“Iraq: Better off under Saddam”

[sonz]

Recent public opinion polls in the United States show serious declines in support for the IRAQ war, and growing pessimism about how it will end. A new Harrit Interactive survey found out that the number of Americans who believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under SADDAM HUSSEIN has fallen. Fifty-six of those surveyed said they believe Iraqis are better off now than they were before the 2003 U.S.-led INVASION, compared to a February poll when that number stood at 76 percent.

The poll, released last Thursday, showed that 41 percent of the Americans believe that SADDAM posed a "serious threat" to the United States and that he had "strong links" with AL-QAEDA network. In October 2004, 62 percent believed that "SADDAM HUSSEIN had strong links to AL-QAEDA." The new survey also found out that twenty-six percent of those surveyed believe IRAQ possessed weapons of mass destruction before the INVASION, down from 38 percent in October 2004. (No such weapons were even found in IRAQ).

According to an article on Malcomlagauche.com, political analyst Jeff Archer argues that the conditions of the Iraqis are much worse now than under SADDAM. A research conducted after the INVASION found that more than 120,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died during the first five years after the war began. Also the country’s infrastructure was completely destroyed, sewage system was non-existent, farm lands and irrigation systems were damaged by American bombs.

On the other hand, the entire country was electrified during SADDAM’s rule. Health care and education were free and women held a much higher status in Iraqi society than women in other Arab countries. Also food was inexpensive and available, the Iraqi government supplied either low-interest or no-interest home loans. It even offered land for free for those who promised to work in the land and produce outcome within five years.

Before the INVASION, an average salary in Iraq was about $50 a month. At first, this may not sound good, but when factored into prices for consumers, as well as services supplied at no or low cost by the government, it was a comfortable salary. Also an Iraqi’s salary was kept as is because there were no taxes. But after the war, many people lost their jobs, inflation was rampant and a black market prevailed in the country to exploit the citizens’ basic needs. Before the war, one Iraqi dinar was worth three U.S. dollars, but after it, one U.S. dollar amounted to the value of about 1,500 dinars. Over the years, this figure has gone as high as 2,000 dinars to the dollar, or as low as 1,200 dinars to the dollar. Prices of goods, when they were available, jumped over 1,000%. Other items, such as gasoline, that were available in abundance, were given away free by the government to help the ordinary citizen cope with the post-war devastation.

IRAQ under SADDAM also gave women more powers than in other Arab states. In fact, the former regime made the emancipation of women one of their primary goals. There was almost no unemployment and technology was moving to the forefront. IRAQ also had a secular government, consisting of Muslims of all sects, Jews and Christians. This collection of religious beliefs does not exist in many Middle Eastern countries. Pre-war IRAQ was also on its way to become the most modern and technically advanced nation in the Middle East. This progress was something that the U.S. did not want any Arab country to achieve, and it eventually became the reason for Iraq’s annihilation.

We have been hearing so many allegations against SADDAM’s brutal regime, sometimes we here his forces murdered 100,000 here, or 400,000 there… etc. If one adds up the numbers, it would appear that SADDAM killed more people than the entire population of IRAQ. Here we must answer this question, why isn’t the toppled leader tried for genocide? Jeff Archer argues that there is no proof of genocide charges against SADDAM, and both Washington and the Iraqi tribunal have decided not to bring these charges because of the embarrassment and international condemnation that would follow.

On the other hand, documented figures show that at least 30,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS have died since the war began. Moreover, it was recently revealed that the U.S. used chemical weapons against Iraqis during the 2004 offensive on Fallujah. The discovery makes the U.S. responsible for a massacre using banned weapons, the same charge for which the toppled Iraqi president is accused of. The U.S.’s image was also hit by a prisoner abuse scandal in 2004 with the release of appalling pictures showing U.S. soldiers physically and sexually abusing Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Although President BUSH claimed before the invasion that the U.S. isn’t targeting SADDAM, it is really obvious that the main thrust of propaganda against IRAQ was thrown at the former leader. The Bush administration tried to hurt SADDAM’s image in the eyes of its citizens. The plan worked brilliantly. If we analyze the facts, we would find it difficult to believe that a leader who had been in power for as long as SADDAM HUSSEIN could have turned into a devil over night. Of course, SADDAM was no angel, but he and his government were well-respected by most Arab nations. Also Western countries maintained mutual and profitable relations with IRAQ. Iraq’s presence in the United Nations was held in esteem and it was involved with many international dealings, both financially and diplomatically.

[aFsana]

salaam

i couldn't help but notice all the violence in Iraq. everywhere i turn, there's another explosion or attack. in the newspaper, in the news, EVERYWHERE. the question is, was it always like this when Saddam was the President? was there always violence among Muslim brothers and sisters? did they attack their neighbors or set their cars on fire? during these events, it doesn't suprise me if an Iraqi cried for Saddam to be in control again.........

[Pk_#2]

wrong forum :s

Duno was happening-violence evawer :(

May Allah protect the ummah!

[Muhammad]

:sl:

We've got quite a few threads on Saddam, so I decided to merge yours with this one.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hijrah]

That's kinda hard to believe

[Woodrow]

salaam

i couldn't help but notice all the violence in Iraq. everywhere i turn, there's another explosion or attack. in the newspaper, in the news, EVERYWHERE. the question is, was it always like this when Saddam was the President? was there always violence among Muslim brothers and sisters? did they attack their neighbors or set their cars on fire? during these events, it doesn't suprise me if an Iraqi cried for Saddam to be in control again.........

Under Saddam it was not terroristic groups doing the killing. It was the Iraqi Army that was. Entire villages were wiped out. There was also a major attempt to exterminate the Kurds. There was no organized opposition to Saddam that lasted long without being eliminated.

In my opinion Saddam's strength came from his ability to keep Iran from invading and taking over the country. Without Saddam I am quite certain that is what is going to happen.

With Saddam in power I believe the Genocide of the Kurds would have gone to complition. However, Iraq was safe from Iran. Now, it is just a matter of time before Iran takes control of Iraq, which will also result in the Extermination of the Kurds.

[Keltoi]

I agree with Woodrow, but I would also add that I don't think it serves any purpose to wonder if "Iraqi was better off under Saddam." Iraq is better off without Saddam and we all hope they will be better off forming a unity government. Things look bleak at the moment, but we must all hope and pray that reason will overrule animosity and hatred. My greatest fear is that the Pentagon will decide upon the "turn the U.S. military loose" option. That would be bad for the Iraqi government and bad for the people.

[aFsana]

i dont understand what Pres. Bush is trying to do? (i am very mad) WHO IS HE TO JUST COME INTO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND JUST ORDER OTHER PEOPLE AROUND? WHY DIDNT HE JUST LET SADDAM DO WHAT HE WAS DOING? YEA, HE WASSNT A GREAT LEADER, AND YEA, HE KILLED PEOPLE... BUT IT WAS HIS COUNTRY. WHY DOESNT PRES. BUSH JUST MIND HIS OWN GOD **** BUISNESS AND LET US MUSLIMS DO OUR THING. I BLAME ALL THIS CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ ON PRES. BUSH.. AND NO ONE ELSE!

[aFsana]

And Where Are Saddam's Weapons Of Massss Destruction????????? These Are All Lies. We Are Being Fooled. I've Had Enuff Of This Corrupt System....

[Skillganon]

And Where Are Saddam's Weapons Of Massss Destruction????????? These Are All Lies. We Are Being Fooled. I've Had Enuff Of This Corrupt System....

and if you are in America you get to vote virtually same type of people, all the time.

[Woodrow]

A problem that is happening now is the situation has become, where the question now is:

"Will Iraq be better off after the American forces leave?"

I agree that we had no business getting involved in Iraq. It was an internal problem and needed to be taken care of by the Iraqi people. As bad as Saddam was, it is worse now. But, at the moment American forces are reluctantly there. There are very few GI's who want to be in Iraq. Plus, their loved ones want them back home as quick as possible.

The big problem is that our intervention has set up a case where chaos will be the most likely result of a rapid withdrawal of American troops. Yes, it is a civil war. Our presence is only delaying the inevitable. It is just a question now of how to get out with the minimum casualties on all sides. I doubt if world pressure and pressure from within the US will allow the occupation to stay until a stable government is established, Plus, any government, good or bad, formed while US forces are present will be seen as a "Puppet" government of the US and is doomed to extinction once US support is gone.

If conditions do not change all I see is massive civil war, genocide of the Kurds and an invasion by Iran once the US forces leave.

This whole scenario reminds me of the farm kid who caught a Bob Cat killing his chickens. He now has the Bob cat, that is clawing the day lights out of him. The Chickens are now being killed by the Weasels that were afraid of the Bob cat. More chickens are dieing, the kid is being clawed and the neighbors are telling him to let the Bobcat go, which if he releases his grip on, it is going to attack him and go for his throat. He never should have caught the Bob cat. But now that he did what is he going to do? The weasels no longer fear it and are gaining a foot hold. If the bob cat is turned loose it will just join into the melee and more chickens will die. So he got himself where the Chikens were better off before the kid messed around. But, the chickens are going to be in even worse shape now if the kid gets out of the situation.

I would say that many Americans do not like our being in Iraq. However, many feel that now that we butted our noses in it, we have a grave responsibility to do what we can to keep more innocent Iraqi's from dieing. The Average American see's our unwanted presence there as being the only thing that may lead to a stable government in Iraq. The Average American see's another Dhufar, once American troops leave, and we are the ones that caused the situation that is making it happen. It is now just a matter of time before the American voters decide that they are tired of Americans dieing in our sloppy attempt to keep Iraqi deaths at a minimum. If the US stays we are condemned as invaders, when we leave we will be condemned as abandoning the Iraqi people.