It depends on what parts of Iraq and which Iraqis you ask. 80% of Iraq is stable and generally free of violence.
80% of the Iraqi population is better off.
The violence in Iraq is currently concentrated in Baghdad and the Anbar province. As a result the news media only produces stories from these areas.
The Sunni minority lost their stranglehold on political power and as a result lost out - so these are the people the news media shows you.
2007-01-11 01:44:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
As far as I know when Sadam was president ,there was order, since the United States goverment went in ,the country has been in shambles , ancient articles dating from the time of Moses have been stolen! The killings are horrible, there is chaos there, I dont understand the need in the first plae to go there , and now I undestand less the words of mr. Busch to send more young people to die there!We are in need of a man who really loves his country above all and can lead us to great things in global community. hugs.
2007-01-11 08:09:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
There is so much random violence there now, you can't walk down the street, take a dump, go to work, you name it, without fear of being blown to bits. Even under a despot, there's some kind of day to day continuity, stability.
State brutality or random civil war brutality... What an awful choice.
2007-01-11 07:15:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Plaxico Domingo 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Makes no difference. Under Saddam, he was the killer now it is the Shiites and us. Doesn't matter much now, he is gone and we are still fighting and losing our boys and girls plus thousands of Iraqis.
2007-01-11 07:21:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by worldneverchanges 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
i dont see know but bloooooooooooooooood
in every where in street in mosques in schools in homes
bush kills our brothers and make them kill each other by tricks
i dont think in sadam time there was all this blood
i hate saddam as what he has done
but hate bush for what he is doing now
bush is killing us by cold blood
2007-01-11 07:52:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by why? 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
without!, but it goes without saying that they would be better off without us too. They need leadership that isn't so interested in making life better for themselves then in the future of the country.
2007-01-11 07:25:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Huey from Ohio 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
i dont think they should have kiled him that was just hipocritcal to worngs dont make a right might feel good bt thats it i think they should have just imprsiond him for the rest of his life
2007-01-11 07:14:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋