Can anyone tell me if under Saddam Iraqis could:

[vogonity]

Buy a car.
Quit their job.
Access the Internet.
*Not* attend religious services..
Move to another city.
Get divorced.
Have a child while unwed.
Listen to American music.
Quit school.
Go to Graduate School.
Travel to Mecca.

Or any other number of things that those of us in the West might view as something we have as a "Freedom."

I am truly curious as to what our 'gift' of 'freedom' to Iraq has given them.



Sorry for previous self-delete, I thought I went to the wrong forum..

[CBGLuthier]

1. Iraq was a very secular nation

Can't address specifics but Iraq was a secular country which is part of why the fundamentalists did not care for them very much.

Which is one more proof that Al Queda and Saddam would never have worked together.

[zbdent]

2. I bet that they could go out and get a good cup of coffee then . . .

unlike some reporter's vision of the Green Zone now . . .

[BL611]

3. This veers very close

to apologizing for Saddam, the fact that there was a secular Sunni middle class odes not make Iraq at all an appealing situation, the Kurds and Shiites were treated horribly (and in the Kurds case probably the subject of genocide). I'm not saying that to endorse our recent course of action in the area, however Saddam was certainly a horrible dictator.

[zbdent]

4. I would guess that the US has killed more Iraqis now than

Saddam gassed, eh? Or is that being an "apologist"????

[BL611]

7. Do you have any evidence

to substantiate that guess? If not, then yes you are being an apologist for an authoritarian dictator.

[leftchick]

15. The Lancet published a finding of over 100,000 DEAD over a year ago

I am sure given our continued "Iron Fist" Operations we have doubled that amount. Yes our Dictator is worse than their dictator in lives lost and bodies tortured because he does it under the guise of "Freedom"! :puke:

[BL611]

17. Very unlikely

That another 100,000 have died over the last year. There is always a justification of freedom or some other sort of right when governments use aggression. Saddam has probably killed far more then 100,000 over his years. Our political institutions (however imperfect they may be) cannot be compared to that of Iraq's under Saddam, I have to regretfully say that it is that sort of irresponsible relativism that allows people like Bush to take power in the first place.

[leftchick]

22. interesting defense of wars of aggression

foreign occupation and understating deaths of innocents.

:eyes:

[BL611]

24. I never defended

any war of aggression, please tell me where in my post I endorsed the war in Iraq or an other war for that matter?

[leftchick]

35. you are a cool one...

Yeah whatever. Check out Megan's post for some information..


"Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds"
From the voices of Iraqis:

May 18 - Responses to a detailed survey conducted by a United Nations agency and the Iraqi government indicate that everyday conditions for Iraqis in the aftermath of the 2003 US-led invasion have deteriorated at an alarming rate, with huge numbers of people lacking adequate access to basic services and resources such as clean water, food, health care, electricity, jobs and sanitation.

"This survey shows a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq," Barham Salih, Iraq's minister of planning, said in statement, adding: "If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration."

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) conducted the far ranging survey, titled "Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004," in cooperation with Iraq’s Ministry of Planning.

Child Malnutrition in Iraq Increases Under U.S. Occupation, Says UN

Researchers determined that some 24,000 Iraqis died as a result of the US-led invasion in 2003 and the first year of occupation. Children below the age of 18 comprised 12 percent of those deaths, according to survey data.

The study also indicates that the invasion and its immediate aftermath forced more than 140,000 Iraqis to flee their homes.



http://newstandardnews.net/content/?items=1816

[BL611]

39. Once again

You attribute things to me I never said. As I said in an earlier post there is a difference between saying that life is better for Iraqi's now, and saying that life was desirable for most Iraqi's under Saddam. I do not believe most Iraqi's are in a better position right now then before the occupation, that is irrelevant to the fact that Saddam was a monster and that life was far from desirable for many Iraqi's which was my original (and really only) point.

[tkmorris]

36. Do you have any evidence

to substantiate that guess? If not then yes you are being an apologist for wars of agression and occupation based upon false pretenses.

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. In fairness, any "evidence" would be close to meaningless...

since the US military announced from the get go that it wasn't interested in Iraqi ( "enemy") casualties and was not going to count them.

Suffice it to say, an "enemy" in the circular logic of the military, is anyone killed by "coalition" forces.

[BL611]

19. again please substantiate that

I was in the military, I served in Iraq, I was not trained to shoot at innocent civilians and I know of no one who was.

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Show me where in my post I said or implied that....

you or any one else in the military was "trained to shoot at innocent civilians."

[BL611]

23. You said

in the circular logic of the military everyone thay shoot at is an "enemy"

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. 1. And you said ....

implying that I had asserted otherwise , "I was not trained to shoot at innocent civilians."

I made no such asssertion.

2. re. the "circular logic": no sane person will claim that every individual in civilian garb that has been killed by US fire since hostilities began was a legitimate military target.

Yet, how many civilian, non-combatant, "innocent" ( to use your terminiology) dead as a result of US fire has the military acknowledged since the outbreak of hostilities ( i.e. since the US launched it's war in Iraq)?

[BL611]

32. The military has not kept or released figures

on how many Iraqi's have died from US fire, whether combatant or otherwise, whether you agree with that or not, it does not mean that the military has considered all who have died combatants

[zbdent]

41. As long as this administration does not count "collateral damage"

then I guess that the "apologist for an authoritarian dictator" could be used to describe more than just Saddam Hussein . . .

[htuttle]

6. If Bush insists on claiming that 'Iraqis are better off today'

...then why should there be any problem analysing that claim?

Afraid it will be shown to be a lie?

[BL611]

8. Because there is difference

In saying that Iraqi's are better off today and saying that they were "free" under Saddam, I would think that is relatively apparent...

[Bridget Burke]

9. Do you have answers for the points in the OP?

Details matter.

[BL611]

10. Yes

it was in my first post on the thread (#3). While some Iraqi's could do those things others were being horribly oppressed.

[Bridget Burke]

12. No answers to those points....

How are the formerly-oppressed Iraqis doing now?

[htuttle]

11. Who's saying they were 'free' under Saddam?

But the fact is, they COULD do all of those things under Saddam. And they cannot do many of those things now, and will be able to do even less in the future Islamic Republic of Iraq, especially if they're women. Does that fit YOUR definition of 'freedom'?

Bush has *repeatedly* said Iraqis are better off today, an obvious falsehood.

[BL611]

14. The OP

made a list of things that Iraqi's (supposedly) could have done before the occupation and listed them as things we perceive as freedom. If his/her point was to ask whether or not the Iraqi's are better off now then before the invasion, the question could have been phrased better, as it is, it seems to be implying the POSSIBILITY of the poster saying Iraqi's were 'free", I did not make a definitive judgment as to the posters intent. As for them being able to do those things: as I said there was certainly a Sunni middle class, that middle class was a minority in the population. That would be like saying life in America is currently wonderful because we have a small strata of people doing very well for themselves.

[vogonity]

18. I did not state what the Iraqis were free to do under Saddam

I *asked* if the Iraqis were able to do these things (Travel, quit job, pursue higher education. etc.) I made NO statement that said that the Iraqis *were* free to do these things then, and now they are not. I think that it is pretty clear that they are NOW not able to do most of these things.

(on edit) I phrased my question as I did for this reason: I want to know what "Freedom" means to the people that are advocating that the Iraqis now have it. I listed a few things that my Western education has taught me are freedoms that I currently have. Are we bringing these freedoms to Iraq, or were they already there?

The reason I asked is I did not know the answer. I figured someone here might have firsthand experience.

From your answer it sounds like the Sunnis have less of those freedoms and the Kurds and Shiites have more. Fine. I respect your answer and have no desire to get into any kind of argument about it.

[BL611]

20. As I said

I made no judgment, I was asking what you were implying. As it in happens I do have first hand experience (albeit in post, not pre occupation Iraq) as far as I know there were SOME people who could do those things, they were a small minority.

[Capn Sunshine]

28. I'll go way out on a limb here

and postulate that things in Iraq, in every quantifiable measure of life- running water, universities, running electric grid, world class antiquities research, thriving art community, were better. The borders were secure, and there was no chaos, no civil war.

What was worse? nothing I see, and there were a LOT more Iraquis living then as opposed to now.

What was the same?
Fear of a knock on the door in the middle of the night. Corrupt government officials. Rape rooms and torture at the prisons. All the stuff Saddam was doing, we are responsible for letting happen under a new regime. And there's no way that letting Blackwater security kill whomever they want with no fear of punishment is an improvement over Uday and Qusay. Unless it's because the Blackwater guys have little flag patches. That's a nice touch.

[Finder]

25. Well I will bite your bait and say...

I do think the educated, secular middle class and females in general were better off under Saddam.

Were the fundies in our country better off under Clinton? Freepers often cite Waco as a case where we killed our own.(christian persecution bullshit)

True, the fundies in Iraq(the ones that tried to oust him from power after the first gulf war)were not allowed to push their sharia views upon the government or people in Iraq and were fought off militarily by the gov when they tried. Also true that the ameriKurds(and their innocent families) were brutally dealt with for allowing Iran to infiltrate during the Iran/Iraq war. War sucks and we are in no position to talk about what it immoral in war.

I do think if we hadn't interfered the country would have had a better chance to become a democracy. I do believe his sons would have been a problem the world would have wanted to solve. We have set the people back decades, IMO. Same with Iran...we are trampling the seeds of democracy with our idiocy.

Iraq did have corruption in its gov as well as some that were cruel and not beyond torture....but WE do too.

[BL611]

27. First of all

Not nearly all Iraqi shiites are fundamentalists, regardless of their religious intensity they were [persecuted for their ethnicity. Yes we can judge what is moral/immoral in war-torture is immoral and we should be ashamed of it, genocide is also immoral, because Germany was at war does not justify the holocaust.

[Finder]

34. Persecuted for their ethnicity?

Sunnis and Shias are generally both arabs. The Kurds are of primarily a different ethnicity but Iraq is not the only country that has issues with the Kurds. Most families in Baghdad and its suburbs are mixed. As you can see in our own country...persecution is in the eye of the beholder in many cases.

We can no more simplify the demographics of Iraq than we can a major city in the US. The tribal areas south of Baghdad and in the north toward the Kurdish areas have not been under Saddam's rule for over a decade thanks to the no fly zones.

Of course, I am a relativist so I am looking at it from a different angle.

[BL611]

37. Yes

the sunni/shiite divide is tribal, not ethnic, I apologize for the lack of clarity, although I don't know how that changes the point. Yes that "persecution is in the eye of the beholder" is quite relative, I'm not sure what else there is to say on that....

[frictionlessO]

33. True and it is blatantly obvious that they are not better off today.

Thank you for your service btw.

[Jacobin]

43. We've really improved the situation there then?

[htuttle]

5. They could do all of them...

They had big problems getting access to the internet due to sanctions, however. AFAIK, there weren't any ISPs until 1999. In 1999, the Iraqi government set up 'uruklink.net', but I'm not sure how widespread computer ownership could possibly have been at the time (again, because of sanctions).

I knew a number of expat Iraqis in the late 80's, and the main beef they personally had with Saddam was starting the Iran/Iraq war.

[WearyOne]

13. well I know that they had jobs, homes, electricity, clean water

a monthly food allowance, social security benefits, free education including universities, women had a degree of emancipation and the best free medical system in the ME..and cheap oil..not too sure about the other things..but they don't any of these things anymore.

The guy was obviously a monster but he was smart enough to try to give the majority of Iraqis a reasonable standard of living.

[Finder]

26. YES n/t

[meganmonkey]

30. "Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds"

From the voices of Iraqis:

May 18 - Responses to a detailed survey conducted by a United Nations agency and the Iraqi government indicate that everyday conditions for Iraqis in the aftermath of the 2003 US-led invasion have deteriorated at an alarming rate, with huge numbers of people lacking adequate access to basic services and resources such as clean water, food, health care, electricity, jobs and sanitation.

"This survey shows a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq," Barham Salih, Iraq's minister of planning, said in statement, adding: "If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration."

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) conducted the far ranging survey, titled "Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004," in cooperation with Iraq’s Ministry of Planning.

Child Malnutrition in Iraq Increases Under U.S. Occupation, Says UN

Researchers determined that some 24,000 Iraqis died as a result of the US-led invasion in 2003 and the first year of occupation. Children below the age of 18 comprised 12 percent of those deaths, according to survey data.

The study also indicates that the invasion and its immediate aftermath forced more than 140,000 Iraqis to flee their homes.



http://newstandardnews.net/content/?items=1816

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Pre-war Iraq sounds like the kind of place where

political or ethnic resistance was punished fiercely and with unjustifiable cruelty, but where people who stayed within the lines got along all right.

It wasn't a paradise, but it had a functioning civilian infrastructure and a secular approach to politics.

Now the U.S. brags about building schools and restoring electricity, i.e. replacing things that it broke in the first place.

Oh, yes, and the women of Iraq are now afraid to go out of the house because of all the rapes and kidnappings, and they have adopted Islamic dress out of fear of harassment.

[cantstandbush]

38. If you were not an enemy of Saddam's, if you were not trying to overthrow

his government, and you stayed out of the way of Uday and Qusay, you had most freedoms we enjoy. Except you couldn't criticize Saddam. We are almost there with Bush regime now. Women enjoyed a lot of freedoms under Saddam that the Shia theocracy will not permit them. Before Reagan, Iraqis were among the most literate population in the world simply because their women were among the most educated. They had free health care and education and travel abroad was a high priority.

[rinsd]

40. Here some fun for you.....

Many here will scream police state at what the US has become yet we enjoy all of the above freedoms.

One can dispute the US invasion without seeking to rehab Saddam's image.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. This Ain't Rocket Science

The antebellum Iraq was a relatively safe and crappy place...Now it's a relatively unsafe and crappy place...