Was not Iraq functioning reasonably better under Saddam ?

Answer 1

Saddam had the know how to keep control of his people. He was successful in keeping his enemies at bay, as well, particularly Iran.

The one thing that Saddam didn't control was his own family. His two sons were simply evil people. They murdered, maimed, raped, tortured simply because they could. Saddam did very little to change their uncontrollable behavior, and eventually it came back to haunt him.

Saddam's own arrogance was his worst enemy. Why he thought the US wouldn't come after him a second time was a poor calculation. His own defiance did him in.

Don't do a disservice to the men and women of the armed forces by suggesting the Saddam ran a tighter ship, because he didn't. Today, much of the blame for Iraq's quagmire can be blamed on Syria and Iran. Ahmadinejad as much as admitted that he could stop the fighting with the snap of his fingers. This also means that he's the one who is causing Iraq's civil war.

For this, he should be punished, severely!

Answer 2

I agree with Gecko for the most part. Iraq was functioning greatly under Saddam but it was disliked. If you did something against the government you were killed, no questions asked.

But we are there for a reason. We are spreading democracy to let these people live easier instead of fearing for their lives. These people trying to prevent this democracy from fully functioning hate America and if we ignore them now, they will surely get us later.

Answer 3

I think if there was an HONEST election in Iraq now, with no alternatives to Saddam and Dumbya, the high emperor, I think Saddam would win. Saddam was indeed horrible, but Dumbya found a hell and made it hotter. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 4

Well, they didn't get to vote under Saddam.
They didn't have the U.S. to help them survive.
There are no more huge pits in the ground where
Saddam buried hundreds of women and children
alive.
Their children now feel safer with Saddam gone.
Some day they may still enjoy some sort of democracy.
If the U.S. didn't go help them, who the heck would?
Probably no one would ever come help us if we needed it.

Answer 5

If anyone is telling it was not, it is a blatant lie.

Saddam might have ordered action against those who plotted to kill him, but he did not kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as caused by US invasion. Any President of any country, in Saddam's position, would have done the exact same thing.

US had no business meddling in other country's internal matters. At least now I hope US will not repeat this blunder.

Answer 6

yes it was, no doubt but G.W.B. had to finish what his dad started, stop Saddam from complaining about them stealing his oil, the Bush family owns a good portion of stock in several oil co, who is instrumental in stealing Iraq oil thru, Kuwait, by drilling at a angle ,have you not been listening to the Iraq complaints over the years?

Answer 7

Absolutely. A dictatorship, but no civil war, no terrorists in sight, gas was cheap, the government was secular, freedom to travel, study, and make money......as long as you didn't talk against him, you could live there peacefully.

Now........you are a walking target if you are a shiite, a sunni, a student, a police, a soldier, rich, intellectual....there is someone that wants you dead.

I feel sorry for our troops and all the iraqis who are getting injured or dying everyday for nothing.

Answer 8

Yes, it was much easier to kill and torture then. And there wouldn't be any Iraqi Kurds, either. You're right! Iraq was sooo much better with Saddam and Germany was better with Hitler! Amazing!

Answer 9

Yes but remember Saddam had those weapons of mass destruction, probably hidden under his bed.

Answer 10

Why not pose this question to all the rotting corpses that were dug up from mass graves in Iraq?