Was Iraq better off with Hussein in power?

Question

Basically, I allready believe the answer to this is yes, but, I will explain why I believe this is so.

#1 Until America invaded Iraq, North Korea was not using its nuclear fission reactor. During our invasion, they reactivated the reactor and it became obvious they intended to develop nukes.
Stupid Bush, rather than do something about NK and Iran decided to follow through with a costly waste of war against Iraq.

#2 Saddam Hussein WAS NOT A THREAT AGAINST AMERICA.
Saddam could talk all the sh!t he wanted to about destroying America and Israel but he had NO MONEY.
The economic sanctions levied against Iraq by Bush#1 and Clinton
basically crippled Iraq. Powell, Rice, and all the non-neo cons in the government agreed on this and can be QUOTED as saying this.

#3 hindsight - Iraq had no WMD - another Bush Lie

NOTE - I don't consider any of you Southwestern American trailer owners or you neo-con warhawks living below the poverty line for Best answer - so you can move on.

Answer 1

The people of Iraq were not better off, but the region was. Although the purpose of the war was to create a more stable region for Israel, it didn't work out that way.

The reason Reagan left Qadaffi in place was because he was evil, but a known entity. He was successfully controlled. There was no succession plan in place for Iraq. The war had been planned for ther better part of a decade but no succession was lined up.

Bush took advantage of the whole 9-11 patriotism to launch Gulf War 2. But being rushed, to "strike while the iron was hot", they went in without a government to take over and the process got bogged down. I also believe the US thought there would be more resistance from Saddam's supporters that would have increased their casualties and made the government transition easier.

But there was a ton of money that is still unaccounted for from the oil-for-food program and there is still a lot of "dual use" technology that is unaccounted for. My bet is that since we know a lot of the money went to Syria we'll soon find the real WMD capability that Syria and Iraq were developing.

Answer 2

Iraq was not better off!

#1 you give reasons to why America might be better off not Iraq

#2 Iran did not change because of Iraq. However, now there is an American presence on both sides of Iran. This can help make the region more stable.

#3 People in Iraq hated each other under Saddam. There were the same issues as before. the south was Shiites and the north was kurdish. The Sunnis under saddam controlled the middle and Bagdad.
Now there is a Sunni and Shiite presence fighting in Bagdad but the country as a whole is doing better.

As for WMD, I am not sure. They did not find them so Bush failed. They may have been there and moved to Syria but regardless Bush failed to support his claim.

Is Bush a good president NO! Does the war in IRaq benifit America YES. As long as we stay there and nt leave. If Democrats win and make America leave, the Middle east will continue in its EVIL and it eventualy lead to Nukes. Collin Powell said it best, we broke it now we bought it.

If we leave it it will hurt us. IF we fix it it will help us

Don't like war but war sometimes = stability like WWII

Answer 3

#1 - its not like we could have stopped NK from doing that anyways. our forces arn't exactly strained as is. The important thing to know is that even if NK has nukes, they would never use them, unless he's suffering from some kind of lead poisoning. who's he gonna nuke? if he hits any country, NK will be vaporized within a matter of hours.

#2 Saddam wasn't a direct threat to the US, but he was to our allies in the middle east and europe. Despite what we are hearing about the terrorists and such, i'd go to say that just as many were being killed under saddam, we just never heard about it. Iraq wasn't that poor. They have oil, and the sanctions against them by us just gave them more reason to sell to other countries, like in south america and asia.

#3. You can't say there weren't and arn't WMD in Iraq. Just because they weren't found doesn't mean they weren't there. Remember a little bit about finding something like 50 russian migs buried 50 feet in the sand? We only found those on a tip. Guess what? we can't find Osama, so i guess he doesn't exist. The other thing is he used biological weapons on HIS OWN PEOPLE. WMD arn't just atomic bombs, chemical warheads can also be classified.

Iraq will be better off without saddam once they stop pointlessly killing eachother. Despite what you think, the US has very little influence on what other countries do

The main thing with nukes. Who cares if everyone has them. If any one country uses one ever again, the whole world is going up in a mushroom cloud. You think the ones we dropped on Japan were bad? We have nukes thousands of times more powerful.

Answer 4

I'm not sure where you get your "facts" from, but you're WAY off!

North Korea has been up to their tricks ever since ol' buddy boy Bill Clinton was in office. In fact, he buddied up to 'em...BIG MISTAKE!!

Saddam WAS a threat to the United States. Why did we have numerous U.N. resolutions against him? Also, have you ever heard of the oil-for-food scandal? The WMD you refer to was passed off to Syria...You just wait...

You're pretty high-minded and conceited to put down people who live in trailers. I pray that you never have to...I'll bet there are PLENTY of people all over the world who would be HAPPY to live in a trailer. You're pretty ignorant, you know that? Thank God you're not our leader!

Well anyway, when Saddam Hussein was in power, health care facilities had not been updated in decades. There was no sanitation...trash all over the streets...women were being raped in rape rooms by Saddam and his sons. If people said anything negative about Saddam, they were killed. There were no free elections.

OH yeah, and he gassed and killed hundres of thousands Kurds (his own people). Ah yes, wasn't he a sweetheart?

Once the sectarian violence which is occurring now gets under control, Iraq will be MUCH better off than when Saddam was in power. Do you know what sectarian violence is? The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are all Muslim, but different sects. Right now, it's mostly the Sunni & Shiites killing each other.

Well, we can't cut and run with the new Iraqi government in such a fragile state. That would be a disaster... Ahmadinejad (look it up) is just sitting there salivating, waiting for us to leave so HE can have Iraq and rule the Middle East, kill all the Jews, then eventually kill everyone who is not Muslim...That's his dream!

Answer 5

Saddam Hussein didn't kill over 200,000 Iraqis.
He just killed the ones that were making trouble. His tactics were no different than those used by Iran, North Korea, russia or China.

Just because he was an evil man doesn't mean that WE SHOULD PLUNGE AMERICA INTO A FAILURE OF A WAR TRYING TO REMOVE HIM...

Neocon overreaction.

So quick to make a move without examining the reprocutions.

Bill Clinton fought Yugoslavia with a massive aerial campaign and yet he still managed to balance the budget and have the lowest unemployment rate of any president in the past 100 years. Yet, the Neonazi's - I mean Neocons - want to blame him for everything.

Answer 6

You're right on target! The day will surely come when they will be wishing that Sadaam was back in control. He wasnt the ideal democratic leader but he had his country under control. No terrorist were destroying his country.
And we did for Iran by invading Iraq what Iran could not do alone. So having fought a war that ended in a draw,we came along and sacrificed our soldiers lives to wrest the prize that will ultimately benefit Iran. (Real smart Bush) Large Shi-Ite majority in Iraq that we have put in control and the large Shi-Ite populace of Iran. Notice the large Iraq demonstration for Hezzbollah.

Answer 7

Simply put, Saddam Hussein's brutal reign was made by the USA. He worked for the CIA before be became politically prominent in Iraq. He was one of America's closet Mideast allies during the 1980s, and received substantial US military and financial aid.It's unlikely we will ever know for sure what the U.S. government has been doing with Saddam Hussein over the past 40 or so years. According to documents unearthed from the Reagan era, we know that Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to egg on the dictator in his war with Iran. At the time, the U.S. provided Saddam with loans, military intelligence, and other assistance.

One story has it that Rumsfeld, then a drug company CEO, also was acting as a messenger boy for high officials in the Reagan administration who wanted to get rich building an oil pipeline from Iraq to Jordan. Secretary of State George Schultz, a former top official of Bechtel, was chief among them. He supposedly hoped to cash in on the deal if Bechtel got to build the pipeline.In 1980 when Saddam Hussein was on good terms with America, he was quite the giver. Hussein donated money to help several churches in the motor city, Detroit.Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick's ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 -- compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it's been a good war for Big Oil.

As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq's occupation oil minister; the conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.

In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it wasn't America's mission, nor the Iraqis'. It was a Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.

Answer 8

I worked there last year and had 25 Iraqi engineers working for me. I was able to talk to them about your question. The unaminious answer was they were glad Saddam is gone and they were very grateful for our help. Their infrastructure was non-existant. They had electrical power three hours on, three hours off every day, if they were lucky. Many districts had a sewer system that was only an open ditch to a river. Tap water was nasty. Electric power was generated by burning crude oil which put enormous amounts of black smoke into the air.

Saddam had his own agenda and helping the majority of his own people was not on it.

Answer 9

No, and we did find WMD's and N.Korea was continually working on there reactor, they just disconnected the camera's after the invasion of Iraq.
Bush is a dope as it turns out and they should have sent in more troops a long time ago and sent troops in from the north to stop the insurgents from escaping.

Answer 10

No not at all, at least when Saddam was in charge the Iraqi people weren't dieing by the hundreds every day, and Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists....Be nice to America or we'll bring democracy to your country.