US goverment and military were very stronger than Saddam's and they could defeat him only in 20 days.
Now why they can not have control over Iraq while Saddam with his weak goverment could do it?
2007-09-14 05:10:48 · 17 answers · asked by princess 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Saddam was a vicious dictator and killed people vocally opposed to him.
Bush is a vicious war monger who kills almost all Iraqis and has no sense of control.
2007-09-14 09:55:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The United States is introducing "Freedom" for the people so that the people make their laws, the people decide if they build big buildings or water parks or hospitals or libraries. The people can decide if every person has fresh water, electricity and a home to live in.
Saddam Hussein decided everything for the people and he lived in the big house and had the parks, the new cars, the books, and whatever he wanted. If the people didn't like it, he killed them.
Freedom means that the people must become strong and stand up and make their own decisions. This is not easy to a people that have never been able to do this. They keep going backwards and thinking that someone else will make these decisions for them.
The people of Iraq must start thinking for themselves. They need to think of what would be good for all people and not just a few. Their leader will only get to stay in office if they vote to keep him in. They can impeach him and put him out of office at any time if he is not following the will of the people.
Stand up and take your position as a responsible citizen of Iraq and start supporting your elected official and sending him recommendations for improvement in Iraq. He must listen to you, because he serves you. You don't serve him like you did Saddam. This man cannot kill you without being held accountable to the government of Iraq for killing an innocent citizen. Saddam killed and no one did anything. The people have the power with your new government. In five years you will look like a wealthy country with prosperous citizens.
2007-09-14 05:30:48 · answer #2 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because we don't control by terror and torture of civilians; Saddam did, routinely.
Because we allow the people to decide for themselves; In Saddam's "election" he got 100% (after killing the few who spoke out).
Because Saddam put one minority (Sunnis) in power and let them oppress the other two minorities (Shia and Kurd).
Because Saddam did not tolerate non-Iraqis entering the country and committing mayhem against both Sunni and Shia (to make it look like there is a "civil war").
Also because the US has no interest in ruling Iraq (or any other place) on a permanent basis.
There will never be peace and tranquility in Iraq under a centralized government in Baghdad! It is not really a nation, at all. When the Ottoman Empire fell, the Brits drew lines on a map in London and made up a country named "Iraq".
Iraq should be partitioned into at least three independent nations: a largely Shia nation in the South; a Sunni nation in the middle; and Kurdistan in the North (including Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and former USSR). I think the best solution would for each of the existing 18 provinces to become autonomous republics, in a loose confederation that shares the oil revenues equally and provides for the common defense and borders, but nothing else!
Unfortunately, Bush insists on keeping it together as one hodge-podge, with strong central CONTROL from whoever is in power in Baghdad. That's a recipe for ongoing turmoil -- even if they stop the foreign "insurgents" from coming in thru Anbar (and Iran).
2007-09-14 05:29:57 · answer #3 · answered by bam 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It might be a little like the lesser hold on soviet satellite countries...toward independence ...while Russia ruled with a somewhat strong oppressive had there was less infighting than after things thawed and as Margret Thatcher said, when the ice starts breaking up things get dangerous It doesn't mean it's not a step in the right direction There were many fights but it was not necessarily better before when freedom was substantially less
2007-09-14 05:19:53 · answer #4 · answered by whirlingmerc 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is a lot of mistrust for the US intentions. The insurgents brought chaos which also lead to US resentment.
The Sunnis don't trust the government the US installed and even the ones helping us say they will not support the current government
The liberation wasn't brought about by Iraqis, there were no Iraqi freedom fighters, no Iraqi militias, no Iraqis asking for it.
I'm sure there's a lot more to this but no one ever seems to ask Iraqis what they want.
2007-09-14 05:31:22 · answer #5 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we went around executing entire towns and villages for the crime of one person, then we could. Since we are not butchers, we will not be able to control Iraq like Saddam did.
2007-09-14 05:21:18 · answer #6 · answered by Chris 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think the longer the USA stay in Iraq.
The more unstable it will be.
Get the toops out of there and leave it too AL Qaeda
too make peace again
Then you can always send in the planes and boom them
and newer loose a Gi-joe
2007-09-14 05:22:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because we are trying to bring our US democracy to a place that does not want it! We assume that we know best for everyone in the world and that our ideals and systems should apply to everyone. Its not true. Che Guevera said - there is no such thing as a "liberator" - people must liberate themselves! You cannot force democracy down people's throat!
2007-09-14 05:34:56 · answer #8 · answered by wh_johnny_05 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the US does not want o controll Iraq
your premise is wrong. They want a liberated self govenrned iraq
2007-09-14 05:30:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because that is not what the US is there to do.
The Iraqis need to have their own form of democracy and their own stable government. That is why we are still there, trying to keep some peace until they are stable.
The issue is how much time the Iraqis get. I think they better get busy.
2007-09-14 05:16:34 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋