2007-02-16 05:02:20 · 7 answers · asked by booster 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No
2007-02-16 05:07:44 · answer #1 · answered by Abu 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You know, Saddam won AWARDS for making sure that ALL children got an education in the 1980's. Saddam also made sure that EVERYONE had electricity and clean water. That is more than what they have now.
Oh, and who were the people who gave Saddam those Chemical bombs? The US including Rummy and Bush Sr. What was Saddam suppose to do when the Kurds were uprising against him? Let them overtake him and Iraq? Please, use some common sense.
2007-02-16 05:24:47 · answer #2 · answered by hera 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Even though Saddam was a "murderous ruthless dictator", an Iraqi civilian is 30 times more likely to die a horrible violent death under US "control" now than when Saddam was in power.
They also had utilities that worked most of the time as well as the fact that a steady supply of water was available.
So yes, they were better off under Saddam's rule.
We seriously screwed up that country.
2007-02-16 05:09:49 · answer #3 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Why do people ask questions like this? Was Hitler a great ruler too? Geez, people, NO, Iraq was not better off. You need to read up on Saddam and what he did.
2007-02-16 05:09:24 · answer #4 · answered by pookiemct07 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Saddam killed his own people for disagreeing with him. That's no way to live.
2007-02-16 05:06:51 · answer #5 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
spcs facts are wrong. I ask for proof. sworn testimony in the house records says the exact opposite.
2007-02-16 05:16:12 · answer #6 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
At least now, the Kurds and Shia can fight back when they're attacked.
2007-02-16 05:08:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋