Were Iraqis really better off under Saddam?

[Bleipriester]

Hard to argue they are better off now.

You can only totally speculative wild guess at what would be happening in Iraq if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

What is very clear is that he was a threat to the national security of the USA.

What kind of threat was he? Was he close to invade?

Go to a fucking library and educate yourself.

So Hussein was not a thread to America? And if he was a threat to America, why was he not removed after the first gulf war, already?

 

[Muhammed]

Hard to argue they are better off now.

You can only totally speculative wild guess at what would be happening in Iraq if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

What is very clear is that he was a threat to the national security of the USA.

What kind of threat was he? Was he close to invade?

Go to a fucking library and educate yourself.

So Hussein was not a thread to America? And if he was a threat to America, why was he not removed after the first gulf war, already?

The first one? You are showing your ignorance of history.

 

[Bleipriester]

Hard to argue they are better off now.

You can only totally speculative wild guess at what would be happening in Iraq if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

What is very clear is that he was a threat to the national security of the USA.

What kind of threat was he? Was he close to invade?

Go to a fucking library and educate yourself.

So Hussein was not a thread to America? And if he was a threat to America, why was he not removed after the first gulf war, already?

The first one? You are showing your ignorance of history.

Be serious and name the threats Hussein imposed on America.

 

[Muhammed]

You can only totally speculative wild guess at what would be happening in Iraq if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

What is very clear is that he was a threat to the national security of the USA.

What kind of threat was he? Was he close to invade?

Go to a fucking library and educate yourself.

So Hussein was not a thread to America? And if he was a threat to America, why was he not removed after the first gulf war, already?

The first one? You are showing your ignorance of history.

Be serious and name the threats Hussein imposed on America.

There's a shitload of reasons. For instance, he refused to stop shooting our airplanes. Explain how that's not a threat.

 

[Bleipriester]

What kind of threat was he? Was he close to invade?

Go to a fucking library and educate yourself.

So Hussein was not a thread to America? And if he was a threat to America, why was he not removed after the first gulf war, already?

The first one? You are showing your ignorance of history.

Be serious and name the threats Hussein imposed on America.

There's a shitload of reasons. For instance, he refused to stop shooting our airplanes. Explain how that's not a threat.

You mean those airplanes reducing Iraq to ashes?

 

[montelatici]

Not only was Iraq better off under Saddam Hussein in terms of general lifestyle for the people and public order, Iraq is now going broke and will need aid from the IMF or the U.S.

"Iraq is broke. Add that to its list of worries."

Were Iraqis really better off under Saddam?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I guess that would depend on if you were a Sunni,Shia,Kurd or a Marsh Arab.

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

Only because we bailed and left them in a crappy spot.

See, what you´ve done? And even if we believe all the propaganda about Hussein, he would still be the better alternative over the results of western freedom-bringing. A decade of terrorism that rose into the "Islamic State" is the direct consequence.
So, and they give a shit and creat the same situation in several countries under the pretext of the "Arab Spring".

Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed killing whether you like the end result or not. The failure was leaving before things were stable.

 

[Muhammed]

Go to a fucking library and educate yourself.

So Hussein was not a thread to America? And if he was a threat to America, why was he not removed after the first gulf war, already?

The first one? You are showing your ignorance of history.

Be serious and name the threats Hussein imposed on America.

There's a shitload of reasons. For instance, he refused to stop shooting our airplanes. Explain how that's not a threat.

You mean those airplanes reducing Iraq to ashes?

It doesn't matter what they were doing.

 

[Muhammed]

I guess that would depend on if you were a Sunni,Shia,Kurd or a Marsh Arab.

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

Only because we bailed and left them in a crappy spot.

See, what you´ve done? And even if we believe all the propaganda about Hussein, he would still be the better alternative over the results of western freedom-bringing. A decade of terrorism that rose into the "Islamic State" is the direct consequence.
So, and they give a shit and creat the same situation in several countries under the pretext of the "Arab Spring".

Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed killing whether you like the end result or not. The failure was leaving before things were stable.

The US didn't leave. We are still bombing Iraq and have been bombing Iraq since 1990.

Military Strikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria, Iraq > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Article View

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I guess that would depend on if you were a Sunni,Shia,Kurd or a Marsh Arab.

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

Only because we bailed and left them in a crappy spot.

See, what you´ve done? And even if we believe all the propaganda about Hussein, he would still be the better alternative over the results of western freedom-bringing. A decade of terrorism that rose into the "Islamic State" is the direct consequence.
So, and they give a shit and creat the same situation in several countries under the pretext of the "Arab Spring".

Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed killing whether you like the end result or not. The failure was leaving before things were stable.

The US didn't leave.

Yes they did.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I guess that would depend on if you were a Sunni,Shia,Kurd or a Marsh Arab.

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

I'd say they don't miss him. They just find that out of two bad situations, the current one is worse. I'm sure had they had a real leader take over the country, a Nelson Mandela type person, then they'd have gotten over him a long time ago.

Instead they got Bremer.

 

[Muhammed]

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

Only because we bailed and left them in a crappy spot.

See, what you´ve done? And even if we believe all the propaganda about Hussein, he would still be the better alternative over the results of western freedom-bringing. A decade of terrorism that rose into the "Islamic State" is the direct consequence.
So, and they give a shit and creat the same situation in several countries under the pretext of the "Arab Spring".

Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed killing whether you like the end result or not. The failure was leaving before things were stable.

The US didn't leave.

Yes they did.

You are wrong. As a matter of fact, Operation Inherent Resolve is ongoing right now.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Only because we bailed and left them in a crappy spot.

See, what you´ve done? And even if we believe all the propaganda about Hussein, he would still be the better alternative over the results of western freedom-bringing. A decade of terrorism that rose into the "Islamic State" is the direct consequence.
So, and they give a shit and creat the same situation in several countries under the pretext of the "Arab Spring".

Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed killing whether you like the end result or not. The failure was leaving before things were stable.

The US didn't leave.

Yes they did.

You are wrong. As a matter of fact, Operation Inherent Resolve is ongoing right now.

In what numbers?

 

[Sunni Man]

Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed killing whether you like the end result or not. The failure was leaving before things were stable.

There are dozens of brutal dictators all over the world that need killing. (many who we support with weapons and money).

Why haven't we invaded and eliminated the psychotic midget leader of N. Korea?.... hint: His country has no natural resources......like oil or natural gas. .....

 

[Zander]

The best foreign policy is one that keeps the USA out of foreign entanglements. Have strong borders. Have a powerful military. Mind our own business.

Saddam was not a threat to US security. He had no way of attacking the US. He had no WMD beyond the dated chemical weapons that WE gave him 30 years ago to use against Iran. He was just a convenient excuse for the PNAC neocons to start a never ending "war" in the region. They succeeded. America lost Billions in treasure and we have nothing but dead and wounded soldiers to show for. We need to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, declare victory and come home. Then stay the fuck out.

Let Iran deal with ISIS. They have the most to lose and with their $150 billion they have plenty of cash to spend. If they need help, they can call their good friend Vladimir Putin.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed killing whether you like the end result or not. The failure was leaving before things were stable.

There are dozens of brutal dictators all over the world that need killing. (many who we support with weapons and money).

Why haven't we invaded and eliminated the psychotic midget leader of N. Korea?.... hint: His country has no natural resources......like oil or natural gas. .....

Hint...NK has nukes and the backing of China.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I guess that would depend on if you were a Sunni,Shia,Kurd or a Marsh Arab.

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

Only because we bailed and left them in a crappy spot.

Let's remind all that the "we" to whom you refer was Barack Hussein Obama (the most merciful).....



1. Obama, whose foreign policy is as flawed as his domestic policy.... made another huge mistake in refusing to negotiate an agreement to leave US troops in Iraq.

This is the source of the problem with ISIS: they're there because we weren't.
"Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq:

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA:That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY:Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean
Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard




a. "This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament.
“We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry.
“We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast

Obama rejected it.
A flip-plop that cleared the field for ISIS.....
...and he laughed about them, referring to them as 'the JayVee.'

 

[Sally]

I guess that would depend on if you were a Sunni,Shia,Kurd or a Marsh Arab.

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

I'd say they don't miss him. They just find that out of two bad situations, the current one is worse. I'm sure had they had a real leader take over the country, a Nelson Mandela type person, then they'd have gotten over him a long time ago.

Instead they got Bremer.

Everyone gets nostalgic for the old days when the new days are not going the way they want them to. The people had high hopes for a better life than they had under Saddam. Look at how many Iraqis living here drove miles and miles to a polling place to cast their votes, and even videotaped the occasion. I can remember the news reports of the people in Iraq saying that now that he was gone they could put on the plays they wanted, publish what they wanted in newspapers, etc.

Here's an article about why we invaded Iraq.

Why Did We Invade Iraq? , by Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

 

[Sally]

Israel wanted Saddam gone and the US government complied to their demands. .....

Is Fatso still up. Israel didn't want Iraq gone as it considered Iran its worse enemy.

I guess that would depend on if you were a Sunni,Shia,Kurd or a Marsh Arab.

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

Only because we bailed and left them in a crappy spot.

See, what you´ve done? And even if we believe all the propaganda about Hussein, he would still be the better alternative over the results of western freedom-bringing. A decade of terrorism that rose into the "Islamic State" is the direct consequence.
So, and they give a shit and creat the same situation in several countries under the pretext of the "Arab Spring".

Read the article about how many, many people he had killed.

Then Read about who supported Saddam to kill...................................Then read about the Americans Slaughtering in Iraq

So tell us -- who supported Saddam to kill. How many did the Americans kill?. It is mighty strange that you have had nothing to say about the Muslims slaughtering much more than the Americans have killed. Do you have it in for Americans by chance? Do you have any Iraqis living in your country? If so, were they ecstatic that they finally could vote in a free election the way they were in America?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I guess that would depend on if you were a Sunni,Shia,Kurd or a Marsh Arab.

You're right, but the article is interesting in that it appears that there are some in each group who say they miss him.

I'd say they don't miss him. They just find that out of two bad situations, the current one is worse. I'm sure had they had a real leader take over the country, a Nelson Mandela type person, then they'd have gotten over him a long time ago.

Instead they got Bremer.

Everyone gets nostalgic for the old days when the new days are not going the way they want them to. The people had high hopes for a better life than they had under Saddam. Look at how many Iraqis living here drove miles and miles to a polling place to cast their votes, and even videotaped the occasion. I can remember the news reports of the people in Iraq saying that now that he was gone they could put on the plays they wanted, publish what they wanted in newspapers, etc.

Here's an article about why we invaded Iraq.

Why Did We Invade Iraq? , by Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

Your article is bullshit, pure and simple.

Bush went to Iraq to try and stop OPEC becoming powerful. He did that.

In 2002 there was a US supported Coup d'etat against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez was only gone for a week.
In 2000 he'd gone around trying to get OPEC countries to rally together (it was only the second such meeting ever) and raise oil prices, which at the time went against American interests.

Four OPEC countries in 2001 were anti-American. Venezuela, Iraq, Libya, and Iran.

See the fortunes of these countries over the last 15 years.

Iran has had sanctions and threats galore from the US, the right has wanted to invade, but hasn't had the position to do it. Obama's treaty with Iraq put the ability of the right to invade at some point in the future (when they get the White House) in massive jeopardy.

Venezuela has also had sanctions.

Iraq was invaded.
Libya had its leader ousted with massive support from the US. McCain on Libya, go look up the articles from this period of time and you'll see McCain was demanding Obama bomb Libya within weeks of the crisis starting. When Syria happened it took him six months to say something similar, and not as loudly either. When the Ivory Coast had its civil war, McCain didn't mention it once.

Why do you think that is so?

OPEC is now much weaker, Iraq is pumping out oil Libya is pumping out oil, Venezuela and Iran are having difficulties.

This was Bush's policy, and it worked.

He didn't give a shit about the Iraqi people.
He didn't give a shit about WMDs.
He didn't give a shit about nation building in Iraq.

Why this guy put Oil at number 6 i don't know.

"Had Iraq been Rwanda, the Bush administration would not have invaded. "

Well, this at least is the truth.