http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/18/international/worldspecial/18LOOT.html "People are already beginning to say, `Why don't we go back to Saddam?' " she said. "At least it was more safe, more peaceful."
Some Germans said - "we were better off under the Nazis." Some Russians still pine for the orderly (but deadly) days of Communism. Change takes time. I saw an article today about people welcoming back the #1 Iraqi goalkeeper from the 1980s when Iraq had a decent team. He left when Uday took control and started torturing them for poor performances. It's just a small bit of normalcy in Iraq, but soccer is one thing that unites the various peoples of Iraq.
Re: Re: Saddam better than America? Few in Iraq would prefer what they're going through now to living under Saddam. We can only hope that things get better.
Re: Re: Re: Saddam better than America? He said, knowing first-hand the living conditions in Iraq both under Saddam and now under Allied occupation.
Re: Re: Re: Saddam better than America? **Poll conducted by Ben Reilly Research Institute. Results are from a random sample of 1 - Ben Reilly. Contact BRRI with questions or comments if you happen to be: A - an Iraqi citizen glad to see Saddam go, B - a dead Iraqi citizen glad to see Saddam go, C - a yet unborn Iraqi citizen glad to see Saddam go, D - a French govt. official looking for a copy of Ben's polling data/methodology
It's obvious that living conditions are vastly worse. It's not even close. I can't believe the extent people will go to lie to support their positions. This isn't even debatable. Let's hope things will get better in the near future, but right now it's a nightmare.
Yeah, too bad the Iraqi people can now live their lives without having to worry about their children being pushed thru a giant plastic shredder to get them to confess to plotting against Saddam. And that whole not having their food money go to building nuclear weapons and presidential palaces thing must suck too.
What, and getting shot by roving gangs is any better? Almost everyone is out of a job, and the few that have them are not getting paid. Iraqis no longer have any say in their government or any say in how their main resource is to be used. What kind of freedom is that?
Yeah, because that's happening to EVERYONE. But they're getting free handouts from Allied troops, so it doesn't really matter. No longer have any say?? They did under Saddam?? At least now they know they will have a say at some point in the near future.
> Yeah, because that's happening to EVERYONE. So the it isn't the quantity of crime that is important, it is the equality? How egalitarian of you. > But they're getting free handouts from Allied > troops, so it doesn't really matter. Are they really getting enough? When you read something like this about people selling possessions to get a bag of rice I'm not to sure. Something like 2/3 of the grain crop (which should be harvested about now) and most of the vegatable crop has also been destroyed because the lack of electricity leading to the lack of irrigation, which will make the future even worse. > No longer have any say?? They did under > Saddam?? Sure it was. Saddam was an Iraqi, and at first the oil wealth was going to improving his nation. Later it went towards a useless war, but even though it was the US that tricked him into fighting it, it was still the choice of the Iraqis to fight Iran. In the last decade, they really did not have that much power over it because we had a near total blockade on Iraq. > At least now they know they will have a say at > some point in the near future. You are only guessing this, and judging by the way the US is behaving, I think it is a poor bet to take.
So, is there room on the flag for a 51st state?Why haven't you called? Or are the phones to Halliburton...err, i mean the White House busy?
Dear Republican person, I have a theory that the Iraqi people are not very worried about plastic shredders or newks right now. Sincerely, Abraham Maslow
No doubt the people finding relatives in mass graves are really missing the good old days of Saddam. What a bunch of creeps in this forum.
I don't think the U.S. is any more popular than Saddam was. You don't find mass graves after the U.S. attacks because, generally, our bombs don't leave enough pieces of the bodies to bury.
The inabilitly of the pinko marixists to admit that the US didn't target civilians is not surprising. I wish they would just stop posting about said topic.
> The inabilitly of the pinko marixists to admit that > the US didn't target civilians is not surprising. You are complaining that people died because of Saddam. Well, people died because of America as well. Intention doesn't matter - they are still dead.
The ability of the nationalist hawks to turn a blind eye to the terrible human cost of war is beyond my comprehension.
Blind eye? No I am aware of the terrible human cost of war, which is exactly why war is a last recourse. Fabricating stories about US intent to kill iraqi civilians would be your job Rolo. And spejic, i am not overlooking the fact that innocents die despite intent. I simply hate people when people make up such monsterous stories.
Except the original quote made no mention of, or allusion to, an intent to kill civilians. It merely observed that the effect of US bombs on bodies was such that a mass grave would, in all probability, prove superfluous. You just inserted the non-existent intent because you needed it in order to post the words "pinko marxists" (I mean .... really! Have yourself a LOL)