they have just been given another way to die. I feel very sorry for the good Iraqi people.. not the terrorists but the ordinary people like we are.. who are losing their loved ones daily while we tramp around in military uniform telling them we are saving them. If a child dies... nothing has been saved, no matter how you try to make it sound.
2006-10-26 10:26:55 · answer #8 · answered by Debra H 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
ok we ought to get out of loony land. the try against indoors the gulf replace into never approximately keeping Iraqis. regardless of each and every thing on a similar time as Saddam gassed the Kurds some component of the international did no longer bat an eyelid. Saddam replace into located into ability by using the western worldwide and alter into consistently going to be bumped off by using the western worldwide on a similar time because it appropriate them. and that's even using fact the western worldwide began to loose its grip on the midsection east. the midsection jap international locations are progression as lots as beginning up to be a dominant worldwide ability using fact the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, British, German and Russians have been previously them. the fairly one that did no longer fall replace into the British empire she prostituted herself with u . s . a . of united statesa. to become an Anglo-American worldwide ability on a similar time as u . s . a . of united statesa. have been given here into the 2d worldwide conflict and defeated the Germans. from then they realised in this partnership they might result some component of the international. it extremely is a shame that this dating sticks out using fact the downfall of the UN using fact it replace into alongside together with her predecessor the league of international locations and if some human beings get overwhelmed indoors the technique then top it extremely is life. so seem forward to an prolonged stay indoors the midsection east it extremely is extremely now no longer over on the instant.
2016-11-25 22:12:55 · answer #9 · answered by rudicil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Firstly, thank you for serving our country.
Secondly, although accurate numbers are difficult to get, Sadam was most likely responsible for 2 million deaths. Sadam attacked Iran in the early 1980's and for 8 years fought a war of attrition that probably killed well over 1.5 million people on both sides. Sadam invaded Kuwait in the early 1990's killing more people. During his 30 year reign of terror, he regularly murdered his own people, including the ethnic Kurds.
Thirdly, the 650,000 deaths you refer to, is from a very unreliable source.
Lastly, if you believe Iraq was better off under Sadam then that same logic would lead you to the inescapable conclusion that Germany was better off under Hitler, that Japan was better off under Tojo, that Russia was better off under Stalin.
Again, thank you for serving our country and the best of luck to you in all that you do. Semper Fi.
2006-10-26 10:32:23 · answer #10 · answered by afreeman20035252 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋