hinduwoman

I watched an interview on an Indian newschannel of Iraqis. They all keep on saying things were better in Saddam's regime.
Some of the Baghdad citizens complained that law and order had completely broken down and street crimes have escalated. In Saddam's regime we were safe they kept on saying.
Another man mentioned the shooting of a Christian who ran a wine shop. Apparently a local Muslim group is trying to improve the moral tone and establish Islamic rule. Saddam's troops kept such infidels safe, he said.
The news reader also said that women were now staying at home, thinking of leaving jobs and studies, and when they move always wear burqah when before they wore jeans and makeup. They complained that when Saddam ruled yadayadayada�

I cannot believe Iraqis are already thinking of Saddam's rule as a golden era.
How the hell could Bush screw it up that badly? It takes godgiven genius. I mean it is Saddam we are talking about!

lunachick

I'm not surprised, to be honest. The whole thing is a diabolical mess, and the future is looking pretty sick.

lpetrich

And what is especially weird is that only the Kurds seem to like our occupation. I can understand the Sunni Arabs disliking it, and especially Tikrit inhabitants disliking it, but I'm baffled by the Shiites. They seem like an amazing bunch of ingrates; they seem completely unwilling to give the Great Satan his due.

Bill

Many Italians felt the same way about Mussolinni (dictator of Italy after WW I and until he was killed as the USA invaded Italy). "Mussolinni made the trains run on time" was the old complaint. The Italians wouldn't work very hard or very well. Mussolinni gave them incentive to mend their ways (they were allowed to keep breathing). Saddam did much the same for Iraq. He had many good accomplishments, including building hospitals, libraries, public utilities, schools, universities, and so forth. Saddam's secular government allowed women to be equal. The forthcoming Islamic state will "put women in their place" (much as the Promise Keepers plan to do here in the USA....).

== Bill

Bill

Don't forget that the Kurds have been under US occupation since Gulf War I. So, the US has had over a decade to "work out the kinks" in that relationship. Yes, but this outcome with the Shiites was entirely predictable, so nobody should be the least bit surprised. The Shiite population of Iraq has been in cultural alliance with Iran since at least the 1970s. They were 3rd class citizens in Iraq, so why not?

== Bill

sodium

My guess is that both Baathists and theocratic Shiites want America out, because they each think they will end up controlling the country when the Americans are gone. The Shiites have population on their side, but the Baathists ended up in control before. National and religious groups have a tendency toward optimism.

The Kurds however perceive that American intervention is the reason they haven't been exterminated.

I think its also worthwhile pointing out that when we think of Saddam's rule, we think about torture chambers and mass graves, and lunatic sons raping and murdering indiscriminately. But the problem is that the great majority don't necessarily view these things as affecting them, and they judge a regime by how it affects their own lives.

exnihilo

I agree with lunachick, no big surprise, why right here in the good ole US of A people think of Ronald Reagan the same way. Perhaps, he wasn't as blatant as saddam, but what took place in South/central america during the 1980's was just as brutal and happened on a much larger scale. Of course, lets not forget who is really responsible for proper old saddam up, yeah thats right, reagan and his cold war goons.
It is absolutely dispicable that people like oliver north can have a talk show, when by any standard of justice he should be in prison.
While the ultimte degree of repression, torture, and murder that took place in countries like indonesia, el salvador, chile, honduras, guatemala, the phillipines, panama, etc etc etc, the legacy of brutality that the people of these countries live with is in essence no different than that of the people of Iraq. By contrast, it would seem that because the atrocities committed at the direction of reagan administration officials were committed gleefully and unapologetically in the name of freedom and the american way, it makes these crimes far more dangerous and revolting, for while the world cries for Iraq, who speaks for people like Oscar Romero, whose assasination was planned in the US embassy and carried out by cia/school of the americas hitmen?

contracycle

A group called YouGov comissioned a poll in Baghdad, the first authentically methodical poll known in the city. The results are both intersting and ambivalent.

http://www.channel4.co.uk/news/2003/...3/16_poll.html

hinduwoman

So you are saying that people who suffered in Saddam's regime were those who opposed him. The ordinary citizen provided he kept his mouth shut led a normal life, and of course it was definitely better for the women.

I guess you are right. Something like that happened in India when Emergency was imposed by Indira Gandhi. Many people say it was a good time --- public facilities operating at peak efficiency, govt. clerks actually doing their jobs without redtape etc. Political opponents went to jail and were tortured. But even those like my father who did not suffer too much for opposing some measures (he only got suspended) think those were good times.

lpetrich

Seems like a recipe for a blood-Baath.

(sorry, I couldn't resist)