Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Cleaning jobs in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Dubai jobs for pharmacist Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Dubai politics talk

Bush or Saddam - who has hurt Iraq more?


shafique I hate polls, so won't set one up even though this is a great question to ask. I think that the combination of sanctions, invasion and occupation has led to more Iraqi misery than under the Saddam era. Am I wrong to think more Iraqis have suffered under US-led intervention? I'm a simple type of guy - I would imagine that getting rid of a dictator and imposing democracy is a great ideal to most people, BUT I have a hard time reconciling this view with the mess in Iraq - a mess that many who opposed the invasion said would be the result. Is there anyone out there who thinks that Bush et al have done more good than harm? Cheers, Shafique
C0NC0RD
Well in the "short term" clearly more harm than good. But it remains to be seen what the long term effect will be. After all, Saddam was there for decades.
Interestingly, as of late, at least what is reported, things seem to be "improving" and less and less suicide bombers - which btw were not sent by Bush (and I recognize the argument that suicide bombers did not "exist" in Iraq till post Saddam).
Anyway, I think that it might be too early to tell...
I alwayst thought invadin Iraq was a mistake. Aghanistan (Taliban) attack justified... rudeboy sadam did kill ppl. but we have seen how the Indian government killed so many ppl in the state of Punjab , where separtist wanted their own state. Indian government have killed so many ppl in the state of Kashmir where the ppl either wanted their own country or join up with Pakistan. The uk government fought with the IRA over ireland and so on. The Turks killed so many ppl in their Kurdish area because the kurds wanted their own country. Sadam killed ppl in northern Iraq kurdish area because the kurds wanted a separate state of their own. Yes he did go to war with Iran (when the USA supported IRAQ) yes he did invade Kuwait. HE did kill ppl for the right and wrong reasons. But you can say the same about any of the USA president cant u?? during Sadams regin there were no sucide bombings there were no sunis vs shias clashes. at that time there was control in Iraq and he could have only controlled Iraq with an Iron Fist which he did. Bush has killed more ppl in Iraq then Sadam did. Bush has killed some of his own ppl and iraq ppl because of his foreign policy and he will continue on killing more ppl in Iraq because of the mess USA have gotten themselves into. arniegang try posting a poll in Kuwait or poll the Kurds or maybe ask the Iranians Shaf. Also everything happening there is being reported now, whereas previously, under Saddams regime, many 000's went missing and never heard of again (compliments of the Republican Guard) :roll: arniegang
Translates:
Iron Fist = just gas tens of 000's
Control = Off you go to the torture chamber my guards will look after you
Bitter and Twisted = If you attack me, i'll missile innocent Jews
:roll: rudeboy
try posting a poll in Pakistan and ask them who they hate the most and who is responsible for the killings of innocent ppl and some of politicians even Benazir Butto the answer you will get is Bush.
try posting a poll in Afghanistan and ask the ppl who they hate the most (bush or tailaban) they will tell u bush because of him terroism has risen across the world.
Try posting a poll in UK and ask them who killed more soilders Bush/blair or Al Qaeda. Ask the ppl in uk who has brought the terroists to the streets and subways of uk. Muslim population had been there in UK since the 1960s and there was never ever reported a terroist attack before the attack in London.
Try posting a poll in USA and ask who has killed more american soilders i.e Bush or sadam? Wait sadam is dead so guess the answer is bush :D.
No wait its Sadam ghost we can blame him :D lol arniegang
mmmmmmmmmm you are smart, arn't you? . You obviously have all the answers and..... the results of your polls.
I assume you did this all by yourself ?- My oh my , you must be clever
:lol: :lol: rudeboy
hmmmmmmmmmmmm i guess u have all the answers and all the results ur polls ;).
No arnie I didnt do it by myself. I would like to thank u for your help and I couldnt have done it without u ;). so thank you for opening my eyes. i guess u dont have to be clever to open ur eyes ;)
lol lol shafique
The Kuwaitis, Iranians and Kurds are all glad to be rid of Saddam. I am sure that Kurds are happy they have a relatively safe and autonomous area in northern Iraq (even with Turkish incursions).
I think Iran in particular is over-joyed at the ousting of Saddam.
However, whether getting rid of Saddam was good thing or not was not the question I posed (and for the record, I opposed Saddam when he was gassing Kurds and had the military support of the US and UK)
The question is whether Bush has done more harm to Iraq than Saddam did. For all Saddam's faults, I think the evidence is that the 'cure' is worse that the 'disease'. I opposed the invasion on the grounds that there was no evidence there was a need for this - Saddam was being contained. I would have supported an internal ousting of the Baath regime.
Cheers,
Shafique rudeboy hmm yes sadam did kill the kurds but thats only because the kurds wanted their own state. A bit like India when the Sikhs wanted their own Khalistan and the indian government at that time killed god knows how many ppl and still continues to do so in Kashmir as well. hmmmm i dont see the International community asking them to stop, Hmmmm i dont see the USA attacking India. So if its ok for Indian government to do this y couldnt Sadam do it in his own country and stop the kurds from making their own country or state which could have split up Iraq. There are ethnic cleansing going on everywhere in the world from India to even UK. So y couldnt Sadam do what he wants to do in his own country? Hell its his country if he wants to rule his country with a iron fist then let him. If the guy is keeping the country together by using his iron fist let him. countries across the world are using iron fist but I dont see USA attacking them. Y? lol talk about double standards MATE. Iraq is in a mess right now. Bush has killed more ppl and has fu(Łed up Iraq. He has messed up so badly that there is a civil war going on in Iraq and I believe that to restore peace in Iraq you need someone like Sadam to rule iraq with an iron fist. lol abit shame that the Sadam they hung in front of the worlds media now rests in his grave lol. I know that Sadam targetted the Kurds and other minorities in Iraq but that was only to keep the country together and now we all can see y he had used ruthless force to have order in his country. The only thing I dont understand is y he attacked Kuwait which led to the Gulf War. But what I do understand is that when he attacked Iran USA supported him but when he attacked Kuwait USA attacked on Sadam. lol it just shows that your friend can end up being your enemy one day ;). Bush has created a civil war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has killed his own soilders and even innocent ppl by bringing civil war into the 2 countries. The guy is in a mess hell even the next American president who comes into power will be in a mess. They cant move out of the countries and they cant stay in there for long. I can imagine Bush saying to himself only if Sadam was here ;).

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
rudeboy hmm yes sadam did kill the kurds but thats only because the kurds wanted their own state. A bit like India when the Sikhs wanted their own Khalistan and the indian government at that time killed god knows how many ppl and still continues to do so in Kashmir as well. hmmmm i dont see the International community asking them to stop, Hmmmm i dont see the USA attacking India. So if its ok for Indian government to do this y couldnt Sadam do it in his own country and stop the kurds from making their own country or state which could have split up Iraq. There are ethnic cleansing going on everywhere in the world from India to even UK. So y couldnt Sadam do what he wants to do in his own country? Hell its his country if he wants to rule his country with a iron fist then let him. If the guy is keeping the country together by using his iron fist let him. countries across the world are using iron fist but I dont see USA attacking them. Y? lol talk about double standards MATE. Iraq is in a mess right now. Bush has killed more ppl and has fu(Łed up Iraq. He has messed up so badly that there is a civil war going on in Iraq and I believe that to restore peace in Iraq you need someone like Sadam to rule iraq with an iron fist. lol abit shame that the Sadam they hung in front of the worlds media now rests in his grave lol. I know that Sadam targetted the Kurds and other minorities in Iraq but that was only to keep the country together and now we all can see y he had used ruthless force to have order in his country. The only thing I dont understand is y he attacked Kuwait which led to the Gulf War. But what I do understand is that when he attacked Iran USA supported him but when he attacked Kuwait USA attacked on Sadam. lol it just shows that your friend can end up being your enemy one day ;). Bush has created a civil war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has killed his own soilders and even innocent ppl by bringing civil war into the 2 countries. The guy is in a mess hell even the next American president who comes into power will be in a mess. They cant move out of the countries and they cant stay in there for long. I can imagine Bush saying to himself only if Sadam was here ;). arniegang
I dont see the logic in your original question really Shaf. Ok Iraq's are being killed due to the occupation, but it cant be compared to the attocities committed by a ruthless dictator like Saddam.
Yes the occupation has brought its own issues to Iraq i agree, but lets be frank, its still basically muslim killing muslim, but not on the same scale as the massacres committed by Saddam.
Everyone wants to jump on the Bush bandwagon, but when the atrocities were committed by Saddam against the Kurds and Kuwait, lets be totally frank again here Shaf, no one apart from the Btits and the Yanks really gave a shite.
If the GCC/Arab nations really cared then the situation in Iraq could be resloved "in house". However, they are quite happy to sit back (as oer usual) and let someone else sort it out.
At the end of the day we dont see at high level within Saudi etc etc cries of "get out americans"? In fact we dont really see anywhere within the GCC cries of "get out americans" do we?.
So is silence approval ? or is abstention approval? shafique The logic in my first question was whether the invasion has caused more harm than good - and basically on a scale of human suffering I think it has. We are grown up here, and so we can be honest and say that the invasion was not done for the sake of the poor Iraqi people or because Saddam was an oppressive dictator. If the US and UK were in the business of over-throwing dictators who ruthlessly suppress their people, then surely they should not support Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and should invade Zimbabwe. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction. It posed no threat. Before the invasion, the WHO reported that 500,000 children under 5 had died as a result of sanctions against Iraq. Since the invasion, the US and UK won't even count the number Iraqi casualties. For me it is the hypocrisy of the situation - the plain facts are that the Iraqis are suffering due to the invasion and occupation, an invasion that millions marched against in both the UK and US and was not supported by the United Nations. To say the Iraqis are better off is, at least in my mind, tantamount to denial of the plain facts. Haliburton and other US companies are in the money - Al Qaeda is now in Iraq - hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now dead - Iran has been strengthened no end. I do not see why condemning the utter failure of the neo-con plan for Iraq is the same as condoning Saddam. It isn't. The unpleasant fact is that if the invasion had not happened many, many Iraqis killed since 2003 would now still be alive. Or am I just being too simplistic? Cheers, Shafique shafique
Actually, when the Kurds were being gassed - the gas had come from the West I believe and it was not condemned by the West at the time (if I recall correctly). When Saddam used gas against the Iranians, that certainly was done with the collusion of the West (and many Arab states were routing for him) - and let's remember that he started the war not Iran.
The invasion of Kuwait was done after Kuwait started stealing Iraqi oil and also after the Iraqis consulted the Americans. The stories about atrocities commited by Iraqi soldiers in Iraq were made up (eg the story about babies being taken out of incubators) and what was covered up was the oppression of the Palestinians etc in Kuwait by the government after the Iraqis had left.
And why didn't the US support/insist on democracy in Kuwait?
The inaction of the Arab world is a big problem - but at it's core is the fact that the leadership in most Arab countries are very pro-US whilst the population is pro-Justice and generally pro-democracy. The US does not support democracy in Arab countries - Algeria and Palestine come to mind.
Cheers,
Shafique arniegang You are not being simplistic Shaf, i think flawed and biased is a better description. For example. The trade embargo on Iraq was exactly that. Medical supplies and other "essentials" were allowed in. But how you put your point made it seem that it was the fault of the west. All Saddam had to do was "play ball", he choose not only to defy, but then diverted and withheld the supplies like medical equipment away from those who it was intended for. I dont disagree with you regarding the reasons behind the occupation. But again i will state the high death toll in Iraq is not the result of "action", it is the action of all these that choose to kill and maime their own. The Americans cannot be blamed for muslims killing muslims Shaf. shafique
If I am charitable, I may concede that Bush and Blair did not intend to cause more harm than good.
The problem is that the invasion has caused a chain of events that has led to the current mess.
Also, Bush and Blair cannot claim ignorance on this point as the opponents of the invasion warned that chaos would ensue.
The irony is that Osama Bin Laden was against Saddam for not being Islamic enough - the Baath party was a secular organisation, and Tariq Aziz the foreign secretary (and in captivity at the moment) is a Catholic Iraqi.
Therefore, I do not share your view that the Americans are not to blame for the sectarian violence that is currently wracking Iraq. With better post-war management this could have been mitigated if not avoided - eg by not disbanding the army and the Baath party (points which the US military now concede were mistakes).
Anyway, all this reminds us how fortunate we are and how we should be grateful for our comfortable lives.
Cheers,
Shafique benwj Good question Shaf. Yes, Iraq is currently in a worse state than what it was under Sadam. However The main difference between pre-Sadam and post-Sadam is that Iraq now has a chance to prosper with no one living in fear. The prospect of this was never that great, but never-the-less, there remains hope. Would there still be sectarian violence if the Americans had not invaded? Yes. The only difference is that instead of Sadam killing everyone who disagrees with him, the two main religious factions are now killing each other. Because the americans are supposed to be restoring order they end up getting the blame when it goes wrong. Arnie is correct in pointing out that the GCC/Arab nations need to show more interest, but they are obviously happy to let America take the burden whilst they sit back and watch the oil price go up. At least the muslims are dying for their faith. The americans are dying for no personal benefit at all. Shaf, The Americans would have been accused of being unfair had they not disbaned the army and the Baath party, and it would have then been the Shites instigating the violence. Would the americans do it again if they knew that so many people would die as a result? I would like to say No, but the Iran issue keeps reminding me that they may not have learnt their lesson. But don't give up hope just yet. A new president will be elected next year and he might just be a black muslim. shafique benwj, I admire your optimism and applaud your acknowledgment that currently Iraq is in a worse state. I too hope that future for the Iraqi people will be rosier. Cheers, Shafique rvp_legend Hmmm interesting debate. Who's done worse for Iraq, Saddam or Bush? Hard to compare isnt it? No one really knows how many died under Saddam, whether far fewer than the war propganda pre invasion, or far more. No one really knows how many have died since the US led invasion, after all... they do not do body counts? The durations are very different also. I would say more people suffered under the sanctions than his rule. But that is still his fault. After initially providing for his people, with electricity, fresh water and education he started thinking about empire building. The Iran war was a farce. the GCC countries and the West supported him, we all know that. He also gassed the Kurds during this period, and no one lifted a finger even though they knew full well he was doing it. So i think that kills off the argument that the west cares/cared about the Kurds. The UK and US started to love the Kurds again when it suited them just before the invasion. I agree with Shafique, that Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil especially during Iran-Iraq war, before Saddam invaded. It is also believed the US advised him they wouldnt interfere in their matters. We know what happened after. Who's fault was that? Kuwaits and Saddams. He should have gone through the diplomatic route, as back then the West were still on his side somewhat. Kuwait were also at a major fault. They stole the Oil and then fabricated (was proved i believe) many stories in particular about the Incubators etc. So the Kuwaiti rulers were not those innocents that was often made out to be. But Saddams method was not correct either. He made the people of Kuwait suffer, who had done little to him. We all know Saddam liked to run things with an Iron fist. many would argue that its the only way he kept Iraq together as a nation. I dont agree with it, but i would imagine the same would happen now in Turkey, if the Kurds wanted to break away? Then comes the invasion and Bush. While being rid of a dictator is naturally supposed to bring hope to a nation, one has to look at the chaos which has ensued since then. The lack of policing has meant that criminal activity multiplied and the power vacuum left behind has meant a scrap for power. It is human nature people will fight for power if a leadership is axed. This is where the Bush administration has to take responsibility, the lack of planning which has resulted in major hardship for your everyday Iraqi. Looting, murder, kidnapping have all multiplied during the occupation. When you hear people saying "things were better under Saddam" that should give a reflection of the situation. Then when you add prisoner abuse scandals which no one really knows about the full extent by the coalition and its appointed Iraqi police/army, it paints a very bleak picture. You also have battles now amongst supposed religious lines which i think is more political than religion, but thats another debate and also have Turkey bombing the Kurdish areas. Now there are also extremist groups, previously unheard of in Iraq, with suicide bombs which are bringing more hardship to the people. So in its current state, you have to say the Invasion has made things far worse for the people. But the hope here is that it may improve with democracy, designed in a way to meet the requirements of Iraq. But for this to happen, the US will have to stick it out and be flexible about what Iraq wants and not what it wants Iraq to have. Do i see the US remain in Iraq right through? with a looming US recession, i do not. And when the US leaves, thats when i believe the GCC countries will get involved, as i personally believe they do not want to clean up the mess created by the US.
benwj If the US pull out all hell will break loose and the best case would be Iraq ending up with another dictator. At least the UN might then get involved. But if the US stick with it, they will need to change there attitude. Currently anyone with a muslim name gets the third degree at JFK airport and when they end up missing their connecting flight they are not even offered an apology let alone compensation. Many are put back on the returning flight with no explaination. These are people who have a pre-approved visa! This behaviour generates terrorists, but sitting back and watching israel bomb south lebanon is far worse. This is why america needs a change of government. kanelli This question is too easy. Bush has hurt Iraq more and we all know that the US/coalition should never have gone in. This should not underplay how hideous Saddam Hussein was - not by a long shot. In any case, what does my opinion matter - this question is best put to Iraqis since they are the ones living with this situation. Even if the coalition has done some damage, the sectarian violence does not have to continue. I am so tired of excuses about Muslims killing Muslims. I am not Muslim, but I too would like to see some more unity on the part of Muslims. It is far easier for the West to push around Arab/Muslim governments when they aren't working together and making a stand. shafique
Welcome back Kanelli!
I'm glad we agree Iraq is worse off because of the invasion. Getting of Saddam in the way that it has happened was not worth it (to me). It's the invasion that many people were against - and this does not make them pro-Saddam.
I am also tired of excuses for any people killing other people just because they are different - the differences don't really matter, the majority of killings are to do with tribes/ethnicity, colour of skin, political affiliation or even money or influence. Religion also factors in, but is only one of many factors.
'Sectarian' violence in Iraq is down to the breakdown of law and order and the lack of justice or perceived justice right now. So I do blame the occupying forces for providing the right ingredients for the violence to break out - destroying the infrastructure, disbanding the army and police, favouring the Shia for many positions and outlawing the Baath party members is what has led to where we are.
I think it facile to say that the fighting factions should just stop. This would not work in NY or London if over-night there were no police or army, so why should it work in Baghdad?
Take a look at the normally calm and civilised Kenya and see how quickly a country can descend into chaos - and that is with an intact army and police!
Anyway, enough pontificating for today :)
Cheers,
Shafique shahrez I will ask u all intellectuals who have given ur opinions on this great Issue that What difference its gona make to find out the answer of this question. suppose I say bush did or suppose I say saddam did now wats the difference its gona make. I really dont understand how beautifully u ask these stupid questions and surprisingly how beautiful answers u get as a result. Now tell me the difference. Anybody. The main thing is Iraqiz r hurt. Why and How I believe are the rite questions to talk about. They were hurt by saddam who terrorized and shocked them by killing those who went against him and as a result created Fear among them (upon which he ruled them) for his agenda which was "to secure Oil Reserves" and That agenda was having Backing from Bush senior cheney and Rumsfield. The main players of this administration. Then came Mr Bush Jr who went even one step further and he did wat. He terrorised and shocked his people first by an event (911 ofcourse) created Fear among them and then went on terrorising Iraqiz for the very same reason and exactly the same way ( Killing & Torture). Now wats the difference its gona make if u will reach to a mutual agreement between u that its the daddy bush who hurt more or u reach to saddam hurt more. Honestly its surprises me the way u people talk and think. No wonder whether its a bush or saddam whoever it is will always win because ur stupidity has gone beyond imagination. U were stupid yesterday when saddam did it and u r stupid even today when bush is doing it by lying on ur faces and u wouldnt be able to do nothing Nothing at all. kanelli Shaf, there is always potential for disaster when you have people have stronger affiliation with another group other than "Iraqi" or "Kenyan". If they feel strongly about rallying behind their particular religious sect, political party or ethnic group, then it becomes more important to fight along those lines instead of fighting for what is best for all Iraqis or all Kenyans. shafique
You are right.
And we mustn't forget that all countries have their fair share of criminals whose allegiance is to those who can give them the most money and power. I met a few people who have just returned from Pakistan and they report that most of the looting, rioting and disorder was carried out by youths who merely took advantage of the disorder to create more disorder.
There was no reason, for example, to loot and burn trucks on highways. I suspect the same is happening in Iraq and Kenya.
Cheers,
Shafique sage & onion
The strange thing is that I know several Iraqi's living here in UAE, with families still in Iraq, and they all support the USA/UK led coalition. shahrez Amazing coincidence. Shaf is trying to say that the people who r looting are not the true image of pakistan and all the countries have same kind of criminals. This mantra comes out from each of u whenever something tragic happens there. What a way to get Sympthy from ur westrn friends. Sir they dont care and they never wil. Its ur problem u have to sort it out and it all starts when u give an equal Right to Vote to an uneducated and educated person alike. so wat do u expect from 80% uneducated people of pakistan. Benazir's corruption is arround 1.5 Billion who doesnt know and the whole country is crying for her. Now u got Mr Zardari who corruption is well known. everyone knows. Now I will see how u will stop him to play a role in ur country's politics. This is how democracy spits on ur faces in all third world countries. Mr sage is trying to give an impression that his country is having support for what she is doing in Iraq. Honestly I salute ur Patriotism. Its amazing how u guys transfer ur soft image accross with ur popular "Mantraz". Sir even if they did support, u sholdnt have espacially when u r in a better position to understand that ur governments have led this coalition for "Oil" and not to get rid of saddam or bring freedom to Iraqiz. 51% ( number is high I know) who dont know scintific laws and didnt understand how bulidings collapse Led those 49% who know science and know how they came down to live under the Rule of same criminals who commited that crime. This is how democracy spits on ur faces in West. But hey guys who cares u r doing a very good job by the way. What a way to put ur message accross. (Claps) benwj
If they can afford to live in Dubai they are probably reasonably well educated Iraqi's and understand that they are better off supporting the USA/UK led coalition rather than the only other option available, which is to support the sectarian violence and suicide bombings.



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy