Do you think that Iraqis get nostalgic about the "good old days" when Saddam Hussein was in power?

Question

Think about it. Back then, they had electricity and gasoline. They had jobs. They only had to worry about soldiers or secret police from their government invading their houses and carrying people away. Now they have to worry about being shot by Americans or kidnapped, bombed, shot or beheaded by one fo the ethnic factions in Iraq. Under Saddam, they had to worry about being taken away from their homes and tortured in an Iraqi prison; under U.S. occupation, they have to worry being taken away from their homes to Guantanamo or a "black site" in some other country for questioning under torture by American "contractors." Under Saddam, they had stability of a sort. After the American invasion, stability is a distant mirage.

If I were an Iraqi, I would be getting all misty-eyed and nostalgic about the "good old days" under Saddam. Life was simpler and better back then. "Freedom," "democracy," and the right to drink Coca Cola isn't all it's cracked up to be.

What are your opinions?

Universally Relevant: I don’t deny that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who killed and abused the citizens of his own country. However, I find it very difficult to believe that the present situation is any huge improvement. “Freedom” and “democracy” are not much use to you if you can’t eat, can’t heat your house, can’t see in the dark because you have no power, and can’t drive anywhere because whatever gasoline is available is being guarded and hogged by American soldiers and mercenaries (otherwise known as “contractors”). It makes no difference if you’re murdered by agents of a psychopathic dictator or shot to death by an American soldier bringing you “freedom”: in the end the only “freedom” you will enjoy is the “freedom” to become worm food.

Universally Relevant, cont'd.: Members of the American public are now desperately trying to justify the invasion of Iraq as an effort to bring “freedom” and “democracy” to a country in a region that has no tradition of either because it’s too painful to face the real facts: the invasion of Iraq was something that America did just because it could–period, end of story, full stop. All the previous rationalizations: the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attackers, the presence of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the alleged presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq have been demonstrated to be fiction. Americans like to think of themselves as “the good guys”; maybe it’s time that they realized that America is just the biggest bully in the schoolyard, a thug who feels safe because there’s no competition.

Answer 1

My buddy is of Iraqi decent. He has an aunt, uncle and some cousins in Iraq. They have said that Iraq today is the worst it has been ever. They hated Saddam but would rather have him in power then deal with the US troops and all of the military mis-haps which has taken many of their friends and family.

"Freedom" is just a marketing term. Those people will never be free as long as we're involved in their mess. Hell, we're not even free here yet some people like to claim we are.

Answer 2

For me is freedom is when U sleep at night and wake up in the morning, and U don't have to worry about anything that U mentioned. That means it doesn't make any difference. Something has to be done with the people who doesn't have conscience!

Answer 3

This has occurred to me also. I read that many of the wealthier people have fled Iraq because they have a choice and living there is pretty precarious. When you think of the damage that has been done to homes, schools, mosques, and other buildings and the fact that jobs, clean water, electricity and gas are scarce, it must seem worse now. My nephew is there and can't wait to leave. He says it's a hell-hole! I believe him!

Answer 4

I think it has been proven that Saddam's son's would murder people for fun and go into elementary schools and pick young girls to rape. If they wanted you to work for them, and you said no, you were killed. If anyone didn't like you for any reason they could just turn you in, and you were beaten until you agreed you were guilty (of crimes you weren't always told you "committed") and then you were beaten more and murdered for it. It's also been proven that the Kurds were attacked with chemical weapons and that entire villages were wiped out. It has also been proven that Saddam provided financial support to families of people who agreed to become suicide bombers in other countries and they would get more for the more civilian casualties they caused. Many members of Saddam’s own party (those "closest" to him) were randomly selected for torture and murder - or had their families murdered - because Saddam wanted everyone to know that he was in complete control and could do whatever he want (in an attempt to scare people into not disagreeing with him). We know for sure that for ten years, every single opportunity that Saddam had to prove he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, he stonewalled us and kept hiding records, and scientists, and supplies, and did everything a guilty man does to avoid proof of his crimes. We know they found stockpiles of Serin gas over there, and that his missle technology was finally strong enough to do serious damage (possibly nuclear once he figured out how to do it) against many of our allies.

It of course is an absolute certainty that Iran didn't want him to remain in power because there has been constant unrest ever since the end of the Iraq - Iran war that Saddam started to prove to the rest of the region that he was "special". The Navy men that were patrolling the no-fly zone that were shot at by missiles every single day for ten years certainly don't call that time the good old days, nor do Kuwaitis that were attacked and overrun by Saddam and knew that if we ever left the region the same thing would have happened again. None of the many thousands of people who were murdered and buried (some alive) in mass graves that Saddam either didn't like, or with whom he was just to send a message, would think of it as the good old days were they still around to give their opinion on the matter. You don't really hear alot of outrage in the middle east from many countries (like you would if we attacked Syria, or Saudi Arabia) because everyone over there hated Saddam nearly as much as they hate us, and so as far as they're concerned, while they'd like us to leave, they're glad he's gone.

This isn't six of one and half a dozen of another. Nobody there had freedom there before, and now everyone there does. And the quickest way to get us to leave and allow them to get on with their lives is to stop the terrorist attacks. If that happened, we'd be out in two years (we would have been out by now if it had stopped two years ago). We already have bases in Turkey and Saudi, and Afghanistan, and Kumar so we don't need another base, and they already want to sell us oil (one of the largest oil fields over there is in Kurdistan and they love us), and so we don't have an incentive to stay other than to try and stop madmen from unnecessary destruction of innocent civilian lives, which is why we went over there in the first place.

And we have spent billions of dollars in rebuilding (and even improving better than before) their infrastructure as we always do when we have to stand up for freedom and the universal right to life that everyone has, but very few people over there got to practice when Saddam was still in power.

Answer 5

Maybe the good old people who had the good ole power remember the good ole days but i bet my a** that the majority of people that were being murdered by the "good ole people" dont reminisce on the "good ole days"

Answer 6

yes I do think a lot of them feel that way.

Just like a lot of us Americans get nostalgic about the good old days when issues at home were what the President's eyes and ears were on... when we mattered instead of the corporations.

Answer 7

I'm not surprised that a liberal looks back on a ruthless dictatorship with longing. Can you also make a question about how much better off the cubans are with Castro?

Answer 8

Before the sanctions when he committed at least three large-scale mass-murders and instigated multiple wars with his neighbors?

Or after the U.N. sanctions when things like bleach and fertilizer were banned and at least a million people starved to death?

I bet they look back farther than that, to before the fall of the Ottoman Empire and before British colonization which was essentially transferred to American colonization.



Ah haha nice ratings You think America just started screwing Iraq four years ago? Must be convenient to ignore history in order to prove a partisan point.

Answer 9

I think that's BS....right now they are working to build a goverment in which they will not have to worry about their leader testing biological weapons on them (as Saddam did). I dunno about you, but eventho Iraq is far from being stable, i'd rather be suffering for a purpose, for a cause than for no reason. The people being taken away are suspected terrorist and I hav no problem with them being kidnapped, and taken to prison. I mean what is the alternative? We do nothing to these men and let them murder innocent masses for their radical and lunatic ideas.

Answer 10

NO WAY! I'm sure they are much happier being threaten with death and dismemberment now than before. Cause now they are "free". Don't you read?