Today 50 Iraqi soccer fans were killed by suicide bombers.
There were no suicide bombers in Iraq when Saddam was in power.
2007-07-25 17:39:09 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
fivekidsdown - do you get enjoyment from being in denial about who's responsible for this death? This war didn't start itself you know.
2007-07-25 17:45:23 · update #1
They didn't need suicide bombers when Saddam was in power, because he killed plenty of people himself. Either way, people were dying, the difference now is we're trying to stop it. Do you want to see them die? Do you somehow get enjoyment from that fact? That's sick.
Edit: The war has been going on for over 5000 years, amigo. The people involved and the reasons have changed, but the fact that people in that area keep killing each other hasn't. What this war is doing is trying to end that. So again, I ask, why are you against trying to end violence?
2007-07-25 17:44:14 · answer #1 · answered by null 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Too simplistic.
The death tally of innocent civilians for this war vs. Saddam's regime is an estimate at best.
What isn't an estimate is the fact that under Saddam, the people had no hope for anything better and now they have a real chance of becoming an independent, free people with an electoral democracy.
If I were an Iraqi citizen, I would prefer the latter - and despite some of the rhetoric being spewed out to the contrary, most verifiable and valid reports are adamant that the Iraqi people want an independent and free society.
The answer to your question is no, they were not better off under Saddam. Their struggles are not over by a long shot - but if they prevail, they will be far, far better off.
2007-07-26 01:20:02 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
More than these numbers!
Saddams record:
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.
Now why would some Dip Sh!t give me a thumbs down for presenting facts? What a friggen moron!
2007-07-26 00:59:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
these people have hope now. when saddam was in power, nothing happened because they were scared and oppressed, but now with him gone, the freedom is going to their heads.
these people now have been unshackled from one heartless leader, and don't know what to be afraid of anymore.
it's like a kid losing their abusive parent, and being put in a foster home, they still act out, but now there's nothing to stop them.
I'm not saying they need somebody scaring them, but it's a little bit beautiful that they're not afraid to do these things, ugly as the actions may be.
but I've also heard that sometimes they don't want to do them, they just get so involved in the groups when in a weak moment, and they can't get out of it.
what they need, is to stop and think:
is freedom what we want
what is our ultimate goal
how can we live in peace if/when we "win"
I don't recall hearing their demands. even kidnappers give demands for a ransom when they want people to know about it.
my point is: they feel they can actually do something now. they feel like changing the world is possible. very few americans seriously feel they get that far in this world! and here these people are, actually willing to sacrifice themselves, nomatter what the consequences. it's admirable in the most disgusting way.
2007-07-26 01:00:19 · answer #4 · answered by sir_deadlock 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I doubt you can effectively judge what Iraqi life was like under Saddham, thus, you can't ask people to admit that one thing was better than the other.
2007-07-26 00:52:26 · answer #5 · answered by K 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are absolutely correct about Saddam. As much as he sucked, the Iraqis understood that as long as they kept their mouth shut, did what they were told, they would be left alone.
2007-07-26 01:39:07 · answer #6 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I don't give a rat's patoot if the Iraqis are better off or not. AMERICANS are better off with Saddam gone, that's what matters.
2007-07-26 00:55:21 · answer #7 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
How many slaves have to die before people realize their better under southern rule?
I bet someone asked that question 150 some odd years ago.
2007-07-26 01:13:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Republicans won't admit that... because they 'want' Iraqis dead... and the more the better. The escalating numbers of Iraqi dead serves as fuel to further enflame their hatred. The more that die... the more that must yet die.
Evil drives this war, and Bush and his inner circle fan and exploit that evil for their own gain.
2007-07-26 01:02:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
No, they didn't have suicide bombers, Freaky. They had the Republican National Guard, who would KILL PLAYERS FOR LOSING GAMES!!
2007-07-26 00:52:39 · answer #10 · answered by ddey65 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋