Do you think Iraq is better after US took Saddam out?

It's probably a bit premature to be making a judgment. Such a big change will always be difficult, and I'm sure it will be good for some and bad for others.

I'm a bit more worried about Iran taking out the US out ATM. Effectively the strongest ruler the the region has been removed and now Tehran is the Middle East's power base. So I guess, if you think it's better to make Iran the dominant force in the Middle East, instead of Saddam, it's better. As far as I know the majority of Iraqis are religiously aligned with the Ayatollahs (ie Shi'ite Muslims) so for them it could be a good thing. I'm sure Iran will do it's best to 'help' Iraq's Shi'ite majority get back on top of things. It's always a worry when religious and/or ethnic loyalties start to dominate a nation's government. But they've got to have a basis to work from, and I'm not going to tell them what that basis should be.

Anyway, I'm certainly no expert. I'd say in the long run Iraq might be better for the change, or at least not worse (fingers crossed).

Last edited by cospengle (2006-08-30 20:04:15)

2006-08-30 20:07:10

#8

Y0URDAD: I'ma Eat Yo Children!; +17|6889|Annapolis, MD

I bet the people freed from Uday & Qusay's torture cells would geb to differ.

2006-08-30 20:07:30

#9

Mike_J: Member; +68|6913

Was Nazi Germany better before World War II or during and right after the war?

2006-08-30 20:15:55

#10

jonsimon: Member; +224|6739

Y0URDAD wrote:
I bet the people freed from Uday & Qusay's torture cells would geb to differ.

So would the iraqis killed in this conflict, if they weren't dead, that is.

2006-08-30 20:20:54

#11

Mike_J: Member; +68|6913

jonsimon wrote:
Y0URDAD wrote:
I bet the people freed from Uday & Qusay's torture cells would geb to differ.
So would the iraqis killed in this conflict, if they weren't dead, that is.

I could say almost the same exact thing you said, obviously with the opposite intent.

2006-08-30 20:21:40

#12

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6888

Mike_J wrote:
Was Nazi Germany better before World War II or during and right after the war?

enough said

2006-08-30 20:25:12

#13

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6929|United States of America

jonsimon wrote:
So would the iraqis killed in this conflict, if they weren't dead, that is.

Who? The suicide bombers? Or the targets who were killed by extremist reasoning of the bomber? This is kind of a bizzaro postwar Germany though. Hitler wanted the SS to start guerrilla warfare against the occupying Allies but no large scale attacks were orchestrated. West Germany was helped to rebuild the country and the country is now a world leader in several fields. On the other hand, Iraq has guerilla war from outside the country and there is great difficulty in rebuilding the infrastructure and helping the nation to get on the ball.

2006-08-31 01:59:20

#14

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6799

Y0URDAD wrote:
I bet the people freed from Uday & Qusay's torture cells would geb to differ.

Like the people who were incarcerated in Abu Ghraib for example?

PS I'm not stating here whether I believe Iraq is better or worse since Saddam, just thought the comment required a rebuttal.

2006-08-31 03:37:53

#15

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6934|Tampa Bay Florida

Mike_J wrote:
jonsimon wrote:
Y0URDAD wrote:
I bet the people freed from Uday & Qusay's torture cells would geb to differ.
So would the iraqis killed in this conflict, if they weren't dead, that is.
I could say almost the same exact thing you said, obviously with the opposite intent.

The tens of thousands innocent Iraqi's killed would slightly outvote those people.

2006-08-31 05:24:36

#16

.:XDR:.PureFodder: Member; +105|7073

I remember hearing a quote from some guy on the news talking about his life in Iraq, it went something like:

I used to live in the fear that me and my family could be killed any day. Now I live the reality of it.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

2006-08-31 08:18:40

#17

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6773|Global Command

Cell phone subscriptions, internet access, and other things are up dramatically.
Iran is causing so much shit in Iraq right now, I can almost hear them drooling at the thought of absorbing the region when the U.S. succumbs to internal pressures and withdraws from Iraq.

2006-08-31 08:22:10

#18

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6799

ATG wrote:
Cell phone subscriptions, internet access, and other things are up dramatically.
Iran is causing so much shit in Iraq right now, I can almost hear them drooling at the thought of absorbing the region when the U.S. succumbs to internal pressures and withdraws from Iraq.

But ATG what good is the internet when there are sporadic blackouts and substandard sanitation!?! The blackouts hardly give them enough time to get their head-chopping videos posted. Cell phone subscriptions have gone up? Aren't IEDs usually detonated with the help of cellphones? Seriously ATG I wouldn't judge progress on luxuries like those, basic needs are still poorly served.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-31 08:44:19)

2006-08-31 08:24:37

#19

Longbow: Member; +163|6891|Odessa, Ukraine

No.

2006-08-31 08:24:42

#20

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6960

CameronPoe wrote:
ATG wrote:
Cell phone subscriptions, internet access, and other things are up dramatically.
Iran is causing so much shit in Iraq right now, I can almost hear them drooling at the thought of absorbing the region when the U.S. succumbs to internal pressures and withdraws from Iraq.
But ATG what good is the internet when there are sporadic blackouts!?! It hardly gives them enough time to get their head-chopping videos posted.

naw, they got le 24mbit down and 12mbit up

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-08-31 08:39:20

#21

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|6938|San Francisco

Hmm, that'd be a resounding NO.

Since the invasion/occupation, the Iraqi civilians have constantly lost power, have no clean water, and can't shop at the local market without the distress that something violent might occur. Prior to this, a good majority of Iraqi's were living quite decently. The Insurgency is succeeding in the fact that a good majority of the civilians are getting scared and restless about the situation they've been placed in.

Saddam used his dictatorship to control all four factions in Iraq. Ruling with a secular iron fist kept everyone at bay, despite whatever atrocities he committed in the past. He understood that a severely divided and broken up society like the Middle East wouldn't exactly accept democracy due to their own mindsets of ritual and tradition.

2006-09-01 06:18:41

#22

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6959|US

So, you're saying that a million Iraqis dying under Saddam's rule (IIRC) is preferable to sporadic bombings?

Oppressive dictator with the power of the government, or semi-backed terrorists? Neither is good, but I would think that the latter would be slightly better.

2006-09-01 06:27:40

#23

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6712

RAIMIUS wrote:
So, you're saying that a million Iraqis dying under Saddam's rule (IIRC) is preferable to sporadic bombings?

Millions? What the heck? He killed less then 250,000 people over a thirty year period, while that is still an abonitable act the civilions dead in Iraq now is in a three year period is around 35,000. While saddam did do a horrific injustic the Iraqi people are suffering more casualties faster. The naval academy also predicts that all insurgences will be neurtalized or asimilated by ~2040, so at the rate its at the war will kill more Iraqis then Saddam did.

Edit: I forgot a zero in 250,000

Last edited by doctastrangelove1964 (2006-09-01 06:28:25)

2006-09-01 06:50:06

#24

jonsimon: Member; +224|6739

RAIMIUS wrote:
So, you're saying that a million Iraqis dying under Saddam's rule (IIRC) is preferable to sporadic bombings?

Oppressive dictator with the power of the government, or semi-backed terrorists? Neither is good, but I would think that the latter would be slightly better.

You're forgetting the options are: Oppressive dictator who harms a segment of the population, or, local millitant groups fighting each other and a foreign army, all without consistent utilities.

2006-09-01 13:32:50

#25

Jusster: Pimpin aint Easy; +11|6721|H-Town

That would be a NO. When its all said and done I think they'll probably change the countries name for Iraq to Iran II.

Jusster

Last edited by Jusster (2006-09-01 13:33:31)

Yes	39%	39% - 24
No	50%	50% - 31
You are a terrorists lap dog	9%	9% - 6
Total: 61

BF2S Forums Do you think Iraq is better after US took Saddam out?

Poll

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Y0URDAD wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Y0URDAD wrote:

Mike_J wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Y0URDAD wrote:

Mike_J wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Y0URDAD wrote:

ATG wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Board footer