Was Iraq better off under Sadam Hussein ?

[Indus Falcon]

My knowledge is a bit limited on it, @Abu Nasar , i know he claimed that Kuwait was monopolizing oil prices? Please go into detail, my friend.

4.51 onwards = should be interesting, but the whole 13mins is worth watching as well

The Fall of Iraq - What You're Not Being Told | SCG News

 

[jammersat]

maybe you are worried about the fate of christians in iraq , but who cares about christians here , i mean this is middle east not even israel cares about christians

 

[Aepsilons]

4.51 onwards = should be interesting, but the whole 13mins is worth watching as well

The Fall of Iraq - What You're Not Being Told | SCG News

This is a great video, my friend. Sadly not a lot of Americans even know the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait. All they know , as they're fed by the media, that Saddam was 'evil' and a 'dictator'. What they do not remember is that Saddam Hussein was an ally and strategic partner for the United States for quite some time.

The country was definitely safer. The sectarianism was kept in check too. Many Iraqi Shia Arabs like to tell a fairytale of Shias not being a part of the past system while most Shias were actually Ba'athi too. Many in the leadership too. Convinced too as many fought against the "Islamic" Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Also Iraq is not a Western democracy today after the fall of Saddam Hussein. In many ways it's just a more sectarian continuation of what the previous dictatorships were all about. On SOME areas at least.

On the other hand there are not any large scale massacres anymore by the state (outside of state sponsored militias and discrimination), no leader worship (that's reserved for the clerics), more personal rights, a more inclusive political system etc.

But that question totally depends on which segment of the population you ask. The Sunnis will tell you that it was better before and the Shias that it's much better now. The Kurds will say the same.

Economy also has a lot to say here. Social rights too.

I am pretty certain that Iraq would be better off with a sane/responsible secular leader. Although a strongman like Saddam Hussein. Than the current lot.

Overall I would say it is better for the average Iraqi. In terms of Iraq as a country (stability wise) it's worse.

In all seriousness then Saddam Hussein was a madman who when he lived was largely disliked by ALL Iraqis but people tend to get another reputation after their deaths and when problems occur. Its' due to people romanticizing the past.

Well said, @al-Hasani .

 

[Indus Falcon]

This is a great video, my friend. Sadly not a lot of Americans even know the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait. All they know , as they're fed by the media, that Saddam was 'evil' and a 'dictator'. What they do not remember is that Saddam Hussein was an ally and strategic partner for the United States for quite some time.



Well said, @al-Hasani .

Reports like these are termed "conspiracy theories" and brushed under the rug. But you do need to look at how the dots connect to realize what really is going on!

 

[Aepsilons]

maybe you are worried about the fate of christians in iraq , but who cares about christians here , i mean this is middle east not even israel cares about christians

@jammersat ,

The situation going on not only in Iraq, but in Syria is not something that should be laughed at, or even mocked.

 

[jammersat]

@jammersat ,

The situation going on not only in Iraq, but in Syria is not something that should be laughed at, or even mocked.

I think the most plausible theory around is that the borders of the first world war are fading away and instead more natural conflicts are growing , between sects , ethnicities and so on

 

[pokdo]

Depends on which ethnic you are referring.
Kurds are the best major beneficiaries of the war.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

There would've been a rebellion like with the other Arab countries with the Arab spring movement, if he or his sons were in power.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@al-Hasani , @Arabian Knight @Arabian Legend , @Hazzy997 , @Kaan , @Sinan , @xenon54 , @Aeronaut , @Abu Nasar , et al,

I cannot help my feelings of utter dissatisfaction of what is going on now in Iraq. 12 years have passed since Saddam Hussein was toppled from power in Iraq, and the country still is destabilized, and extremism has unfurled in the country. Sectarian violence is unfathomable.

Do you think Iraq was better of under Saddam Hussein ? Or is it better off in its current position? Please share your opinions.



Regards,
@Nihonjin1051

Can a child be better off in mother's womb?
or
is he better off in his dad's testis?


What kind of question is that.

Iraq is no longer under Saddam's control Duh!
Saddam has been hanged FYI.


Time moves on.

Find better situations NOW or for FUTURE.


Past is gone, dead, finish, capeesh!

 

[Aepsilons]

Reports like these are termed "conspiracy theories" and brushed under the rug. But you do need to look at how the dots connect to realize what really is going on!

From my interaction with American students , whenever we talk, there is a lack of understanding of the catalyst.

Can a child be better off in mother's womb?
or
is he better off in his dad's testis?


What kind of question is that.

Iraq is no longer under Saddam's control Duh!
Saddam has been hanged FYI.


Time moves on.

Find better situations NOW or for FUTURE.


Past is gone, dead, finish, capeesh!

I understand this, but due to the current situation affecting Sunnis, and Shii, I wanted to know if the quality of life under Saddam was better than post-American Occupied Iraq.

The current Maliki Government's inability to quell this rebellion by ISIS is a concern for all of us. And it is in my belief that Saddam would have quelled this rebellion or any such uprising had it occurred in Iraq.

In my opinion; Iraq is a sensitive state. Iraq requires a strong man to lead it. The same in Egypt.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.... I wanted to know if the quality of life under Saddam was better than post-American Occupied Iraq.

.

You might as well check if life under Santa Clause and his elfs will be better than Malikis.

Because Saddam today is as real or as unreal as Santa Clause.

Iraq solution is with Maliki or his sucessors.

and
not predecessors

unless you have gotten a hold of a time machine.

Then off course all bets are off.

 

[Aepsilons]

The problem with Maliki and his pro-Shii government is that they are unable to implement a culture of inclusion towards Sunni members of the country. The sectarian violence is also a concern. Unless Baghdad includes greater role of Sunni and Kurd role in government , then the issue of sectarian violence will remain. In fact, ignoring this issue will only further split iraq through ethnic and religious lines. Per se the movement of an independent Kurdistan, which will not only directly involve Turkey, but also Iran.



Regards,

 

[xenon54 out]

@al-Hasani , @Arabian Knight @Arabian Legend , @Hazzy997 , @Kaan , @Sinan , @xenon54 , @Aeronaut , @Abu Nasar , et al,

I cannot help my feelings of utter dissatisfaction of what is going on now in Iraq. 12 years have passed since Saddam Hussein was toppled from power in Iraq, and the country still is destabilized, and extremism has unfurled in the country. Sectarian violence is unfathomable.

Do you think Iraq was better of under Saddam Hussein ? Or is it better off in its current position? Please share your opinions.



Regards,
@Nihonjin1051

Saddam was a cruel Dictator thats for sure but at least he had his country under control, the power vacuum after him benefitted the extremists, the same can be said about Libya.

So far only Tunisia seem to be doing good after Arab spring.

 

[Aepsilons]

The country was definitely safer. The sectarianism was kept in check too. Many Iraqi Shia Arabs like to tell a fairytale of Shias not being a part of the past system while most Shias were actually Ba'athi too. Many in the leadership too. Convinced too as many fought against the "Islamic" Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Also Iraq is not a Western democracy today after the fall of Saddam Hussein. In many ways it's just a more sectarian continuation of what the previous dictatorships were all about. On SOME areas at least.

Well said Sadeek, also I would like to add that prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had the largest army in the middle east, and was the most military advanced Arab power in the region. In fact, even during the Iraqi-Irani War, it was Iraqi lives that were fighting the revolutionary forces of Iran, which had threatened the Gulf States. Its also interesting because during the war, the GCC states had given relative support to Iraq.

People forget that Iraqis of different backgrounds equally served in the Armed Forces; either they were Sunni or Shia, they were integrated into the Armed Forces. And the Baath party had membership from Sunni, and Shia population.

I also agree with you that the American decision to abolish the Iraqi Armed Forces was the worst decision. And as you stated in your post, led to dissatisfaction amongst former soldiers and officers.

Saddam definitely wasn't a Saint , but at least under his leadership, Iraq was relatively stable and extremism were effectively crushed.

 

[Mav3rick]

Iraq under Saddam was awful and now it has gotten worse.... due to secterian policies of Maliki.

So basically, it was better!