I don't know too much about conditions in Iraq when he was ruler.
2006-10-31 07:58:03 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Politics was great. Saddam won election after election with 99.9% of the vote. The other 0.1 % took a bath in acid for the entertainment of his sons.
2006-10-31 08:04:12 · answer #1 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To be honest there were some positives but it is doubtful that they outweighed the negatives. For one, there was no civil war. The reason? Saddams iron fist. Those who showed signs of rebellion were killed. The Kurdish rebellion is a perfect example of this.
The main difference is that women had more civil rights (but less safety) under Saddam. Some areas have removed these rights from women through the ballot.
I guess it's up to everyone to judge for themselves but his rule appears to have been terribly vicious. Like all dictators there was some good and much more bad.
2006-10-31 16:02:17 · answer #2 · answered by toff 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam's government wasn't full of religious fanatics, at least not by comparison to Iraq's neighbors (though he clearly found other ways to be an extremist). Now Islam has been written into Iraq's constitution.
2006-10-31 16:02:31 · answer #3 · answered by Zombie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The country had may citizens who were professionals: doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, etc, who have since fled the country and gone, mostly, to the United Arab Emirates where they can find work and not worry about being kidnapped. So there was a tremendous brain drain out of the country, along with the smarts and ability to reconstruct. Now its too late. Mostly left there are religious fanatics and the undereducated.
2006-10-31 16:03:47 · answer #4 · answered by galacticsleigh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. He built beautiful mansions and had lots of cocktail parties and cookouts for the poor.
He gassed the Kurds
raped women and children
Committed acts so brutal they defy the imagination...
2006-10-31 16:17:31 · answer #5 · answered by smitty031 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clearly there was because he controlled the different factions that exist in that country and prevented the current cival war that is developing.
2006-10-31 16:00:06 · answer #6 · answered by sschro9131 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
he kept the area stable, then bush came in and screwed up the balance in the middle east, now iraq is a breeding ground for terror
2006-10-31 15:59:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
ppl dere atleast had a leader den bt nw iraq is like refugee camp
2006-10-31 16:02:51 · answer #8 · answered by ruhi 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Iran did not take over the country, and the economy was stable - ruined, but stable, and the military ate well.
2006-10-31 16:00:49 · answer #9 · answered by bob h 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we weren't there stuck in the middle of a civil war that we touched off.
2006-10-31 15:59:57 · answer #10 · answered by sylvia627 1 · 5⤊ 1⤋