Was the average Iraqi better off when Saddam was in power?

Question

Can you think of one concrete, tangible thing that is better in Iraq since Bush invaded?

The Sunnis are being bombed, tortured, and raped. Is that better?

p_l_gray, since you are there, maybe you could tell us one of the "many things" you refer to?

63vette - have you considered the possibility that Iran and Syria might be able to stabilize Iraq, and that Bush will never be able to?

charbatch - so the one thing that's better is that Iraqi children are no longer dying from sanctions the US wouldn't lift? That's the best you've got?

Answer 1

The Iraqis were better off during the time of Saddam rather than the turmoil in their country nowadays because of the Civil war that practically caused Iraqis to kill each other.

Answer 2

From what I have seen and read - probably so at this stage of the situation in Iraq.

I think that is why the US should consider staying until there is more stability and peace in Iraq. The US helped create this situation and cannot totally abandon the Iraq government and leave a power vacuum for Iran and Syria to step into and take advantage of. What would happen if Iran gained control of the people and resources (yes -oil) in Iraq given the unstable and obviously hostile leadership of Iran.

Edit: Yes, you are correct that there is a possibility they could provide a stabilization effect. However, with the posturing by Iran, I would seriously question their motive - the same as I do their motive for uranium enrichment. Do not get me wrong, I do not oppose the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy nor the development of alternate supplies of energy. I only question the insistance on secrecy of some governments.

Edit2: Even the insistance on secrecy of our own government in some cases. Going back to Iran and nuclear energy. It is commendable on their part to want to develop nuclear energy and conserve the supply of oil - oil is used in many more applications in our civilization than simply a supply of gasoline and provides us (humanity) many products we would not otherwise have. However, having been employed in the nuclear industry, become aware of the affects of radiation on humans and the environment, and studied the destructive potential of nuclear weapons, this technology is not one that should be available to countries/individuals who have questionable motives.

Edit3: I apologize - I got off the topic. If Iran, a Shia majority country, were to become more deeply involved in Iraq, would the Sunni and Kurd population be any better off or would the situation then be similar to that under Saddam only a reversal with the Sunni and Kurds being persecuted. I am sorry but I see no easy solution to the situation, but deeply doubt that a total pull-out of American troops would do anything to improve the situation.

Answer 3

in case you have been an conventional Iraqi under the guideline of Saddam did you could concern approximately being shot down interior the line by utilising death squads on a daily basis? i do no longer think of so. this kind of great form of people create a front that Iraq became a unfavorable place under Saddam's administration. i'm no longer saying it became Utopia, yet there became a diploma of stability for the conventional Iraqi citizen. basically the unconventional Iraqis that got down to reason worry for Saddam had to be annoying approximately their lives and the lives of their households. Saddam created an phantasm of power and authority in Iraq that they have been keen to settle for. That phantasm is now long gone and we could continually attempt to %. up the products and return order to a united states torn by utilising civil conflict.

Answer 4

I think a better question is what gives us the right to invade another country without a plan for giving it back. Of course the average Iraqi is not better. No one is better yet and that won't change until the shooting stops. At least under Saddam you knew if you were doing something that might get you killed.You usually had a choice of beliefs if not the actual freedom to speak about them. Why do we keep thinking that we have the right to go and waste lives to get our way? Who died and made us the cops of the world? Why hasn't ol' W been busted for lying outright about the weapons of mass destruction? He keeps saying they have had plans but when asked about details that could be embarrassing he pleads ignorance. So which is it? Is he making plans based on information or is is making plans based on ignorance?

Answer 5

pi gray, for a military officer of 20 years standing, has no idea what he is talking about. How do you become an officer in the forces in the US, obtain an IQ below 50?

The US invaded, against the wishes of the UN because they new that there were no WMD and therefore no real excuse to invade. The multinational force consists of the US, UK and Australia. 3 governments that grovel to the US and would do anything for them.

I saw a documentary on Iraq recently that compared life before the war and now. They were much beter off before the invasion.

Inn removing a strong leader, they have created a power vacuum and naturally, there is a conflict to fill it. What did they expect?

Answer 6

The Iraq's are better off than when Saddam was in power because they don't have the torture of someone who has no feelings for mankind--thank God, he's dead. I can't see one tangible thing that's better since Bush invaded Iraq but, shhh...don't tell our guys over there that.

Answer 7

In their day to day lives, they probably were. They now suffer from bombing, no power or limited power and water..60 percent unemployment ( a great way to avoid this is to become an insurgent and get a paycheck every month), and their freedom is limited. Saddam was bad but his presence stabalized the region because the other countries feared him. That is why the first Bush did not take him out of power.

Answer 8

When Saddam was in power, an estimated 1 million Iraqi children died due to UN sanctions following the invasion of Kuwait(UN estimate).
What did Madeline Albright have to say about that when asked on 60 minutes.
Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?".
Albright: "we think the price is worth it"
Saddam's failure to comply to international demands eventually led to another war in which hundreds of thousands of people have been killed.

....sure. the Iraqi people were better off.
Are you serious? or just another moonbat loon... What the hell are you smoking?

Answer 9

I haven't noticed a lot of Kurds being attacked with mustard or Sarin lately. And what snapshot time-frame do you have in mind? Certainly not the Iran-Iraq war, or the Gulf-War I time. I suspect you could find a group like the Sunnis and a time like just before the invasion and find things were OK for them (unless, of course, they managed to make Hussein angry or suspicious), but you'll have to cherry-pick your "average" Iraqi and your time-frame to make it work, and that's comparing to now, which is an expectable period of instability with every reason for optimism for the future.

Answer 10

First off... learn the facts. Bush did not invade. There is a coalition of multi national forces in Iraq. Second, Bush had the full support of Congress.

And yes as a matter of fact there are many things better in Iraq, Why don't you come on over and see for yourself. Unitl then I would invite you to kindly not speak of things you obviously have no clue about.


{edit} Well, first off, you are making the insinuation that nothing is better, therefore the burden of proof is on you, since you are not here and obviously basing your opinion on the media description you have no valid information to base such an opinion.

However I will tell you what I see that is better. There is a government that is working to make life better for the people. There is a legal system designed to protect people. Whereas before there was a dictator who made a common practice of summarily executing any one who displeased him.

No one in the last four years has been the victim of a gas attack whereas before millions of Kurds were.

There are not "death squads" as you put it, whereas before, there were. There are insurgants.... but in all honesty, there were radicals before Saddam was removed from power, it simply wasn't reported because information like that didn't leave the country.

There is a thriving economy, whereas before all funds went to the palace.

I really could go on, but I know.... deep down that you would rather disagree simply on principle and not make an informed decision so.... Like I said before, come on over see for yourself, then you are free to voice any opinion that you please.

I would remind you that the media is very much one sided and obviously you have sided with them. Enjoy.

{edit} for my "learned colleague below (Nemesis), you are basing your opinion on a documentary???? Really... I'm impressed.