With the appalling daily loss of life in Iraq, Would it have been better to simply leave Saddam in charge.?

Answer 1

Well the fact is he was a secular dictator and with all the religiously fueled terrorism and violence going on the the middle east right now it really didnt help to kick him out and leave the country war torn and suseptible.
its also a fact that its much easier for religious extremeist groups to recruit from groups of poor and distraught, and nothing hurts a countries economy more than a militarty occupation which we have been doing for the past 3 years. Also the war has left lots of people with lost family members and destroyed property resulting in yet more members for the terrorists to recrute.
If the US is was really concerned with stopping terrorism we should have focused militarily on Afganistan and finish what we started to show good will in that region, and work on Iraq by political means and improving the economy, because honestly people with a nice comfortable economic situation are much less likely to run and blow themselves up.

In conclusion with the present stand off between the US and religious extremists the we need all the secular allies we can get, even if they be ultra paraniod human rights violating dictators. At least those guys can roll your way with a new Mercedes and an I-pod

Answer 2

Bottom line is the reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of supposed WMD and links to 9/11. As we ALL now know, neither of those reasons were justified, and Saddam and the country of Iraq has never attacked the US, so basically Bush attacked for no reason, other than to take the focus off of the fact that they can't and probably won't ever find bin Laden, the real culprit. Let's just piss away hundreds of billions of dollars on a country and people that absolutely hate us, and will never stop trying to kill us, when we have millions of homelss people, millions more with no health care, etc.

Answer 3

Propaganda question ! !


With the appalling daily loss of life in Iraq? They are the ones doing most of the killing.

Would it have been better to simply leave Saddam in charge.? Have you seen the mass graves of Saddam?
If we shot ten men and ten women and ten children a week we would be much kinder to Iraq than Saddam

Answer 4

Regardless of your political opinions, or agenda one thing about Saddam Hussein can not be ignored. The reign of Saddam Hussein is the most vicious and brutal doctatoship that the world has seen since Pol Pot. He is the Pol Pot of our generation. From 1979 to 2003 well over 2 million Iraqi's died under Saddam's Regime. Estimate ranging from 100,000 to over 300,000 Kurd's, Shia's and Dissidents were killed under direct order of Saddam Hussein. Additionally, over 500,000 Iraqi's died between the first and second Gulf War as a result of sanctions placed on Iraq. Its important to note that these sanctions would have quickly been lifted if Saddam simply agree to follow U.N. law. His defiance caused these deaths. Saddam refused to allow weapons inspectors into his country for years on end. Why? What was he hiding? Why was he so willing to allow his people to die? Was he hiding his attempts to gain nuclear weapons, or was he simply crminally insane?

It is sad that the second Iraq war has caused so many innocent deaths. However most of those deaths are caused by Terrorist and Ba'athist who would rather kill thier own people than cede control to a democratic government.

If Saddam were allowed to continue to rule Iraq millions more Iraqi's would have died. Likewise, if we simply leave Iraq the terrorist, and the Ba'athist will simply reestablish a similarly brutal dictatorship where millions of Shia, Kurds, and just about anyone else that the Terrorist decide to hate, will be targets of future mass executions.

By standing strong beside the Iraqi people we give them thier best chance of eventually having a peaceful democratic society. Without our help many, many more innocents will be slaughtered, and millions will be under oppression.

By the way? What happened to the WMD's? Are they in Syria with Saddams daughters?

Answer 5

I had the same idea too! before the invasion, we hardly hear of ppl bombing the shiite sites or the sunni sites. even if they do, not as many as now! saddam knew the his citizens too well and he knew very well to put them at the appropriate place. He can be cruel as ppl call him, but he knows best. At least, look at the bright side, no american soldiers life would have been lost!

If Iraq is a threat to the world, each country has their own defense system to take care of its country. May God bless the souls of those killed. Amen.

Answer 6

From my own long observations of events, past and present, in that part of the world, Saddam Hussein was never going to be left totally in charge. He wasn't a toady to the USA or his Arab neighbours and that didn't sit comfortably with the ambitions of another country and it's toady in another part of the world.
He should have learned from his invasion of Kuwait. But I think he was stuck with the idea of a long dead soviet union scaring the USA (and the rest of us) witless with the idea of another Nuclear show down should the USA 'prove it's expansionist aims' by invading any country in that part of the world. After all, Saddam and the soviets were 'friends' and Russia did make murmers of displeasure at Saddam being sent packing at a "Mother of all haste" from Kuwait.
His refusal to get a grasp of the changed balance of power; his antipathy towards his neighbours and the UN; his 'proven' killing of Kurds being suggested as ethnic cleansing; and the staged or real ineptitude (suddenly) of western intelligence sealed his fate.
If he was just sabre rattling about chemical weapons then I'd say he should have been left alone. But, from what we're told, he was too maverick to allow the UN to allay 'our' or Israel's fears about chemical weapons.
Pick the bones of that and read between the lines and you'll come up with your own answer..

(I've just noticed the word "defiance" used in an earlier answer with regard to the UN. The USA does it all the time and Israel is doing it now. For balance. We in the UK and the US have chemical and biological capabilities well in advance of what Saddam was claiming. Should we feel a tad aggrieved if the UN want to audit our stocks of the same? Just because we can get away with potential mass murder, doesn't make it right. Our own government banned everyone from keeping small arms because of the actions of one man at Dunblane, should there be another 'rogue' owner out there. Most were never rogues and wanted small arms for legitimate purposes, but nevertheless, we're all treated as being potentially the same as that guy at Dunblane. Applying our governments thinking to the United Nations, shouldn't the latter be monitoring, or calling for destruction, of our chemical weapons? An American general called for the A or H bomb to be used against north Korea during the Korean war!!)

Answer 7

monie99701, do you actually think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? The 9/11 commision has said he had NOTHING to do with those attacks. If you recall, it was Osma Bin Laden who attcked us, who your president has pretty much forgotten about. To be quite honest, I feel that Iraq is no better than it was with Saddam. Death is widespread across the country,Sunnis hate Shites, Shites hate Sunnis, and our brave men and women have to train these people to stop being barbarians, let alone running a democray

Answer 8

The consequences of going into Iraq will be worse than if we didn't. It looks like Bush shouldn't have ignored all the experts who told him he needed more force to secure Iraq. Perhaps, if the war had been handled differently, it could have worked.

Saddam was a bad person, but his government wasn't much diffferent than dozens of others as far as human rights are concerned, and that wasn't the reason we were given for war.

I can't believe I just saw a 9/11 reference, astounding.

Answer 9

actually i am more appalled that every year 4,000 plus young people between the ages of 15-20 die from alcohol related car accidents and that more than 46,000 of all ages die each year from the same. smoking deaths in the thousands, drug deaths in the thousands, thousands of women and children die at the hands of their spouses and fathers, hundreds of thousands of murders every year but you don't hear anyone shrieking their outrage at those statistics....where is the concern for those innocents dying right here right now every year in these little wars? you wanna talk appalling do something about whats happening here, do something besides trying to make a political statement or vent your hatred of the current administration or your confusion of the war in iraq...quit pissing and moaning about how bad it is and just DO SOMETHING about it and start right here at home !

Answer 10

Yes, without a doubt. Now the US Army is being held hostage. We will need a draft to replace them. If they ever get out, all their worn out equipment will remain behind. We are in a lose, lose situation with very few alternatives that don't involve using nukes and WW III.