“Iraqis were better off under Saddam”
The Iraq Solidarity Campaign | 31.10.2006 19:41 | Anti-militarism | Globalisation | Social Struggles
Spiraling violence and daily bloodshed that began with the early days of the US-led invasion and intensified in recent months have torn the fabric of the Iraqi society, breaking communities and their long-established social networks reported Al-Jazeera.
“All the elements of society have been dismantled,” said Fawsia Abdul al-Attiya, a sociologist and a professor at Baghdad University. “You are afraid because you are a woman, a man, a Sunni, a Shia, a Kurd.
“All these things start to change society.”Comparing their life to that under Saddam, Iraqis long for the relative tranquility and safety they enjoyed during the era of their toppled leader Saddam Hussein.
Three years have passed since the U.S. invaders entered the country to “liberate” it, and none of the U.S. “promises” have been fulfilled. All development in the country point to the U.S. failure in Iraq.
Last week, Hans Blix, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to Iraq war three years ago, described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "pure failure" that made conditions in the country worse off than under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
Speaking to the Danish newspaper Politiken, Blix attacked the Bush administration saying it ended up in a situation in which neither staying nor leaving Iraq were good options.
"Iraq is a pure failure," The Associated Press quoted Blix as saying. "If the Americans pull out, there is a risk that they will leave a country in civil war. At the same time, it doesn't seem that the United States can help to stabilise the situation by staying there."
According to Blix, the situation would have been better if the U.S. didn’t launch the war in the first place.
"Saddam would still have been sitting in office. Okay, that is negative and it would not have been joyful for the Iraqi people. But what we have gotten is undoubtedly worse," he added.
War-related violence in Iraq is on the rise, claiming scores of innocent lives everyday. Also casualties among the U.S. military personnel are increasing, with at least 95 American soldiers killed in October only.
Before the war broke out, Blix was faced harsh criticism and pressure from the U.S. government after he demanded the American President George W. Bush allow the weapons inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency to continue their work as a way to stave off a war.
The U.S. army invaded Iraq but no such weapons were ever found.
Last year, President Bush said he would accept nothing less than “complete victory in Iraq”, but over a year has passed and the situation continues to deteriorate.What we’re witnessing and have been witnessing in Iraq since the war began indicate that victory for the U.S., whatever that might mean, is just an exaggerated dream.
The Iraq Solidarity Campaign
e-mail:
iraq_campaign@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.iraqsolidaritycampaign.blogspot.com
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
“Iraqis were better off under Saddam”
31.10.2006 20:49
If I have a toothache and so do you then you cannot say your toothache is worse (or better) than mine and likewise I cannot say my tooth ache is worse or better than yours. We cannot compare for Iraqi's maybe nor can they.
The reason for this is pain is subjective and though whilst it is observable it is difficult to calculate which toothache bearer has the worst pain. People experience pain differantly.
Are there more reasons to be pained if you are an iraqi?
Answer this yourself.
Is there a sense that you and others suffer worse since sadaam's tyranny and sanctions ended, and is it worse or better since now another brand of tyranny and bloodshed through war and civil war and loss is in vogue?
Are/were Iraqi's better off under Saddam?
I'd say from a objective sense NO, are they better off now under US/UK occupation, id say from an objective sense - NO.
I pray.
I hope.
lhm
who is better off??
31.10.2006 22:37
Did the Iraqi people have a government that carried Iraqi passports under Saddam and do they under "democracy"?
The UN itself said that Iraq had the best health service in the region during the 1980's along with the best education system, that helped ordinary people from the poorest backgrounds obtain qualifications, which they cannot obtain now.
Did the people have job security, under a system of nationalised industries that saw investment put back into the country and saw the Iraqi economy develop for the needs of the people.
Did Iraq have a government that was based on ethnic or religious lines, which saw the Christians being driven out of Iraq, the Shia and Sunni killing each other and women being forced to wear veils and leave jobs due to armed gangs threatening them?
Did Saddam Hussain allow children to die as a result of malnutrition, did the hospitals have medicine and were the schools empty, whilst Iraq was ruled by Saddam?
Since democracy has come to Iraq, people are starving, unemployed and schools are empty. Hospitals have less medicine now than under the UN imposed Sanctions. Women are being forced to wear the veil and the element of Choice, which existed under Saddam is also under an increased threat.
The increase in sectarian violence, since democracy has been imposed on Iraq has meant communities are being dispersed and secularism is gradually being eroded by the Iranian backed Dawa and SCIRI.
Bush and Blair launched the invasion on the back of false ervidence given to them by the British and US based "Iraqi Opposition" groups which took part in illegal elections, whilst carrying their British and American passports.
Those same groups claim to "run" Iraq, but maintain their homes, jobs, passports and lifestyles of the Western world and refuse to give them up.
"our boys" are dying for Iraqi political parties who told lies to the Western governments and now refuse to take responsability for the mess they have caused. Bring back Saddm and return normality to the Iraqi people. Who wants the right to vote, when you are starving, unemployed and your sick children cannot get medicine?
iraqi in the uk
unfortunately
01.11.2006 12:02
... that was the plan.
If you plan to bomb a country back to the stoneage, then no one should be suprised that that is the post bombing result.
Serves them right for building their civilisation over our resources ... can anyone tell me how those clever darkies did that?
jsl
Litmus Test
01.11.2006 13:43
Could Bush, Blair or the Queen do likewise? No way! Which is why we don't have any guns!!
Measurer
RUBBISH
03.11.2006 15:59
J&P