One in three Iraqis 'in poverty'

[Maximus Zeebra]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | One in three Iraqis 'in poverty'

"One-third of Iraqis are now living in poverty, according to a new UN study, with 5% in extreme poverty, a sharp deterioration since the 2003 invasion."

"Oil riches are not benefiting many of Iraq's people, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) study says."

 

[Ikari]

I can't imagine that, with all their stuff being blown up on a routine basis, that many Iraqi's would find themselves as rich.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I can't imagine that, with all their stuff being blown up on a routine basis, that many Iraqi's would find themselves as rich.

Its true, they were better of with Saddam, this is a shame to say, but its true.

 

[Stinger]

Its true, they were better of with Saddam, this is a shame to say, but its true.

You really think that? You would rather live under a dictator who practices summary execution, rape and torture without the freedoms we have here than have a 5% extreme poverty rate or even a third in poverty? How many Germans were in poverty 3 years after WW2? Was Germany better off under Hitler before WW2 than it was 3 years after the war?

 

[Kandahar]

You really think that? You would rather live under a dictator who practices summary execution, rape and torture without the freedoms we have here than have a 5% extreme poverty rate or even a third in poverty?

Umm yes. There's an old Arab saying: A century of tyranny is better than five minutes of anarchy. I can't think of anything more true in the case of Iraq.

How many Germans were in poverty 3 years after WW2? Was Germany better off under Hitler before WW2 than it was 3 years after the war?

No.

 

[Ikari]

You really think that? You would rather live under a dictator who practices summary execution, rape and torture without the freedoms we have here than have a 5% extreme poverty rate or even a third in poverty?

It is unfortunate, as you say Saddam was not a nice guy to say the least. That's why it's particularly sad that the current state in Iraq is much worse than what the Iraqi people had under Saddam. A mad man of his magnitude, it should have been easy to improve the lot of the Iraqi's. Instead, we delivered unto them a situation of chaos and death. At least under Saddam, if you kept your mouth shut and just went about your day you could avoid actions which would get you killed. Now, it's random; walk outside and you may or may not end up dead. No matter what side you take in this war, you must acknowledge the truth, that the lot of the Iraqi people now is worse than under Saddam.

I also don't believe Bush to have the vision to be able to bring peace to Iraq either. The whole of the war, from the reasons we went to present, has been mishandled and overburdened with incompetence.

 

[Stinger]

Umm yes. There's an old Arab saying: A century of tyranny is better than five minutes of anarchy. I can't think of anything more true in the case of Iraq.

I'm sorry but I don't follow how that applies. Iraq is not in anarchy, the violence is in very limited places.

No.

OK Germany was in as bad if not worse condition so why were they better off but the Iraqi's are not?

 

[Kandahar]

I'm sorry but I don't follow how that applies. Iraq is not in anarchy, the violence is in very limited places.

Kurdistan has a functional government. The rest of the country is a free for all.

OK Germany was in as bad if not worse condition so why were they better off but the Iraqi's are not?

Sigh.

Because Iraq is not Germany, and Saddam Hussein is not Hitler. Iraq is a third-world country, so poverty means something very different than it meant to Germany. And Saddam Hussein wasn't murdering millions of his own citizens. He could ineptly kill a few thousand at a time, and he couldn't even do this very often. Also, Hitler was an ideologue bent on world domination, whereas Saddam Hussein was a tinpot dictator with no ideology who was interested in minor regional dominance for his own ego's sake.

 

[Stinger]

It is unfortunate, as you say Saddam was not a nice guy to say the least.

You are joking. Not a nice guy just to say the least? Why can't you just come our and say how bad he was?

That's why it's particularly sad that the current state in Iraq is much worse than what the Iraqi people had under Saddam.

Depends on the measures you use doesn't it.

A mad man of his magnitude, it should have been easy to improve the lot of the Iraqi's. Instead, we delivered unto them a situation of chaos and death.

Death did not occour under Saddam. I admit he had absolute control over everything and you certainly didn't oppose his oppression else you find yourself beheaded of fed down a wood chipper.

At least under Saddam, if you kept your mouth shut and just went about your day you could avoid actions which would get you killed.

Well heck we could do that now. Why don't we order our troops to kill everyone who opposes democratic government, their families and their families, we can imprison anyone we suspect of being an insurgent and torture them until they talk and then we will send their bodies, in pieces, back to the families. Then they will be better off.

Now, it's random; walk outside and you may or may not end up dead. No matter what side you take in this war, you must acknowledge the truth, that the lot of the Iraqi people now is worse than under Saddam.

And you must acknowledge that a lot are better off and the prospects for them getting even better and more getting better are certainly better than under Saddam.

I also don't believe Bush to have the vision to be able to bring peace to Iraq either.

What would that vision be? He has seen to it that they elected an interim government, wrote a constitution, elected a parliment and prime minister and have begun creating a police and military to protect the citizens.

The whole of the war, from the reasons we went to present, has been mishandled and overburdened with incompetence.

As is every war in hind site. Do I believe those who point fingers would have done better, not for a second.

 

[Stinger]

Kurdistan has a functional government. The rest of the country is a free for all.

No it is not.

Because Iraq is not Germany, and Saddam Hussein is not Hitler.

Saddam was as close to Hitler, if not worse, than anyone we have seen since Hitler.

Iraq is a third-world country,

And for all intents and purposes so was Germany after WW2.

so poverty means something very different than it meant to Germany.

Yes it was something Germany had never experience on a large scale, but the total devastation brought it upon them.

And Saddam Hussein wasn't murdering millions of his own citizens.

Just hundreds of thousands.

He could ineptly kill a few thousand at a time,

OH that made it better.

and he couldn't even do this very often.

Even more better. He didn't have the gas chambers so he just had to wipe out whole cities.

Also, Hitler was an ideologue bent on world domination, whereas Saddam Hussein was a tinpot dictator with no ideology who was interested in minor regional dominance for his own ego's sake.

You underestimate Saddam.

Why do you think it was the official policy of the United States to remove him, that the previous administration had said that unless he was removed from office he WOULD use WMD again and he WOULD bring chaos to the entire Middle East and he WOULD threaten the neighboring countries again and this WAS a threat to our security?

 

[Ikari]

You are joking. Not a nice guy just to say the least? Why can't you just come our and say how bad he was?

We all know how badly Saddam backfired on us, it goes without saying.

Depends on the measures you use doesn't it.

How about probability of death?

Death did not occour under Saddam. I admit he had absolute control over everything and you certainly didn't oppose his oppression else you find yourself beheaded of fed down a wood chipper.

Death did occur under Saddam, most horrible atrocities were committed. If you stood against Saddam, there was a good chance you would be killed.

Well heck we could do that now. Why don't we order our troops to kill everyone who opposes democratic government, their families and their families, we can imprison anyone we suspect of being an insurgent and torture them until they talk and then we will send their bodies, in pieces, back to the families. Then they will be better off.

There is some of that going on. I don't think it would behoove us, as the occupier, to engage in tyranny.

And you must acknowledge that a lot are better off and the prospects for them getting even better and more getting better are certainly better than under Saddam.

Incorrect. They are not better off as the death in their country went from regulated to random. Under Saddam there was death, but it was avoidable. Now it is random, the poverty, the uncertain nature of their government, the war and violence, and the death the situation is a lot worse for them. Can they improve? It is possible, but with us as occupiers in there land they will always have a common enemy to rally against. The people of Iraq were too broken amongst themselves to have revolted against Saddam. Now that we "delivered" freedom unto them, we see just how fractured they really are. Without the united people, freedom and liberty will be hard for them to obtain and keep. As such, the prospects for a government which will serve the people as a whole is unlikely. Mostly it will be dominated by one sec or the other and the rules will be made to favor them.

What would that vision be? He has seen to it that they elected an interim government, wrote a constitution, elected a parliment and prime minister and have begun creating a police and military to protect the citizens.

There is no protection of the citizenry. The sham of a government is doomed to failure as there are already cracks appearing. The people are too divided and there is too much violence to try to claim any form of victory at this point. People want to say all these things, but what happens if we pull out completely? You know the answer, the civil war which already ravages the land will escalate. There is no government capable of providing for its people, it is all supported by the US right now. As such, there has been no major gains in Iraq.

As is every war in hind site. Do I believe those who point fingers would have done better, not for a second.

There are many wars which have been fought with intelligence and integrity. Iraq has been one mishandling after the other. Surely George Washington demonstrated great intelligence on the battle field.

And of course I would have done better, I would have never went into Iraq in the first place. There was no reason, Saddam being a jackass is not a reason to invade. If we are the liberators of the meek, why do we do nothing about Africa? Why do we not do anything of the many other tyrants out there? Iraq was not ready for revolution, there was a reason the first George Bush didn't go into Iraq.

 

[Stinger]

We all know how badly Saddam backfired on us, it goes without saying.

Well it was our official policy to remove him, by force, wasn't it.

How about probability of death?

What about it?

Death did occur under Saddam, most horrible atrocities were committed. If you stood against Saddam, there was a good chance you would be killed.

Yep, so if they were better off then why don't we just do it too and round up everyone we think opposes a free Iraq and kill them and their families. THAT will bring peace and quiet wouldn't it and they'd be better off by the measures being applied here.

There is some of that going on. I don't think it would behoove us, as the occupier, to engage in tyranny.

But not by us. So let's just do what Saddam did and they will be better off.

Incorrect.

No correct.

They are not better off as the death in their country went from regulated to random. Under Saddam there was death, but it was avoidable.

Yeah if you let his sons rape your daughters, let the secret police torture and tear off your limbs if they just suspected you of doing something.

So let's do that now since they will be better off.

Now it is random, the poverty, the uncertain nature of their government, the war and violence, and the death the situation is a lot worse for them. Can they improve?

If Saddam was better then let's just copy him.

It is possible, but with us as occupiers

We're not occupiers but maybe we should be and then we can do as Saddam did and they will be better off.

The people of Iraq were too broken amongst themselves to have revolted against Saddam.

Or maybe they don't like the smell of mustard gas.

Now that we "delivered" freedom unto them,

We've delivered the opportunity for freedom, but since they were better off before let's just go back to the ways of Saddam.

There is no protection of the citizenry. The sham of a government is doomed to failure as there are already cracks appearing.

The let's get our Saddam's manual of success.

There are many wars which have been fought with intelligence and integrity.

There has never been a war that was not fraught with mistakes, miscalculations and an enemy who refuses to do as you want him to do.

Iraq has been one mishandling after the other. Surely George Washington demonstrated great intelligence on the battle field.

Despite the Continental Congress.

Do you think there were no major mistakes and miscalculations in WW2? There were no utter disasters on our side?

And of course I would have done better, I would have never went into Iraq in the first place.

Then you would have been in the minority.

There was no reason, Saddam being a jackass is not a reason to invade.

No that wouldn't have been a reason, and it wasn't so what is your point.

What was your plan?

If we are the liberators of the meek, why do we do nothing about Africa?

Well we did once but Clinton didn't have the guts to do it with the proper force.

Why do we not do anything of the many other tyrants out there?

So if we can't get rid of every tryant we should get rid of none? We got rid of Hitler but we didn't get rid of Stalin of Mao, should we have left Hitler?

Iraq was not ready for revolution, there was a reason the first George Bush didn't go into Iraq.

The reason the first Bush didn't was because the UN and the Democrats here didn't have the resolve to finish what should have been finished then. And we pay the price now, just as we will pay the price later if we fail now.

 

[Ikari]

What a load reactionist tripe that was. If you take an honest look at Iraq, you see a deplorable situation for its citizens. They are worse off than under Saddam, while the situation was bad under Saddam it got worse when we opened the floodgates. Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorist activity, anti-west warfare, and now instead of there being at least some chance of avoiding death by the government, it has become entirely random. That is the reality of the situation, one can debate this honestly or one can have knee-jerk reactions about it. It doesn't mean another Saddam should be in place, what it means is calling a duck a duck.

 

[Stinger]

What a load reactionist tripe that was.

I am only taking your position and applying it to the here and now.

If you take an honest look at Iraq, you see a deplorable situation for its citizens.

In some places, not in others. But if it was not deplorable under Saddam then let's just adopt his means and we can secure the country and they will be better off.

They are worse off than under Saddam, while the situation was bad under Saddam it got worse when we opened the floodgates.

I'm sorry what were the floodgates?

Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorist activity,

Wait a minute, I thought your side always claimed that it was not the war on terror there.
But we can just do as Saddam did and get rid of any opposition, kill their famlies, have mass beheadings in the soccer stadium and they will all be better off.

That is the reality of the situation, one can debate this honestly or one can have knee-jerk reactions about it.

I agree but if your side is going to do the latter then I will apply it to my post.

It doesn't mean another Saddam should be in place, what it means is calling a duck a duck.

OK if your position is that the Iraqi's were better off under Saddam then why don't we do as he did? You've yet to answer the question.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I'm sorry but I don't follow how that applies. Iraq is not in anarchy, the violence is in very limited places.

OK Germany was in as bad if not worse condition so why were they better off but the Iraqi's are not?

:2funny:

Are you serious? Iraq is almost in Civil WAR, its complete chaos, everything is worse than it was before, its becoming worse than most African countries..
In 2005 Iraq was the 4th least livable country after Sudan and some other crisis area countries.

Germany was far better of by any account than Iraq is today. Germany was better of with Hitler than Iraq was with Saddam, while Germany was much better of after Hitler than Iraq is after Saddam.

Iraq is a crisis, the situation is desperate, the US mismanaged a country with huge oil reserves to become one of the worst and poorest countries in the world.

 

[Stinger]

Are you serious? Iraq is almost in Civil WAR, its complete chaos, everything is worse than it was before, its becoming worse than most African countries..

Total hyperbole.

In 2005 Iraq was the 4th least livable country after Sudan and some other crisis area countries.

Cite.

Germany was far better of by any account than Iraq is today.

OK then let's put in a US military government and total military law.

Germany was better of with Hitler than Iraq was with Saddam, while Germany was much better of after Hitler than Iraq is after Saddam.

Germany was in TOTAL destruction, Iraq was not.

So why don't we just do as Saddam did, if they were better off?

 

[RightinNYC]

Hey everybody, why don't you take a second to stop bickering and look at the article and why it doesn't mean anything at all:

The study is the first major survey of living conditions since the US-led invasion in 2003, and is based on data from 2004.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the situation in Iraq might be marginally different than it was 3 years ago.

Furthermore, here's a couple questions for you MZ:

1) What was the poverty rate before the US entered?
2) What is the actual poverty rate now? (not 2004)
3) What is the poverty rate for most of the region?
4) Why do you pretend to care about the Iraqi's having a 1/3 poverty rate, but not give a **** about the continent of Africa, which is almost uniformly worse?

 

[faithful_servant]

Its true, they were better of with Saddam, this is a shame to say, but its true.

From Amnesty Int'l's report about conditions in Iraq under the Baathists:

Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists for long hours. Electric shocks have been used on various parts of their bodies, including the genitals, ears, the tongue and fingers. Victims have described to Amnesty International how they have been beaten with canes, whips, hosepipe or metal rods and how they have been suspended for hours from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole often in contorted positions as electric shocks were applied repeatedly on their bodies. Some victims had been forced to watch others, including their own relatives or family members, being tortured in front of them.

Other methods of physical torture described by former victims include the use of Falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus. In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and have been deprived of sleep. Some have stayed in solitary confinement for long periods of time. Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out.

Iraq: Systematic torture of political prisoneres - Amnesty International


Or how about a little something from The Iraq Foundation:

The history of internal repression is a story of repeated state violence against the Iraqi people, mass murder, execution, torture, extra-judicial detention, rape, forced displacement and deportation. In pursuit of the hegemonic appetite of its leader, the regime forced Iraqis into two wars that killed hundreds of thousand of Iraqis, ruined Iraq's economy, and robbed Iraqi children of their future.

State violence is practiced against any form of real or imagined political opposition or rivalry. Thus some of the first victims of the regime were military officers who had aided the Ba'thist coup of 1968. Non-Ba'thists were purged from state institutions. Fellow Ba'th party members who were viewed as possible future rivals were either removed or liquidated. Elimination of Ba'thists continued throughout the 1970s, and was stepped up on the accession of Saddam Hussein to the presidency in 1979. Finally, the party became a pliant tool in the hands of a single individual.

News

People who think that things were better under the Baathists are clueless about just what life was really like. It wasn't the sanitized version portrayed to the media, but rather one of the most vicious and cruel gov't ever.

 

[Stinger]

From Amnesty Int'l's report about conditions in Iraq under the Baathists:

Iraq: Systematic torture of political prisoneres - Amnesty International


Or how about a little something from The Iraq Foundation:

News

People who think that things were better under the Baathists are clueless about just what life was really like. It wasn't the sanitized version portrayed to the media, but rather one of the most vicious and cruel gov't ever.

Like I told them let's make everything better in Iraq and just start governing like Saddam did. Then the left will be happy, we can end the insurgency and control the country. Of course it makes you wonder why they cry so louding at the minor mistreatment some of the prisoners at Abu Ghuribe endured when if fact it was worse under Saddam yet they want to go back to that.

 

[Stinger]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | One in three Iraqis 'in poverty'

"One-third of Iraqis are now living in poverty, according to a new UN study, with 5% in extreme poverty, a sharp deterioration since the 2003 invasion."

"Oil riches are not benefiting many of Iraq's people, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) study says."

BREITBART.COM - One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study



Kids get it extra badly, with almost 1/5 living in poverty:

And we didn't even invade them.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

BREITBART.COM - One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study



Kids get it extra badly, with almost 1/5 living in poverty:

And we didn't even invade them.

The European Commission's annual report on "social protection and social inclusion" also found 10 percent of people living in households without anybody working as well as wide discrepancies between life expectancies between EU member states.

Thats not extreme poverty like Iran, everyone in Europe live free of fear of bombs dropping down, while they can all feed themself.

Imageercent below poverty line.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2001 the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world with 14.8% of minors, 30% of African American minors, living below the poverty threshold."

US bringing their poverty to the world..

5% live in EXTREME poverty in Iraq already, while its likely that 90% are poor compared to the European standard you show.. 60% are unemployed, at least in Iraq.

 

[PeteEU]

If you use the same method on the US, that the EU used on itself to define poverty, then almost 1/3 of americans live under the poverty line too.. :roll:

 

[PrimBabUB]

Here's a positive step toward recovery and prosperity for Iraq. Of course it will take time to undo what Saddam did.

'Phenomenal' recovery of Iraq's biblical marshes - Environment - MSNBC.com

 

[Kandahar]

No it is not.

Yes it is, only Kurdistan is able to defend itself and regulate its affairs. The Shiite militias, who no one elected, run the southern part of Iraq. They even compete amongst themselves for power and influence. And there really isn't ANYONE running the Sunni part of Iraq.

Meanwhile, the elected government has very little power, relies almost entirely on the American military to maintain its existence, and is more sympathetic to Iran than the United States.

Saddam was as close to Hitler, if not worse, than anyone we have seen since Hitler.

:rofl
Yeah, right up until the next person comes along who you need to compare to Hitler for your own political purposes. I'm sure you've NEVER used the Hitler analogy for anyone else, right? :roll:

And for all intents and purposes so was Germany after WW2.

No, Germany has been modern for nearly as long as the UK and US have. Even after WWII, it was still a modern country, it was just modern and in ruins.

Yes it was something Germany had never experience on a large scale, but the total devastation brought it upon them.

Really. How many Germans fled the country after WWII? How many who had previously fled began returning?

One good measure of the well-being of average people is how they vote with their feet. Iraq is hemorrhaging people to its neighbors incredibly fast...nearly 10% of its population. These were people who presumably endured the hardships under Saddam.

Compare this with Germany, where people began RETURNING to the country after the war and after Hitler was gone.

Just hundreds of thousands.

OH that made it better.



Even more better. He didn't have the gas chambers so he just had to wipe out whole cities.

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing that your comparison is absurd.

You underestimate Saddam.

No, actually I estimated him to be exactly what the WMD search revealed him to be: a nuisance. You and George Bush considerably OVERestimated him.

Why do you think it was the official policy of the United States to remove him, that the previous administration had said that unless he was removed from office he WOULD use WMD again and he WOULD bring chaos to the entire Middle East and he WOULD threaten the neighboring countries again and this WAS a threat to our security?

Having an official policy to support his removal under the right circumstances, is NOT the same thing as invading the country, forcibly removing him from power, occupying the country for years, and setting up a government supposedly sympathetic to democracy and American interests, regardless of any adverse consequences.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The economic infrastructure in Iraq is inadequate. Despite the very, very sorry state of affairs in Iraq before the invasion, the economic infrastructure is currently even less functional than before.

Economically, Iraq's greatest vulnerability is that alll of its eggs are in one basket - petro products. It accounted for the vast bulk of the Iraqi govt income. The vulnerability of the oil infrastructure is one of the Iraqi govts swords of Damocles.

In the meanwhile, as long as there's insufficient legitimacy/stability for the major oil companies to start dropping the billions and billions necessary to make Iraq's petro-infrastructure functional Iraq will remain economically hamstrung.

Iraq is not in anarchy...

The Iraq govt just needs 20,000 more American troops in Baghdad so that the Iraqi troops can go certain places in the country's capital. But other than that sort of thing, the Iraqi govt has it all under control.

...the violence is in very limited places.

It's mostly limited to where there are people. So much of Iraq is largely unaffected.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_pop_2003.jpg

In an unrelated note:
Any guesses as to whose company has contracts to guard the oil?
Hints-
He has ties to Iran - his security chief was/is a member of the Pasdaran, information that the US had cracked an Iranian code reached Tehran through this conduit.