Was Iraq "better" under Saddam's rule?

[lfd0311]

Politics aside, I'm 100% sure it was far better for the ordinary citizens under Saddam than since the US invasion. I say this only after having heard personally from two different people who lived there their whole lives until well after the invasion.

The invasion accomplished what they wanted it to accomplish, but it was not good for the citizens of Iraq. Unless you also have heard first-hand accounts of life in Iraq before and after Saddam, you're just guessing/hoping or repeating what the media says.

Did these people happen to be Sunni? Because when I was there, the Sunni thought life under Saddam was great, while the Shia talked about how horrible it was.

 

[computer fogie]

Did these people happen to be Sunni? Because when I was there, the Sunni thought life under Saddam was great, while the Shia talked about how horrible it was.

Hmmm, good question. I didn't think to ask them.

 

[lfd0311]

Hmmm, good question. I didn't think to ask them.

It also depended on where you lived. For the Shia around Baghdad, it was hell on a daily basis. For Sunni living several hours from Baghdad, life was pretty good.

 

[computer fogie]

I wish I had asked them more, I was wrong to make such a blanket statement without knowing those things.

 

[lfd0311]

I wish I had asked them more, I was wrong to make such a blanket statement without knowing those things.

From what I found after 14 months in that country is that none of the horrible things you hear about Saddam and his sons, especially Uday, is exaggerated.

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

I don't know. I don't live in Iraq. Is a corrupt dictator better than war, lawlessness and the constant presence of terrorists that plague Iraq today? I don't know. It was probably a more stable and safer country for the average citizen under Saddam.

What I really care about is the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Our whole point in going over there was a preemptive strike on a country we claimed had solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction so we could prevent another 9/11. Guess what? No Weapons of Mass Destruction! So with that rationale out the window Bush then changed the objective to toppling a well-known dictator and potential threat to the United States. Then we were trying to secure freedom for Iraq from insurgents, many of whom were probably Iraqis who didn't want us there in the first place.

Now under Obama, a President with some sense, we're out of Iraq but it has gone to hell and there's talk of getting involved again. This is all Bush's mess. Iraq was Bush's war and I feel his administration is entirely to blame for its current plight. As evil as Saddam was Iraq was better off left alone. There are many dictators in the world we don't do anything about. We should have been focused on Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations around the world who actually pose a real threat to us not some tyrant who hadn't been a real problem for the United States for years.

 

[CelticThunder]

Ha ha ha ha! That is just priceless.
blah blah blah Zionism is awesome blah blah blah Prison Planet.

Internet Users Paid To Spread Israeli Propaganda

 

[Perfidious]

Internet Users Paid To Spread Israeli Propaganda

It's pretty apparent this happens every time I read a Yahoo news articles comment section. Oh and the presence of JIDF.

 

[lfd0311]

I don't know. I don't live in Iraq. Is a corrupt dictator better than war, lawlessness and the constant presence of terrorists that plague Iraq today? I don't know. It was probably a more stable and safer country for the average citizen under Saddam.

What I really care about is the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Our whole point in going over there was a preemptive strike on a country we claimed had solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction so we could prevent another 9/11. Guess what? No Weapons of Mass Destruction! So with that rationale out the window Bush then changed the objective to toppling a well-known dictator and potential threat to the United States. Then we were trying to secure freedom for Iraq from insurgents, many of whom were probably Iraqis who didn't want us there in the first place.

Now under Obama, a President with some sense, we're out of Iraq but it has gone to hell and there's talk of getting involved again. This is all Bush's mess. Iraq was Bush's war and I feel his administration is entirely to blame for its current plight. As evil as Saddam was Iraq was better off left alone. There are many dictators in the world we don't do anything about. We should have been focused on Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations around the world who actually pose a real threat to us not some tyrant who hadn't been a real problem for the United States for years.

Iraq deffinently had WMD's. They didn't have nukes, but were actively trying to get some. 2ndly, most of the people we fought in Iraq were not Iraqis.

 

[DhakaMMA]

Yes, it was, under all measures. I would like to hear what we have today that is better than before?

Minorities and sects are more persecuted today than before.

Electricity and infrastructure are worse today than before.

More Iraqis are dying today than before.

 

[Gervinho]

I don't know. I don't live in Iraq. Is a corrupt dictator better than war, lawlessness and the constant presence of terrorists that plague Iraq today? I don't know. It was probably a more stable and safer country for the average citizen under Saddam.

What I really care about is the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Our whole point in going over there was a preemptive strike on a country we claimed had solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction so we could prevent another 9/11. Guess what? No Weapons of Mass Destruction! So with that rationale out the window Bush then changed the objective to toppling a well-known dictator and potential threat to the United States. Then we were trying to secure freedom for Iraq from insurgents, many of whom were probably Iraqis who didn't want us there in the first place.

Now under Obama, a President with some sense, we're out of Iraq but it has gone to hell and there's talk of getting involved again. This is all Bush's mess. Iraq was Bush's war and I feel his administration is entirely to blame for its current plight. As evil as Saddam was Iraq was better off left alone. There are many dictators in the world we don't do anything about. We should have been focused on Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations around the world who actually pose a real threat to us not some tyrant who hadn't been a real problem for the United States for years.

Without a doubt. Nothing is worse than lawlessness

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

Iraq deffinently had WMD's. They didn't have nukes, but were actively trying to get some. 2ndly, most of the people we fought in Iraq were not Iraqis.

Iraq had chemical weapons at one point but not the stockpiles of it that American intelligence claimed it had which was our justification for going over there.

As for who we were fighting in Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(Iraq_War)

The insurgents in Iraq have been composed of a diverse mix of militias, foreign fighters, all-Iraqi units or mixtures opposing the American-led Multi-National Force

 

[CarbonFistprint]

Agreed.

Lawlessness invites the criminal element who disrupts peace at every turn. The only government worse than anarchy is one that commits mass genocide on people like the Nazis did to the Jews.

Problem is, there's a few results out there if you google "Saddam" and "genocide".

...not that lawlessness is great either, but I'm just sayin'.

 

[lfd0311]

Iraq had chemical weapons at one point but not the stockpiles of it that American intelligence claimed it had which was our justification for going over there.

As for who we were fighting in Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(Iraq_War)

The insurgents in Iraq have been composed of a diverse mix of militias, foreign fighters, all-Iraqi units or mixtures opposing the American-led Multi-National Force

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

He did in fact have massive stock piles of Chemical and Biological weapons. Saying he didn't is untrue. The overwhelming amount of the people we fought in Iraq where foreign Jihadists.

He had them but they were largely destroyed which is why we didn't find any.

Saddam gave the impression he was hiding something by not letting inspectors in however we invaded based on faulty intelligence which was admitted by members of the Bush Administration including Colin Powell.

[YT]2ZTLmOoPzjs[/YT]

Many of the insurgents we fought in Iraq were Iraqis. Whether foreign Jihadists were the majority is debatable.

 

[lfd0311]

He had them but they were largely destroyed which is why we didn't find any..

We found literally tons of Chemical weapons. That is simply a fact. It's a fact that is always glossed over by the liberal media.

Saddam gave the impression he was hiding something by not letting inspectors in however we invaded based on faulty intelligence which was admitted by members of the Bush Administration including Colin Powell.

They're talking about nukes, specifically. That was the crux of the argument.

Many of the insurgents we fought in Iraq were Iraqis. Whether foreign Jihadists were the majority is debatable

Fallujah was the only place after late 2004 where there was a serious Iraqi insurgency. Once the Shia realized they stood to take over just by proxy, they calmed down. The overwhelming amount of fighters we fought in Iraq where foreign Jihadists.

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

We found literally tons of Chemical weapons. That is simply a fact. It's a fact that is always glossed over by the liberal media.

Evidence?

They're talking about nukes, specifically. That was the crux of the argument.

They were talking about all weapons of mass destruction not just nukes. Even the bad intelligence we got showed no evidence of an advanced nuclear program under way in Iraq. The focus was on chemical and biological weapons such as anthrax which we did not find.

Colin Powell holding Anthrax Vial

Fallujah was the only place after late 2004 where there was a serious Iraqi insurgency. Once the Shia realized they stood to take over just by proxy, they calmed down. The overwhelming amount of fighters we fought in Iraq where foreign Jihadists.

The height of the Iraqi insurgency happened between 2003-2006 after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government. There were plenty of foreign Jihadists but also a lot of domestic insurgents as my sources explained.

 

[lfd0311]

Evidence?.

I was there? You aren't going to find the Liberal Media reporting this kind of stuff, because it lent credence to the WMD argument. We knew he had Chemical and Biological weapons, what we invaded Iraq over was the idea that he was trying to get ahold of nukes or the ability to makes nukes, specifically.

They were talking about all weapons of mass destruction not just nukes. Even the bad intelligence we got showed no evidence of an advanced nuclear program under way in Iraq. The focus was on chemical and biological weapons such as anthrax which we did not find.

The evidence suggested that he was trying to obtain the neccessary pieces to start a nuke program. On top of that, Anthrax is far from the only chemical or biological agent out there. Lets not forget he used these weapons on the Kurds.

The height of the Iraqi insurgency happened between 2003-2006 after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government. There were plenty of foreign Jihadists but also a lot of domestic insurgents as my sources explained

Agian, I was there. I know who we were fighting and when. The only real organized Iraqi resistence after 2004 was in Fallujah, and there were quite a few non iraqi fighters there as well.

 

[Jukai]

I was there? You aren't going to find the Liberal Media reporting this kind of stuff, because it lent credence to the WMD argument. We knew he had Chemical and Biological weapons, what we invaded Iraq over was the idea that he was trying to get

Whoa, c'mon now. Don't blame this on the media.

Feed the masses evidence, please.

 

[lfd0311]

Whoa, c'mon now. Don't blame this on the media.

Feed the masses evidence, please.

One of the first IED attacks in Iraq was a chemical attack on a Dutch convoy outside of Baghdad. Stopped being reported after that, and if it was reported, it was presented as weapons brought in after the invasion.