Who agrees that Iraq was a better country when Saddam?

Question

ruled. There were less murders, The so call resistence
groups stayed underground, the city was safe to travel
no rapes and thefts, and best of all none of our Amercian
boys and girls were shedding their blood, getting crippled
or killed. Have we really made a difference or made
more enemies?

Limestoner, there are still civil rights
violations going on now. Do you think
its going to get better when we pull out?

Huevos rancheros, Those mass graves
were dug in the early 1990's. No one
gave a damn about the kerds then!

Daniel L , That's exactly what's going
to happen when you wake up!

WWD At who's expense, the American
citizens

Daniel L I didn'nt make that remark as
an insult tp upi I was only insinuating that that you have a rosy outlook on
something most of us feel is hopeless!

Daniel L I didn't make that remark as an insult to you, please don't take it as such
I was only insinuating that you have a
rosy outlook on the Iraq situation>

Answer 1

No murders? Is that why there were over 1 million bodies found in mass graves all over Iraq?
No rapes or thefts? Unless Saddam or his sons took a liking to a girl, then they had special rooms for that. And to blindly believe no thefts or rapes happened under Saddam's regime is delussional.
I'm sure many people hated American boys and girls shedding blood and being crippled during WW2, but the job, like now, needed to be done.
We are making a difference, Iraq can become a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. Or we could just, cut and run and let the citizens of Iraq fend for themselves like the citizens of Saigon did.

Bobby G: Oh, a "wake up" insult. I'm hurt, right to the core. What? Couldn't face facts so you had to hurl an insult? Yeah, I think so.

Answer 2

Well, it's for sure that our troops take more casualties when they're in the middle of a war than when they aren't.
I really don't know if there are fewer murders. Saddam was pretty good at that. He did supress resistance groups well, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing. Certainly the Kurds are in a better position now, and many of the Shiites may not want us there, but they certainly prefer this to the status quo ante bellum. The Sunnis, of course, have lost the most. But Anbar, and the previously horrible "Sunni Triangle" have largely decided, it seems, that the US aren't the bad guys. A lot of people are nervous about the US presence. Whether they're really enemies is a different question. If the "Anbar model" can be replicated elsewhere, then the strategy will have worked, and it'll all come out to the benefit of almost everybody. A snapshot taken now is not pretty, but one taken a year ago was a lot worse, and neither is really appropriate in deciding the worth of the strategy until it shows signs of failure. For some time, progress was very slow and uncertain. Now it's just a bit slower than we'd like.
Taken on a larger level, you can look at it as a fourth-generation war. People over there know about our past failures in this type of war, and they understand they needn't win for us to lose. All they have to do is hang on until we get tired of it and quit. Using Ho Chi Minh's terminology, they're no longer able to conduct phase II operations, so they've reverted to phase I (and there's no chance of phase III). That is success of a sort for the US, unless we decide to allow their strategy to succeed.

Answer 3

a lot of Iraqis would agree with this, but you are asking for the better of two unacceptable evils
the best thing would be to have democracy as it existed before Saddam seized power. The government was corrupt, but there was still democratic representation of some sort. Saddam's power and cruelty solidified under American support, whether we like to remember that or not. Instead, America should stand for real freedom and democracy. Our support for the Iraqi regime, which is run by Shi'ite partisans with close ties to terrorist leaders, is unacceptable.

Answer 4

Funny how people on the left forget about the mass graves Saddam filled. Then again, some on the left describe Saddam as a cute cuddly teddy bear that would make kissy noises when they hugged him.

Answer 5

Well as far as having electricity, no Al Qaeda and a functioning economy, yes. If you listen to Bush, supposedly things will turn around and be better in the future. All we can do is hope because the damage is done.

Answer 6

I don't think it was a better country with Saddam. He was a dictator who killed a particular sect, which is genocide. There country will be better IF "dumbaya" would allow their country to be an actual Democratic country. Just like any other country, it will go through "growing pains", but it can become a better country without interference. Because of "dumbaya's" interference, it HAS caused more enemies.

Answer 7

I'm not sure if it's better or worse...

but that's a problem... you invade a country and nothing much changes...

just the people doing the raping and killing are working for a new guy (and I don't mean the U.S. soldiers... but everyone else, from the Iraqi police to the insurgents)

Answer 8

Remember all the saber rattling from Iran while Saddam was in power?

Me either.

Answer 9

I suppose, if you were willing to overlook a few human rights violations and the occasional mass execution

Just like Disneyland it was.

Answer 10

I imagine Saddam and his sons would.