regime which was secular?
The US is going to leave one day and then the Mullah's will take over.Parts of Iraq now already have sharia law.Under Saddam women were equal,his secretary for foreign affairs was a Christian.Even if America beats the insurgency,a very optimistic scenario as things stand now,what have we won?
2007-06-29 10:54:12 · 8 answers · asked by justgoodfolk 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I fully understand and recognize that the Bath regime was cruel and barbaric but radical Islam they were not
2007-06-29 10:57:45 · update #1
Most of the people don't realize that Saddam was secular. Not nice to confuse the weak. It is an improvement in the sense that now the US can stay indefinately and make good use of those 14 permanent military bases to be built. In reality though, no it is not an improvement. The government of Iraq is now highly susceptible to corruption and influence from the radical islamic governments of other countries such as Saudi Arabia.
2007-06-29 11:10:26 · answer #1 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have a hard time with this. I am thrilled Saddam is dead. He was a horrible, horrible human being and I would never defend him. However, it's obvious that when he was overthrown, we had NO plan on how to control Iraq. Bush didn't even know that Iraq was inhabited by Sunnis and Shiites - who hate each other. Saddam controlled them through a brutal dictatorship, so the question needed to be answered first - how would we control them? How are we going to stop these people from fighting? It should have been predicted that they would both want to be in power, thus would fight, as they have done for thousands of years. Under Saddam, thousands died. Under whatever they have now (?!), thousands died. So no, this does not seem better.
2007-06-29 18:02:08 · answer #2 · answered by shelly 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How stable was our government in 1776? We started out with baby steps and moved forward from there. All Democratic governments have to start somewhere. Yes we have accomplished somehting. We are giving these people a chance to determine their own future. I still have a copy of a picture from the first Iraqi free vote for government. In that picure a young Iraqi man is carrying is elderly mother to allow her to put her vote in the box. She is so frail that she is unable to even walk but this vote meant the world to her. These people faced possible death if they whent to the polls but they still showed up. How many Americans are to lazy to just go a few blocks to vote in complete safety. WE have become a country who wants instant gratification. We do not have the fortitude to stick to anything anymore. America did not gain its independence in only a few years and yet we expect to liberate another country overnight. These people deserve the same basic human rights as we do, ane need our help to achieve them.
2007-06-29 18:17:49 · answer #3 · answered by M j 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, which is why we are still there, btw. We are not leaving them in that situation.
Saddam was no victim. Saddam was a genocidal maniac who was paying bribes to terrorist organizations and possibly much worse...
2007-06-29 18:04:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely nothing. In fact we are far into the proverbial hole. Such a shame.
2007-06-29 18:00:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the new iraqi government has not invaded any other countries (or even threatened) or broken any UN resolutions. that is the only part of it that is any of our business.
their religion is not relevant.
2007-06-29 18:05:11 · answer #6 · answered by karl k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
There's nowhere to go but up from Opressive Fascist Dictatorship.
2007-06-29 17:58:27 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yup, you got it.
2007-06-29 17:59:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋