Was life better for the ordinary Iraqi under Saddam Hussain?
Discussion
The alliance never caused the killing of anyone. The vast majority of deaths are essentially the result of the civil war now in place. Saddam was an utter b
d, and I don;t think that is in dispute, but i'm afraid it was his brutality that kept the current brutality at bay. It's a rock and a hard place type scenario.
Personally, I can see why he invaded Kuwait, however, in his usual style he was a cock about it. He massacred MANY Kurds in the north, and people were locked up for nothing, or simply dissenting. He DID have weapons of mass destruction, most of which were purchased from western powers like France, Britain, and the US, and these were what he used on the Kurds. He was the instigator in the Iran-Iraq war, however he was not complicit in 9/11 or the training thereof.
It's a mixed bag, I'm afraid, and one that will be discussed for decades, I would imagine. Is the world a better place without him? yes, are we better off without him? Debatable.
d, and I don;t think that is in dispute, but i'm afraid it was his brutality that kept the current brutality at bay. It's a rock and a hard place type scenario. Personally, I can see why he invaded Kuwait, however, in his usual style he was a cock about it. He massacred MANY Kurds in the north, and people were locked up for nothing, or simply dissenting. He DID have weapons of mass destruction, most of which were purchased from western powers like France, Britain, and the US, and these were what he used on the Kurds. He was the instigator in the Iran-Iraq war, however he was not complicit in 9/11 or the training thereof.
It's a mixed bag, I'm afraid, and one that will be discussed for decades, I would imagine. Is the world a better place without him? yes, are we better off without him? Debatable.
Without wishing to offend any Iraqi's. Iraq is not a Western country, it's a tribal country with a totally different social structure than ours. A country like Iraq needs a Strong, ruthless leader to hold it together. He may have been a bit of a bas$tard if you didn't agree with him, but basically of you kept your nose clean, got on with your life, and didn't criticise him or indulge in ridiculous notions of freedom and democracy, then life was pretty normal.
A country like Iraq just won't work under normal Western style democracy, that is being proved right now. What right did we have to impose on them a system of Government that is alien to them?
Were not doing anything about China, Zimbabwe or N.Korea are we. So why did we invade Iraq, no one really knows do they.
A country like Iraq just won't work under normal Western style democracy, that is being proved right now. What right did we have to impose on them a system of Government that is alien to them?
Were not doing anything about China, Zimbabwe or N.Korea are we. So why did we invade Iraq, no one really knows do they.
A quick Google around the web for some numbers suggests that Saddam killed around 800,000 (not including the Iran/Iraq war, with that you're into millions). So Saddam killed around eight times as many of his citizens, each month, year and decade, than during the war and all the insurgency killings since. Saddam killed 180,000 Kurds alone. 60,000 shiites. And 61,000 citizens just in Baghdad.
Bush and the coalition, and all the various nutters combined don't even get close.
Bush and the coalition, and all the various nutters combined don't even get close.
Edited by Balmoral Green on Tuesday 2nd November 20:47
Balmoral Green said:
A quick Google around the web for some numbers suggests that Saddam killed around 800,000 (not including the Iran/Iraq war, with that you're into millions). So Saddam killed around eight times as many of his citizens, each month, year and decade, than during the war and all the insurgency killings since. Saddam killed 180,000 Kurds alone. 60,000 shiites. And 61,000 citizens just in Baghdad.
Bush and the coalition, and all the various nutters combined don't even get close.
There have previously been reports of 600,000 violent deaths in Iraq war since the war started, and that was several years ago. I'd honestly say the average Iraqi was better off under the Saddam regime. Yes there were political and tribal killings for those he had a grudge against, but we have replaced that with almost complete anarchy and tribal warfare.Bush and the coalition, and all the various nutters combined don't even get close.
Edited by Balmoral Green on Tuesday 2nd November 20:47
Olivera said:
There have previously been reports of 600,000 violent deaths in Iraq war since the war started, and that was several years ago. I'd honestly say the average Iraqi was better off under the Saddam regime. Yes there were political and tribal killings for those he had a grudge against, but we have replaced that with almost complete anarchy and tribal warfare.
Some of the methodology of those surveys was a bit suspect though.I doubt the average Iraqi was better off under Saddam. What sort of lunatics are in charge of a country when Udi Hussein goes to a wedding and rapes the bride?
Blue Meanie said:
The alliance never caused the killing of anyone. The vast majority of deaths are essentially the result of the civil war now in place. Saddam was an utter bd, and I don;t think that is in dispute, but i'm afraid it was his brutality that kept the current brutality at bay. It's a rock and a hard place type scenario.
Personally, I can see why he invaded Kuwait, however, in his usual style he was a cock about it. He massacred MANY Kurds in the north, and people were locked up for nothing, or simply dissenting. He DID have weapons of mass destruction, most of which were purchased from western powers like France, Britain, and the US, and these were what he used on the Kurds. He was the instigator in the Iran-Iraq war, however he was not complicit in 9/11 or the training thereof.
It's a mixed bag, I'm afraid, and one that will be discussed for decades, I would imagine. Is the world a better place without him? yes, are we better off without him? Debatable.
Good points all around.d, and I don;t think that is in dispute, but i'm afraid it was his brutality that kept the current brutality at bay. It's a rock and a hard place type scenario. Personally, I can see why he invaded Kuwait, however, in his usual style he was a cock about it. He massacred MANY Kurds in the north, and people were locked up for nothing, or simply dissenting. He DID have weapons of mass destruction, most of which were purchased from western powers like France, Britain, and the US, and these were what he used on the Kurds. He was the instigator in the Iran-Iraq war, however he was not complicit in 9/11 or the training thereof.
It's a mixed bag, I'm afraid, and one that will be discussed for decades, I would imagine. Is the world a better place without him? yes, are we better off without him? Debatable.
Balmoral Green said:
A quick Google around the web for some numbers suggests that Saddam killed around 800,000 (not including the Iran/Iraq war, with that you're into millions). So Saddam killed around eight times as many of his citizens, each month, year and decade, than during the war and all the insurgency killings since. Saddam killed 180,000 Kurds alone. 60,000 shiites. And 61,000 citizens just in Baghdad.
Bush and the coalition, and all the various nutters combined don't even get close.
The leftists will soon be on you BG! Bush and the coalition, and all the various nutters combined don't even get close.
Edited by Balmoral Green on Tuesday 2nd November 20:47
The line of "hundreds of thousands of civilians killed" will be rolled out any minute with zero mention of the vast murders you spoke of. Iraq has been a shambles since WW1 (and probably before, but I do not know myself)
that does not make any excuse for whichever regime since that you care to mention.
The Baathist regime was a joke, the worst parts of extreme right and left wing european govts of the 20th century
With the oil rescources Iraq should have been a far far better place to live as a normal human being for decades. Shame on those who allowed such a piss poor state of affairs to continue, both domestic and foreign
that does not make any excuse for whichever regime since that you care to mention.
The Baathist regime was a joke, the worst parts of extreme right and left wing european govts of the 20th century
With the oil rescources Iraq should have been a far far better place to live as a normal human being for decades. Shame on those who allowed such a piss poor state of affairs to continue, both domestic and foreign
I would say that for the normal citizen Saddam made life better, if you were educated free thinking or a Kurd then it was worse. For those the civil war they see now is winnable because the West will never use the level of brutality and fear Saddam did on those who were against him.
I have some Russian freinds and they would willingly go back to Communisum as they all had a home, jobs health care and education for life, now only the rich have propspered and the Mafia types who are now above the law the poor have become desperate.
We in the West would have left Saddam alone had he not blundered into Kuwait and started the ball rolling against him. Did the west really care what he did to his own people, many did not, but by allowing him to do what he did it kept a volatile tribel country undercontrol. Sometimes the answer is worse than the question.
I have some Russian freinds and they would willingly go back to Communisum as they all had a home, jobs health care and education for life, now only the rich have propspered and the Mafia types who are now above the law the poor have become desperate.
We in the West would have left Saddam alone had he not blundered into Kuwait and started the ball rolling against him. Did the west really care what he did to his own people, many did not, but by allowing him to do what he did it kept a volatile tribel country undercontrol. Sometimes the answer is worse than the question.
spaximus said:
We in the West would have left Saddam alone had he not blundered into Kuwait and started the ball rolling against him. Did the west really care what he did to his own people, many did not, but by allowing him to do what he did it kept a volatile tribel country undercontrol. Sometimes the answer is worse than the question.
its a tough call but i think that history has shown htat left to their own devices, ruling dictators will also take things too far and other countries will be forced to intervene as is the nature of humanity. if we compare saddam's actions with the likes of ceausescu, the ignornant did not care what either did to his own people much like many do not really understand or comprehend the horrors that mugabe has put zimbabwe through. again mugabe was "our friend" just a few years ago like saddam was, but it was inevitable that mugabe's actions would increase in brutality. the west had to intervene in the ceausescu affair, the problem with zimbabwe is the gulit that the politicians are made to feel for the colonial pastPesty said:
Balmoral Green said:
Bush and the coalition, and all the various nutters combined don't even get close.
Ahhh but when a Muslim kills a Muslim thats ok. When an infidel kills a Muslim all hell breaks loose.
I think so, yes.
Saddam knew that what the Iraqis (Or rather the religious groups that reside in Iraq) needed was rule by an iron fist.
You replace that with a limp wrist and you get the suicide bombings we're seeing now.
In Saddams day it was more like "Ok, you feel like blowing yourself up in a market place? That's cool. I'll execute your family and their family though."
Extreme example for effect, but you get the point.
Saddam knew that what the Iraqis (Or rather the religious groups that reside in Iraq) needed was rule by an iron fist.
You replace that with a limp wrist and you get the suicide bombings we're seeing now.
In Saddams day it was more like "Ok, you feel like blowing yourself up in a market place? That's cool. I'll execute your family and their family though."
Extreme example for effect, but you get the point.
On a broader subject,
That whole area has been destabalised since Saddamn was over thrown.
So, he was not the most benevolent leader, but he kept countries like IRan in check. With Saddamn gone, there is no real opposition to Iran as the dominant force in the region.
Saddam was also a stuanch opponent to the Taliban & Al Qaeda.
Saddam was our Stalin to the region's Hitlers. He was an evil person in the eyes of democracy, but he was a necessary evil in a bid to keep that region in check. With him gone, there is a lot of land to grab, and a few organisations will fancy grabbing it.
That whole area has been destabalised since Saddamn was over thrown.
So, he was not the most benevolent leader, but he kept countries like IRan in check. With Saddamn gone, there is no real opposition to Iran as the dominant force in the region.
Saddam was also a stuanch opponent to the Taliban & Al Qaeda.
Saddam was our Stalin to the region's Hitlers. He was an evil person in the eyes of democracy, but he was a necessary evil in a bid to keep that region in check. With him gone, there is a lot of land to grab, and a few organisations will fancy grabbing it.
s1962a said:
I recall reading that the majority population in Iraq are from the same relgious sect as Iran and thus have more in common with Iran than they do with the minority rule that Saddam had. Saddam (in his own twisted way) kept the peace in the region better than it is now.
The majority of Iraqis are Shiite muslims as in Iran, Saddam and his cronies were pretty much all Sunni muslimsGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff