Would we be better off with Saddam in power? Is a corrupt dictator easier to work with than an unruly mob? Be?

Question

careful of what you wish for. We wanted an Iraq free of Hussein. We have that. As evil as he was he was at least a counterweight against Iran. In a Machiavellian world, perhaps it is better to choose the lesser of two evils. Idealism doesn't fill up the SUV. Iran is a far greater threat than Saddam ever was, and two thirds of Iraq are Shiites, the same sect as the ruling party in Iran.

Answer 1

Countries do business with corrupt and venal dictators all the time -- so long as he's _their_ dictator. Pinochet or the Shah of Iran, for example.

The USA is normally a very vindictive country that carries grudges. Until such a point as commercial advantage dictates otherwise, I suppose, or why would the USA now have relations with Vietnam?

Corruption is no bar to a close relationship with the USA. Have a look at Transparency.org.

A friend of mine used to call on Saddam from time to time. He was a senior official of a major oil company. US government people would de-brief him: they wanted oil and they wanted information about oil. I guess the Bush group wanted oil even cheaper. I can't say that the USA's activities in Iraq are much less culpable than Saddam's, from a corruption point of view. Halliburton, Carlyle and all the rest.

Washington's definitions of "freedom" and "democracy" are curious indeed when it comes to foreign lands. But then they were quite selective with the Nazi war criminals they prosecuted, and the ones they brought to American to help with national defense. Fascism is, I suppose, flexible of definition in the American lexicon.

Answer 2

Yes I believe we would all be better off with Saddam still in power. We have have been more success full in cases like libia for example where you leave the dictator in power. These middle eastern countries have very low literacy rates, and heavy religious influence. The structure of the society is very different from western European. Also, they never experienced a "dark Age" a futile system or anything that would establish the infrastructure needed to provide an economy for the people. They don't have there own version of the Magna Carta because they don't understand the idea of a government for and by the people.

Answer 3

Yes, the answer is yes we would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power because he was a strong counterbalance to Iran, which is a radical fundamentalist regime. Saddam's was secular, non religious. Now Iran has a free hand in the Middle East, it will be Iran that dominates the world's richest oil fields. Starting the Iraq War will go down in history as one of the most stupid mistakes ever made.

Answer 4

We have the power and the resources ? That's what they said in the beginning piece of cake and at that time it wasn't Iran's yellow cake. Let's go in and blow them all up screw the civilians, kill them all ? How democratic of us. This mess goes from bad to worse everyday. I thought this was a battle for the hearts and minds of the poor uncivilized Iraqi people ? Or reason for being there has changed so many times now I don't know why exactly we're there I do know we won't be getting out any time soon. With the Alaskan BP oil pipeline conveniently down up goes the price of oil per barrel from 19.00 $ in 1999 to 70.00$ in 2006 and rising. We may as well face it we're not noble liberators were greedy stooges led around by a need for fuel and pretty plastic trinkets. That poor oppressed group of Iraqi's know it. We knew this would happen we were warned but our martyr complex overpowered our good sense or was it greed and vengeance ? When are people gonna stop wrapping this war up in the sterile flag of liberation and democracy. We should have left well enough alone but now that we've messed it all up could we just admit it and find a way out ?

Answer 5

For that very reason, former President George H. W. Bush, at the time of "Desert Storm", decided to let the beaten Iraqi army get away without further losses to either side, and let Saddam remain in power. He hoped that Saddam would no longer be as serious a threat to humanity. Bush had the full support of his cabinet and military commanders on this, although General Norman Schwartzkopf did make a conflicting statement (later recanted) to the media.

Answer 6

The problem is that a corrupt dictator with access to weapons, whether WMD or not, can always pull others into his own helll. An unruly mob is so intent on its own ends that it probably won't send WMD toward anyone else. When you are talking Iraq, since there are no men of honor there, it's better to deal with the mob rather than a dictator

Answer 7

Yeah you are right that a dictator is better than a mob, but I say we should have somehow replaced Saddam instead of destroying dictatorship. There was no need to democratize Iraq. However Saddam was uncooperative. Replace him should have been the better option.

Answer 8

the international? no longer incredibly. tensions stemming from the iraq warfare have now spread added for the time of the middle east. and that i'm incredibly certain there have been not one hundred human beings an afternoon lack of life from suicide bombs even as he changed into in ability. so i'm able to't incredibly say the iraqi all and sundry is better positive off both. i imagine it truly is a stalemate. even as saddam turned right into a foul man or woman who oppressed and regularly murdered his human beings now there's a powerless gov't that has no administration over any element of the country it governs. and could no longer contained in the forseeable destiny. iraq has traded one tragic difficulty for yet another. saddam could want to were bumped off ultimately. despite the indisputable fact that the iraqis could have carried out that themselves with some actual outdoors help. now the precedence warrants complete and complete dependency on the u.s. to circumvent all out civil warfare. better positive off? i imagine it truly is a pair to entice 2 from. yet a minimum of till now there have been not thousands of useless individuals besides.

Answer 9

Yeah, we were happy with him as a counterweight to Iran except for his nasty penchant for WMD and invading his neighbors.

Sadly Insane will go down as perhaps the most incompetent strategic "thinker" of all time. A real piker!

Answer 10

at least the Baath party (Saddam's party) was sympathetic to the west, unlike the suunis or the shiites. I think yes, and the rupblicans could still have someone to hate and blame!