Why are the Iraqi people worse off now with the USA in their country?

Question

LONDON - The level of violence in Iraq is "much worse now" than that of Lebanon's civil war, General Kofi Annan said in an interview aired Monday.

Mr Annan agreed that the average Iraqi's life is much worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein and called the situation in the country "extremely dangerous." The United States must admit that.

"Given the level of violence, the level of killing and bitterness and the way that forces are arranged against each other, a few years ago, when we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war; this is much worse," Annan said. But Bush won't admit it.

Last week, when asked by reporters whether the fighting in Iraq could be considered a civil war, Annan said "almost."

"I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, We will see a full Blown Civil war and the USA will lose.
In the B

Answer 1

This is only my opinion and not a stated fact:

The Iraqis are worst off now because from a realistic point of view, democracy cannot exist in a society where you have 3 different forms of muslims fighting amonst themselves (shiite, sunni, kurds). They cannot be taught democracy when they choose to live in the 5th century with their archaic and barbaric customs as set forth by their religion. Saddam may have been a tyrant and a mass murderer, but he was a secular dictator and knew that the only way to keep these animals in check is to knock a couple of them off to set an example to the rest. I seriously doubt that Iraqis can live in a democratic society, because their religious customs don't mix well with allowing women to have the same rights as men. It's amazing that modern day Turkey can function as a secular society, even though it is overwhelmingly muslim. But, there is a large push in Turkey to institute the same kind of hard line islamic rule like that of Iran, and we should all be worried if that happens. History has shown us what happened in Iran during the islamic revolution of the 70s' and if we are to prevent another terrorist hotbed from springing up, we must ensure that the Turks do not allow radical muslims to take power.

Answer 2

Under Saddam, the Iraqis knew "where the red line was" - if they towed the line, they lived in peace. Now you can be blown apart taking your children to the school or buying a load of bread.

It isn't politically correct to say so however and many folks will maintain that it was the right thing to do irrespective of how many are slaughtered on both sides.

I just wonder if we REALLY needed benefit of hindsight about this - and why a small little group could not have taken out saddam and sons - but then just left well alone.

Answer 3

I went to Iraq in 2000 and visited Karbala, Najaf and Baghdad
there was a relative calm and people seemed calm and carried on with everyday life. Though they weren't happy with Saddam being in power they didn't worry about the next bomb going to kill them or a loved one.

there may have been secret killing of freedom fighters but at least the sectarian violence was also absent

Answer 4

Hmmm... yet another article that the habitual liar named erudite has added lies and FABRICATED CONTENT to....

Let us list the lies and fabrications he has added...
"The United States must admit that."
"But Bush won't admit it."
"We will see a full Blown Civil war and the USA will lose.
In the B"

Again... the liar must resort to his typical tactic of fabricatioons, because his warped little views have no basis in a little thing the rest of us like to call REALITY

Linked in my sources section, as always, is the link to the TRUE ARTICLE, WITHOUT THE ADDED FABRICATIONS...

You are exposed again, erudite... as the liar and fabricator that you are

Answer 5

Your right. Tyrannical forcing of obedience is far better than being allowed to fight for your freedom.

That's like someone in 1865 saying "Is the United States better for leaving Britain? It's in a civil war now!" (Though I do admit it 'technically' wasn't a civil war...)

Answer 6

Nazi Germany. very nearly all of community human beings have been killed inadvertently by employing ailment, some have been killed in conflict (kill or be killed) and easily a small volume have been slaughtered in the comparable way that Nazi Germany killed thousands and thousands of Jews. additionally you're comparing the full historical past of one usa to easily one era of yet another. it particularly is like me asking: "that's worse? Detroit final week or Boston for the final 50 years?"

Answer 7

'Cause they don't have Saddam keeping them in line anymore! HE knew how to handle this mess!

Answer 8

definetely worse off

Answer 9

the americans are so much more permissive than sadam was.

Answer 10

well, before the Iraqi people just had to live in fear under Saddam Hussein. Now they have to live in fear in the middle of a conflict, a conflict that brings much confusion for any side.

well heres a forum titled *Liberation Iraq* I found on www.borisstudios.com
"The United States’ so called “Liberation” of Iraq displayed to the entire globe that mother America is a snake, but in contradiction, tactical prey. Bearing in mind the progress of the suicidal war, many obvious disadvantages had been overlooked because the politicians are strangling America’s military minds. The largest errors in how the US handled the Iraq campaign were, of course, the political influences, and the poor strategic planning. If the Iraqis had any chance of victory and the boldness to capitalize on American mistakes, both of those errors could have caused a major upset in the war. One must remember that it is not a commander’s brilliance that wins wars, but their ability to take advantage of the enemies oversights; they do not make their own victory; their adversary does that for them.


The US government failed to realize the cost/benefit factor of long-distanced wars. If the insurgents implemented better strategy and forced the need for backup, reinforcements would have taken a considerable amount of time to disperse to their tactically advantageous positions, maybe compromising the entire campaign, rushing to the positions would definitely expose the supply lines and that would allow the Iraqis a strategic edge if they realized how to capitalize on such blunders. Even more, the supply routes were sloppy, it was reported that in many different parts of the campaign supplies ran short, and that happened because America used the old “We have more guys than you” trick and stormed Iraq with a massive number superiority, while not considering smaller separate groups that would use less supplies and could do the same damage if they effectively used flanks and ambushes, especially since the Iraqis would have expected a massive army and would have assumed defensive positions anyway, making themselves more than vulnerable. Worst of all, the United States tried to inbreed the impossible by not only introducing a massive army of powerful weaponry and technology that uses a behemoth amount of supplies, but to push that force quickly as if it were a small, swift machine. A clear example of what that stimulates: the 507th maintenance company’s exhaustion and poor judgment that lead them directly into an Iraqi stronghold March 23, 2003, where Jessica Lynch was captured along with six others, who were lucky compared to the eleven killed. The commander of the 507th who made the mistake was not blamed, but will probably be damaged for life considering that her mistake cost lives. In affect, it should be noted that it wasn’t her, she was an NCO, mistake at all, but that of the overall strategy. A great military commander can bend things so those extremely over risky maneuvers, such as rushing your supply lines, will simply cease to exist. It is the fault of the commander(s) who had total influence over the campaign, and who ignored the fact that people have limits. One should be wise enough to keep a man well nourished and well rested, even during war.


More on supply lines (One of the most important parts of any war), the CSS (Combat Service Support) has at least ten-thousand, five ton trucks in its inventory which it used to ship supplies across the vast deserts of Iraq. The problem with that statement should be clear, the word “vast” that indicates an almost impossible logistical reach and even more planning, constantly shifting thousands to work on the smaller pictures, while even more have to look over the whole picture. With each new person the risk of a mistake goes up a certain percentage, and the more people you have the more likely a mistake will go unnoticed. That mistake, in turn, could cost a few lives by the time it is recognized. How to fix that problem? Temporary Air Fields in strategic locations close to a certain concentration of troops, or maybe a shifting supply line pattern that does NOT supply from behind the lines; but mixes within the lines as a webbing pattern, only that the pattern is confusing, logical to only the Americans, and even better yet, that strategy is supplied by temporary airfields at secret locations preplanned to the efforts of the invading forces (In the event of invading a nation, defense would have little need of such strategy). Using aircraft as the main means of supplying your troops can reveal many problems, but then again it can yield many benefits. What should be considered is: does it save time, does it cut down on human resources, and is it an advantage that can be turned against us? If the last question is yes, which in this case the Iraqis had no air superiority so it would be no, a contingency plan should be put into place and both should be used to further confuse the enemy.


That puts light on the military foolishness that followed our forces as a pack of hungry wolves waiting for the precise moment to feed. The pack of wolves is hungry because we refuse to actually accept the fact that war is an Art of Deceit that needs a flare of creativity every now and then. The military plan was obvious and if the Iraqis didn’t catch on to our double-flank movement, they have no right being a nation; actually they don’t, considering Saddam was their leader and we found him unfit, thus instituting a new government. The only slight surprise developed from the 173rd airborne brigade’s drop in Northern Iraq on March 27th where they secured an airfield near Bashur. The rest was obvious, a straight double flank shot toward Baghdad, capturing the major influential cities along the way.


Another mistake, capturing a city, any city, is a risky maneuver and should be avoided when not absolutely necessary. Since a city is such an enclosed capsule with so many places to hide it levels out the playing field. Leveling out the playing field is not smart, especially when you have a HUGE strategic advantage otherwise. A mere waiting process, leaving troops to make sure no enemy masses a huge force behind your back eventually draws out the bad guys. Attacking a city only wastes supply, puts your troops at unnecessary risk, costs your nation billions (Because that could slow your advance exponentially), and could leave your position exposed to being surrounded by enemy forces, possibly eliminated, which could lead to a broken flank in your offensive. Besides, your enemy will sooner or later become frustrated that you have disabled their city without actually invading it and stage an attack, which with prudence could be setup as an ambush, a draw maneuver, or could just be given back to your adversary if it puts them at a disadvantage. They will assume they have won the day when in reality they cut their own throats. With that you have done two things 1. You gave them a victory so they become slightly more arrogant, which could lead them to be slightly too aggressive (Overconfident) and 2. You put them at a disadvantage while they see victory. All that wasted breath about honor is ridiculous, if you can gain an advantage by surrendering a position; by all means what are you waiting for?


The entire outline of the US approach almost seems like a political joke, as if the United States intended on wasting a massive amount of resource, money, manpower, and competence for the sake of liberating a nation that really doesn’t matter to it. So what’s the actual reason for invading that nation? Well, there are many beneficial factors that we must consider: It is in the heart of the Islamic community and its transformation to a democracy will help us institute westernization, or by their means (Bringing the evil ways of technology and western beliefs to their country) corrupt their society. It is a major resource center for oil, and thus can be very beneficial to our industries. The placement of Iraq can give us a strategic Air-Strike advantage lest we decide to invade any middle-eastern nations. Our influence, and thus their government, will be despised by the bordering Islamic nations and will, more than likely, take pressures off of Israel.


You have to wonder, why did we pummel Iraq with so much ordinance, when in reality we didn’t have to do that? Tactically speaking, Iraq didn’t have a chance in a million, unless they happened to have an extremely creative military leader, but Saddam made the mistake of killing those national assets. Now, the idea of hitting your enemy so hard that he’ll never get up, that’s a great plan, preemptive strikes can really do the trick, but considering the needed ordinance compared to what was displayed, and our bombing looks excessive. Why did we waste all of those bombs? Because that is how the United States declares its supremacy among the world powers. The image of that massive bombing run will settle into the dark corner of the minds of those who may one day wish to be an enemy of the United States or their interests, and they’d think twice before causing any harm or stirring any trouble. So yes, it was a show more than a blow, because the blow was merely taking out their anti-aircraft guns, which couldn’t hit anything anyway. Now everyone will remember those days on CNN or CNNI when we pummeled the balls off of Saddam’s central nervous system and kept bombing because we needed to get rid of our old supplies and make way for the newer more destructive ones. In actuality, you wouldn’t have to guess that at all if you look at the new Strategy of the US, it states that rather clearly.


Shape, Respond, and Prepare Now, those are the words used in the new military strategy of the United States, and those are the influences that not only pummeled Iraq, but are working in Afghanistan to capture the ever sly Osama Bin Laden. It’s rather an easy going idea, shape the International environment toward the advantage of the USA, Respond to a full spectrum of crises, and Prepare Now for an uncertain and risky future by implementing strategic ideals, technology, and training exercises. It’s an obvious assumption the United States has made, since we are the most powerful we should run the world to our best interests and influence anything required to meet that end, and anyone who doesn’t agree with our interests will be bombed to hell. A very simple philosophy and that shows the arrogance of this wonderful country I call home, because it may be simple and it may work to our advantage but it puts the world on a pinhead, balanced perfectly right now, but the slightest shift in weight, even a breeze, and it will all tumble to the ground.


So essentially, we invaded Iraq, conquered their government, put them in a very dangerous situation which they probably don’t agree with and will never be safe from, and declared we saved them from an evil dictator. But who really cares that we basically tossed a bloody steak on them so the other Islamic nations attack and gives us an excuse to therefore ‘protect’ our new friends and institute new government in their lands? No one, well, no one American that is, because it is in our best interests, and tactically that is true. Philosophically it is not."