Annan: Life for Iraqis worse than with Saddam

[CSpec]

LONDON - The level of violence in Iraq is "much worse" than that of Lebanon's civil war, outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in an interview aired Monday.

Speaking to the British Broadcasting Corp., Annan agreed that the average Iraqi's life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein and called the situation in the country "extremely dangerous."

"Given the level of violence, the level of killing and bitterness and the way that forces are arranged against each other, a few years ago, when we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war; this is much worse," Annan said.

Last week, when asked by reporters whether the fighting in Iraq could be considered a civil war, Annan said "almost."

"I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there," he said last week.

In the BBC interview, Annan agreed when it was suggested that some Iraqis believe life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein's regime.

'They could go out' under Saddam

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life," Annan said.

"If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?'" he said.

"And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control. The society needs security and a secure environment for it to get on — without security not much can be done — not recovery or reconstruction," Annan added.

He urged the international community to help rebuild the country, saying he was not sure Iraq could do it on its own.

[Flybrian]

Iraq is not a nation as we know it. Want to blame someone? Blame the politicans who drew the boundaries on English and French maps over a century ago.

[siegen]

But how many countless people were taken and executed under Saddam's rule? The violence may not have been out in the streets or in the media, but lots of people still died. More than now? It's hard to say.

[Intrepidation]

Seriously, these radicalists are morns. What point does it serve to cause terror and get nowhere with it? It's more or less a stalemate. And as histry has shown us, the US miltary can't fight guerillas for $h!...unless they are out in the open with no cover.

[aaaantoine]

Oh, they're getting somewhere with all this violence.

They're preventing an all-out western takeover. Additionally, they're showing the differences in opinion our country has over the war, continually providing fuel to those against it.

[trinacriabob]

Only because they choose to make it this way. Their current government is not designed to oppress people, though it is not really up to the task. These people are reinforcing the stereotype that this corner of the world is full of unruly people incapable of going about life in an orderly manner. I don't know where all the sickness of haphazard killing based on religious fanaticism is going to take them. It's very sad. That entire area could, and ought to, be able to enjoy a lifestyle that is found in other more progressive Muslim areas such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, for example.

[capriceman]

USA Good at = Conquering country's and Covert secret Espionage type stuff.

USA Bad At = Controlling country's after we conquered them And taking leaders out of position. Examples The Philippines and Cuba. Also Castro for the other bad part.(The swim suit with poison )

[CARBIZ]

Most of these countries are artificial entities established during colonial times, usually by Great Britain and France. I cannot believe that Bush and Co. would not have imagined that once the universally hated/feared leader was removed that the country would not dissolve into thousand year old tribal jealousies/hatred. It has happened in far more civilized "countries" like the former Czechoslovakia that imploded once a hated ruler (Russia) was removed. Why would Bush not conceive that could happen?

[regfootball]

in theory, over time, removing Saddam is a good thing, but right now its a big mess. Things just likely will never be stable there in our lifetimes.

bob said it right. incapable of going about life in an orderly manner.

[Intrepidation]

Most of these countries are artificial entities established during colonial times, usually by Great Britain and France.    I cannot believe that Bush and Co. would not have imagined that once the universally hated/feared leader was removed that the country would not dissolve into thousand year old tribal jealousies/hatred.  It has happened in far more civilized "countries" like the former Czechoslovakia that imploded once a hated ruler (Russia) was removed.  Why would Bush not conceive that could happen?

223883[/snapback]

Cuz he's an idiot.

[sciguy_0504]

Kofi Annan:

United Nations: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[razoredge]

They all just need to swear their rightousness on the Koran........then everything will be alright and all those generations of inbred insanity will suddenly be gone........

I know, let just bring them all over here.........hell we got room, and a proven beurocractic infrastructure that knows how to deal with the downtroden. Just think of all the new government jobs it would create.

What was that old Beatles tune again ?

"I wanna hold your hand " ?

[ZL-1]

Only because they choose to make it this way.  Their current government is not designed to oppress people, though it is not really up to the task.  These people are reinforcing the stereotype that this corner of the world is full of unruly people incapable of going about life in an orderly manner.  I don't know where all the sickness of haphazard killing based on religious fanaticism is going to take them.  It's very sad.  That entire area could, and ought to, be able to enjoy a lifestyle that is found in other more progressive Muslim areas such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, for example.

223848[/snapback]

You forgot Bahrain

[trinacriabob]

You forgot Bahrain

224103[/snapback]

Obrigado, eu esquici as outras nacoes mais liberais Edited December 5, 2006 by trinacriabob

[ZL-1]

Obrigado, eu esquici as outras nacoes mais liberais

224162[/snapback]

Well, in the Persian Gulf Bahrain is the only more liberal country besides the UAE. Kuwait's also interesting: the laws are way less liberal than in Bahrain and the UAE, yet it is the Gulf country where women are more emancipated.