In Iraq average 100 people die a day...Half a Million have already died in 3 years....Saddam Killed thousands of people(supported by u.s)...but was not killing anymore...no weapons..but was a dangerous man(dangerous to who??).
If we compare the lives of common Iraqi people....
would you prefer the todays iraq or iraq of saddam??
Same compare the lives of afghanis..2 million refugees..more than 100 thousand died since 2002...no peace no law...still dying..by air raids...
Taliban were strict...no good...but there was peace in country ..no popy...no war lords no air raids...but thiefs were losing their hands and murderers were their heads...but taliban were very bad ..as i have heard on cnn and bbc
What do you think is/was better ???
2007-02-15 04:03:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are both much better now.What you don't get is most that are dying are insurgents for other counties.(terrorists)
2007-02-15 04:33:45 · answer #1 · answered by shawnn 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dubya and Co. made a bad situation worse. Iraq had paved roads, schools and businesses. Saddam was not the nicest guy in the world, but as we are now seeing, he couldn't be. He had to deal with people like the insurgents all the time. Was he brutal? Of course, he had to be. He maintained law and order in the country for many years. Lets not forget how he was placed in power and who placed him there and let's also not forget how his country was taken illegally and he was tried/convicted in a kangaroo court and killed in a lynching. There won't ever be law and order in that country now no matter how many people die. For the person who compared this to Japan and Germany, the only way this war compares is that we did the same thing to Iraq that the Japanese did to us which was attack a sovereign nation illegally.
2007-02-16 06:39:27 · answer #2 · answered by eee_aww 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You question is rediculous. If you think the place was so wonderful to live in, why didn't you go live there yourself. After all, the daily quality of life under the Taliban or Sadam wasn't really that bad after all was it?
Honestly, you sound like a "believer". With the same flawed logic that allowed such despotic leaders and governments to enjoy power for so long.
The question isn't which time period was better or worse. The real question is whether or not those two nations have a chance at FREEDOM and whether or not they will make it work or not.
I suspect that you are one of those that hope to see them fail and return to the way things were before...or maybe even worse.
I don't think you value the concept of FREEDOM. It may sound trite but "Freedom isn't FREE". There is a price to pay for it and unfortunately all too often that price is measured by the lives of brave people (military and civilian) who count their lives as a worthy sacrifice for FREEDOM.
Don't you dare dishonor their sacrifice with the suggestion that subjugation, slavery and fear are acceptable substitutes for FREEDOM.
2007-02-15 04:17:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, think about how peaceful Germany was under Hitler, before those war-mongering allies bombed it. As long as you weren't a Jew, a homosexual, a gypsy, a communist or said anything about the demi-God Hitler, it was peaceful. Otherwise you were arrested and exterminated. How peaceful!
I'm surprised then that Democrats are all up in arms against Bush. Perhaps if they just did as they were told and obeyed Bush, they'd come to know peace. Perhaps if the Democratic party were outlawed and all Democrats were put in concentration camps, we'd have peace. Wouldn't that be good? Why don't you agree with this? If that's not good for the US, why do you think it was good for Iraq and Afghanistan?
2007-02-15 04:19:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can't say whether you are uninformed, underinformed or misinformed but wowza you are going to need some time to get up to speed.
No 'popy' eh? After all these thousands of years you'd claim that? No war?
Begin here. On regime change in Iraq: Clinton 31Oct1998 Iraq Liberation Act http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
2007-02-15 05:11:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you.
After 911 I had a bad feeling about what Bush was going to do.
and I knew that going into Iraq to Bomb the hell out of them would destroy the entire country....and I was right.
I was actually ok with destroying the Taliban in Afganistan because they were corrupt and destroyed the Budda statue and treated women poorly but with Iraq.....Bad move...Bad Bush
I've said that since the beginning. There's no proof that Iraq had anything to do with 911. Baby Bush wanted to finish the job that Daddy Bush couldn't and he destroyed the entire country of Iraq in the process.
2007-02-15 04:18:47 · answer #6 · answered by Kalidas 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
there is one thing you are missing though.... those are casualties of WAR, not because of ethnic cleansing or terrorism. and you are also not saying that the majority of civilian life lost is due to the cowardess of the islamic extremists (road-side bombs, car bombs, dummies tying bombs to themselves),,, not from US soldiers. quit twisting things around to make a point. give ALL the facts. not what your TV tells you. oh, and air raids in Afghanistan??? where are you getting that? yeah, people die from friendly fire or just being in the wrong place or terrorists hiding behind civilians... that's war. look up WWI and WWII my friend. you'll see what i mean. i guess Germany, Japan, and Italy were better off with their dictators... geeezzzz.
2007-02-15 04:16:53 · answer #7 · answered by jasonsluck13 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently it was NO WORSE under Saddam. There are a lot more people being killed in Iraq now than there was when Saddam was in power. Looks like there are a lot more of them ACTIVELY involved in killing americans now.
2007-02-15 04:09:45 · answer #8 · answered by Bobbie E 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
save for governmental tyranny, Iraq replaced into particularly non violent (nicely, offered you weren't a Kurd, and inspite of in case you weren't it replaced into somewhat because you may want to be terrified to speak out, or do something that could want to disenchanted the authorities). yet easily there replaced into none, or no less than, a lot less of the violence we see today. for my area, i have self assurance residing in Iraq might want to be terrible both on occasion.
2016-11-03 12:56:51 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say yes to Afghanistan and no to Iraq.
2007-02-15 04:21:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
your info is skued. and to answer all of your questions with question. would you rather be completely controled and dominated by a person or group or would you at least like a chance at a life that you control? would YOU rather live there then or now?
2007-02-15 04:10:55 · answer #11 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋