Saddam Hussein a good leader?

Question

Does anyone out there agree with me that Saddam Hussein is a good leader? I think you need an iron fist to rule a country like Iraq. Secondly do you agree we ****** up Iraq so bad and killed a lot more people than Saddam Hussein?

Answer 1

Saddam was a secular leader, which is a good thing in any country. He was feared and respected, so he had control over his people, something we have yet to achieve. Regardless of his methods, Iraq prospered under his leadership. Iraqis had a good standard of living, good health care, and good education prior to our most recent invasion. It was not a democracy, true. And he probably can't be categorized as a benevolent dictator. But, by no stretch of the imagination did he rain down the kind of destruction on his people that we have done.

Most of the Iraqi civilian deaths we hear about are people killed by direct violence against their person. That number stands at somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000, depending on who you ask. However, people who are paying attention to the overall situation calculate the number of deaths now at nearly half a million. Possibly more. Many of them children.

We've destoyed a huge number of sources of food, water, health care, and shelter. We've blanketed entire cities in harmful toxic clouds of depleted uranium from our "conventional" weapons, a substance from which our own soldiers are suffering debilitating effects. We haven't rebuilt Iraq's destroyed resources in any significant way.

The number of people who have died, not from violence, but as a direct result of the destruction of the country's resources and infrastructure, is the true story of the civilian death toll in Iraq.

Think about the near total breakdown we witnessed after Hurricane Katrina. The initial insult (the actual hurricane) was over in a day, and the flooding receded within, what, a few days? A couple of weeks? People still died because they couldn't get access to water or medical help. There was a huge mess because of the lack of sanitary facilites, to the point that there was talk of bulldozing the Superdome rather than trying to clean it up. Multiply that situation by an entire country, and years. Think about who, in any society, is the most vulnerable. Elderly people, children, and the infirm always suffer the greatest number of casualties.

Don't believe me? Think about it. Look at some of the aerial photos of those cities after we bombed them. Read back through the news stories about the destruction of hospitals, food, and water supplies.

Some websites to peruse at your leisure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm

You have to hunt for it, but there is more information to be had on this subject. It has largely been ignored by the US media. However, you can see why the Iraqi people may now be referring to Saddam's presidency as "the good old days."

Answer 2

Saddam Hussein was not a good leader, but if you weigh the present situation, the world was a MUCH safer place with him as President of Iraq, than now. Iraq was a strong counter balance to Iran, which has over 10 times the population of Iraq and a lot more money and arms, as well. They can pretty much dominate the Mideast now, if they want, and they appear to want to because they are backing Hezbollah's attacks against Israel now. I don't think anybody in his or her right mind would say the world is better off having Iran capable of running amok now that the US has deposed Saddam Hussein.

Answer 3

How old are you? Could you even find Iraq on a map?

This has to be one of the most ignorant statements of all time. I'm going to assume that you're about 10 years old and have no idea what Iraq was like under Saddam's rule. That HAS to be the reason for such foolishness.

Answer 4

Do your homework, little one, before you make such outrageous, rash statements.

Answer 5

I think you are an idiot. A class A blooming idiot.

Answer 6

HELL NO!!!