Was the average Iraqi better off under Saddam?

Question

Kofi Annan has said so, and I think it is hard to argue with him. Water, power, a job, no sectarian civil war. If only the U.S. had lifted sanctions, Iraq would have been a decent place to live before Bush invaded it.

Answer 1

Absolutely!

At least under Saddam, you pretty much knew if you were in for it. If you kept your head down, didnt ruffle his feathers or get on his bad side...you would have been fine.

But now, anyone and EVERYONE is a target, regardless of who they support, what creed they are, where they are, or how powerful they are.

So in that sense, yes it was better.

FFS, put human rights away for a sec...i mean what are human rights when you have no human to give the rights to..

So they had bad lives under Saddam...but at least they had LIVES...just compare the annual death toll in Saddams time and now....and youll see what Im talkin about.

Like it or not, Saddam had a unified Iraq...not so much nowadays.

Answer 2

If you were an average Iraqi under the rule of Saddam did you have to worry about being shot down in the street by death squads each day? I don't think so. So many people create a front that Iraq was a terrible place under Saddam's control. I am not saying it was Utopia, but there was a degree of stability for the average Iraqi citizen. Only the radical Iraqis that set out to cause trouble for Saddam had to worry about their lives and the lives of their families. Saddam created an illusion of power and authority in Iraq that they were willing to accept. That illusion is now gone and we have to attempt to pick up the pieces and return order to a country torn by civil war.

Answer 3

So it was better if you were an attractive girl to have one of his faithful police come pick you up for his son? Would that have been a better time than now? That is what happened for years to many women. So it was better for the United Nations to waste all the time putting out 17 declarations for Sadam to change (that he ignored) and then the UN to be disregarded? What is the use of the UN? Kofi wasted the world's time by leading that organization in his pointless way. Would you prefer a few days in one of Saddam's rape rooms ovr the current conditions? The UN is a great organization but Annan damaged it severly with his corrupt deals with Sadam on oil.

Answer 4

No, according to the average Iraqi, they were NOT better off.
You're going to believe Kofi Annan? Watch Obsession (the movie) and then try again.

Answer 5

have you seen Iraq on the TV, just take a look of course the average citizen was safer before the war, and the coming civil war will make it even worse this will go on for years.
Hope the US is ready for another Vietnam, I am so ashamed our daft government followed blindly into an economics driven war

Answer 6

Overall, yes- but, hopefully something good can come from this mistake and the country will be better off eventually. It's unlikely, but something to strive for.

Shiites and Kurds still believe the invasion was worth it, but that is for political reasons and doesn't reflect any improvement in living conditions. An interesting report on Iraqi public opinion can be found here:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

Answer 7

sure they have been. remember what's substantial is to attain how nicely maximum folk is doing and in the previous 1990 Iraq became an exceedingly wealthy and civilized us of a with a ok-knowledgeable citizen base. very almost each and every us of a has minorities that want independence (check out Basques in Spain, Quebeqois in Canada) and different anti-government critics. sure, it somewhat is authentic that Saddam became an evil individual who killed lots of dissenters, yet that's not different from the government in lots of Asian and African worldwide places. can we plan to alter all of them? Regardless, have you ever heard of the assumption of a sovereign us of a? Iraq became a sovereign us of a and one us of a can not intrude immediately interior the indoors affairs of yet another us of a, whether Saddam became brazenly murdering tens of millions of folk. via a similar token, if Hitler basically killed Jews in Germany and Austria, the only ability something of the worldwide places had became to punish him (and additionally Iraq) economically and politically. yet US has gotten into the nasty previous Soviet habbit of intervening in different us of a's employer viz a viz, Vietnam, China, Iran (in 1953) and Iraq (Soviet Union did lots of this in Easter Europe and in Afghanistan interior the 50-70's).

Answer 8

Yeah, I agree with you and him and every other good american in the country. Things we're worse for some people under saddams rule, but it's much much worse now. Iraq needed international attention, like Darfur or North Korea does now, but not a halfdone (because I can't say halfa-- on yahoo) pointless innocent killing war.

Answer 9

It depends on how you look at it. Before we invaded, many people were taken as prisoners and tortured mercilessly. Many weren't. Most, in fact went along, busying themselves in their daily lives, perfectly at peace.

Now, after the invasion, many people are taken as prisoners and tortured mercilessly. Many aren't. However, instead of being at as much peace as they were before, they are constantly disturbed by a foreign presence. There are constant power failures, water shortages, and worse, to an extent way larger than there were before. This is natural of an invasion. We should not have gone in.

Answer 10

Right now... possibly. In the future, No. America had to go through very rough times as well in order to carve out our country.