Saddam Saddam Saddam?

Question

Do you think that it would have been better to let that idiot remain in control of Iraq I mean when you look at it he had more control over that country than the US does and I'm sure he didn't spend as much money to do it. What do U think?

Your answers, different they all are, are all quite polarized. I am intrigued by many of them, but I think a few of you should look up some info on the U.S.-backed Batista regime in pre-Castro Cuba. That regime was notorious for torturing and killing many people. Just some food for though or fuel for the fire....

Answer 1

I think that is an very arrogant statement. I think the Iraqi people are the ones to decide their future not a brutal dictator or an outside power whether that be Iran, Syria or the U.S. If a majority of Iraqis wish to have Islam as a cornerstone of their government then who are we, in the West, to say that they are wrong.

The Sunnis also have to realize that their days as the elite class are over. They can either be part of the current governmental process or continue down the path of civil war. Some Iraqi Sunnis have to realize that "al-Qaeda in Iraq" is a cancer in their country and not worth any type of support. A similar decision is presented to the Shi'a militias as well. Are they a proxy of Iran or do they control their own destiny.

Answer 2

Iraq is three different groups of people cobbled together by the British back in 1921 for bureaucratic reasons. The Sunnis don't like the Shiites, the Shiites don't like the Sunnis, and neither likes the Kurds. That's why it takes a tyrant like Saddam Hussein to keep the lid on the violence. When Saddam Hussein was removed the US uncovered a hornets nest. Bush's subsequent incompetence wacked the hornets nest with a big stick.

Most of the crowd that posts here claiming removing Hussein was justified have forgotten or just never knew that the invasion of Iraq was supposed to be low-hanging fruit, a dry run before the real prize, Iran. We are stuck here in Iraq three years later with a civil war and American troops in the way. When President Bush says "Stay the course" he means "run out the clock until January 2009 and dump this mess on my successor."

The world is full of tinpot dictators like Saddam Hussein, most of whom control countries these armchair warriors who support Bush couldn't find on a map and never heard of or care about. Let Iraq split into three countries and let's get the hell out of that hellhole. It's not our fight.

Answer 3

Well, "Stratman" doesn't know what a contraction is, so you can discount anything he has to say.
I believe that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. This made him a peer of about two-thirds of the national leaders on the planet.
The big mistake Saddam made was in believing Daddy Bush's "go ahead" on invading Kuwait. If he had been a tad more skeptical, none of the last 20 years of strife in the Persian Gulf region would have taken place.
So Dubya has a hard-on for the man that cost his papa re-election. So what else is new?
Saddam was a bastard, but so is Dubya, so is Kim Jung Il, so is Tony Blair, so are most of the national leaders on the planet. Just think about the kind of individual who would even set out to become a national leader ... is that someone you would want to spend any amount of time with? I think not.
Saddam deserved to be removed. Sure. So do a lot of tin-pot dictators and "presidents". Were we right to do it? I think not. Have we done a good job of it? I think not.
But that's just my opinion, and if you think differently, you can have sex with yourself at any time that is convenient to you.

Answer 4

I think you have no idea what Iraq was like under Saddam's rule, and I'm positive you have no idea the kind of person Saddam Hussein really is. I would strongly encourage you to research his background, his rise to power, and his impact on the Iraqi people. Then perhaps you would know better than to ask such a thing.

So many people in this world, especially Americans, just don't get it. They think Iraq was a peaceful place before Saddam was overthrown. Thousands of Iraqis were executed on a MONTHLY basis simply because Saddam suspected they may not be loyal to his regime. How is that okay? How is that anything short of terrorism???????? People were too afraid to speak against him because to speak against Saddam was to sign your own death warrant. And you people think that's being a good leader? That it's keeping things calm?????

Shame on you for being so full of ignorance and arrogance.

Answer 5

Yep - especially since he didn't have a thing to do with 9/11. But, Bush had a vendetta and even said on his first day in office to his intimates that he was going to get Saddam because he had put out a contract on Bush's daddy. He just used 9/11 as an excuse. But, Bush, like Napolean, fancies himself as an empire-builder and we all know what happened to Napolean at Waterloo. Iraq will turn out in the long run to be Bush's Waterloo if it hasn't already. We have no more business there than we would in any other country - we can't be the world's policemen.

Answer 6

Yes, no matter how bad Saddam was, Iraq was in a better condition post-2003 than it is now. There weren't 40 people being gunned down in the street, hundreds dieing everyday in bombings. Yes Saddam was pure evil and should be put to death for his crimes. But at least in his time it was safe to walk the streets in the knowledge you wouldn't be blown up.

This is NOT hindsight. Everyone (at least everyone outside america) said before the war began, they're going to need a good plan for after the invasion otherwise it will end up in civil war, just like it has. Sunnis killing Shia, Shia killing Sunnis, this IS civil war.

Answer 7

saddam was a murderer, a torturer,an evil demon and just another hitler on the rise....you wouldnt be asking that question if you were a woman living in Iraq....he had no idea how to run a country and more importantly how to treat people like humans...hats off to america for stepping in when no one else had the guts to save these innocent people from such an animal...stratman im with you buddy!!!!

Answer 8

Stratman--- woh don't use all of your intelligent in one sentence

Bleh--- why don't you ask a Iraqi citizen whether living under a vicious dictator or enjoying some of the rights you enjoy every day is better.

middlefinger--- you must like to be dominated by your man the way you talk.

Richard--- your right Saddam didn't have anything to do with 911 but he was a terrorist backer and he balked all the sanctions put on him because of his warmongering.

Taffi--- i suggest you do exactly what you suggest before answering such questions.

Faustus--- i like your answer --- but they are dead now lol

Answer 9

Well, the Kurds wouldn't think it was better. And Iraqi women wouldn't think it was better. Nor all those raped, tortured, and killed.

And since Saddam was collaborating with terrorists, including training and financing, it would have been extremely dangerous to allow him to continue.

Answer 10

Absolulely! What he did stayed where he did it.He didn't want to control the world, just Iraq and he did a damn good job of it.