Do you think Iraq needed Saddam Hussein?

Question

Maybe Saddam knew that he had to rule with an iron fist to keep Iraq from tearing itself apart.

Answer 1

Saddam did the same thing to his people that the USSR did, that China did and that even AMERICA did.

Basically, he used force to quell riots and uprisings by killing all those "trouble makers".
The Baath party and his own racial group was treated the best and the money he did have got spent on "his" people.

Is that any different than the history of America - slavery, racial oppression and segregation that was MANDATED by the constitution? How many Blacks and Native American Indians died between 1492 and now at the hands of White men and have not recieved justice?
America did the exact same thing Saddam did when the South tried to succeed from the Union. The Civil war was fought to maintain ORDER , UNITY and the status Quo.

I don't need to tell you how many people Stalin, Krushev and Yeltsin had to kill in order to keep communism dominate over their country. Russia is STILL killing Chetzyans right now.
I also don't need to tell you how many people Mao killed during the cultural revolution.

SADDAM kept his country united. YES he was a bad man but, he did what he did - what everyone else including "US" has done. He also had a deep understanding of all the cultural differences of his country - something america DID NOT HAVE when we invaded.

America invaded with TOO FEW TROOPS because Bush did not listen to General Shinseki. Furthermore, bush, with his C- average in school did not understand what Saddam was to Iraq and he had no idea what Sunni's and Shiites were until AFTER the government was toppelled and every muslim group wanted their group to be dominant.

Now American troops are dying for it.


Saddam i s most likely responsible for FEWER than 20,000 deaths. Yes that is EVIL but guess what, America has killed 10 TIMES that many - or through inaction - has allowed that many to be killed BY INVADING IRAQ WITHOUT A PLAN.

We CAN'T just leave Iraq now because if we do, every single one of those arabs will fight for power and their will be a bloody, costly civil war, (revolution) that will end up with yet another theocratic totalitarian ruler in power. Someone like Hezbollah's Nasrallah.

What bothers me is that the Neocons don't understand that and try to make it appear in the news that America is "winning the war on terror" which we are not and that Iraq is anything more than a quagmire, chaotic and nightmarish.

Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEMPTEMBER 11th.
the SAUDI's were behind it and the entire Arab muslim world applauded it. We should have taken out Iran's nuclear reactor the second they turned it on and headed for North Korea too so that America wouldn't now be facing a nuclear rocket bombardment along the west coast.

Hezbollah has allready shown us what happens when you allow REAL TERRORISTS to build and upkeep weapons. Iraq was a bunch of dishevelled miscreants but they were not an immediate threat. Iran and NK are IMMEDIATE THREATS.

Answer 2

I think the only way Iraq could work without Saddam is if the people would have had there own revolution. If they would have stood up against him and later we came to aid them then we would have stability in Iraq right now; however, that was not the case. The Iraqi people did not stand up to him and they were forced to join us in the process of making a democracy in which they had no choice but to help us help them. Their is a big difference so this country will never work and it will only be a cheap imitation of a working democracy, till it blows up into a all out civil war and then it will become what it will become, but it wont be what our soldiers died for. Dam Shame

Answer 3

Oh yes, brilliant one - Saddam was good for Iraq, in the same way that cancer is good for the body. He killed hundreds of thousands of people, which liberals like, especially when you do it with little or no fanfare, and keep it out of the papers, which he was able to do, as he controlled everything. Killing hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of your own countrymen, for the sake of civil order is always a positive... Yeah, right.

The killings going on there now are not that far removed from the killing sprees that we have going on in our own big cities right now - in fact if you compare the death rates, they are probably very close. But we don't make noise about Americans killing each other, because all the big cities are Democrat controlled and pointing out that those cities are lawless and out of control is not on the liberal agenda for discussion. Civil unrest in Iraq is what makes news because it can be construed to make the President look bad.

We should be just as concerned about Americans killing each other in our own homes and streets as we are about the random violence in Iraq, but the liberals have a one track mind and don't want to have to take responsibility for the failed policies of our big cities, when it is much easier to blame the Bush administration for acts of violence and terror by Islamic fascists...

None of you liberals will even have the guts to acknowledge any of this, or the intellectual courage to debate it...

Answer 4

I think the Kurds and Shiites need to get their "democratic" heads out of their butts and share the oil monies with the Sunni dominated states and end the stupic civil war...which is apparently primarily due to oil money (big surprise).

Answer 5

Hussein replace into killing his very own human beings yet no longer something like what Stalin replace into doing. Hussein replace into keeping his fiefdom from in residing house capacity struggles. the guy on the line replace into somewhat threat-loose. It replace into the increasing generals and politicians that have been in Saddam's gun factors of interest for somewhat some the time. constructive the Iraqis have been a hell of so plenty extra clever off with the dictator on the helm. In some years all persons is going to ascertain in basic terms how right off the Libyans have been with the nut bar Qaddafi, and Mubarak? right a minimum of he gave decrease lower back various what he replace into stealing and he did shop the peace extremely. Syria is going down the comparable highway the Tunisians began and with the help of capacity of gum in the event that they at the instant are not susceptible to be led with the help of capacity of the nostril on the palms of the Muslim Brotherhood. they have Egypt, they have Libya of their pocket, the Tunisian women persons human beings are walking scared for what has taken carry of their united states of america now. you will get all varieties of arguments and debates suited to the so reported as Arab Spring. yet time will let us know all: the muslim brotherhood is going to be working the entire of the Arab worldwide very immediately. How they run subjects is with the help of capacity of "Shariah regulation". Ever watch a united states of america thrive decrease than Shariah regulation after the freedoms their dictators gave them? seem at Iran, you recognize the land Jimmy Carter fvcked up. (ever be conscious how quickly the persons have been released after Reagan have been given into capacity?) The Shah of Iran replace into toppled and seem at what's there now. you may desire to think of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, to be wearing the shoes of the muslim brotherhood in basic terms like Iran does on the on the spot.

Answer 6

good question also he was the force in the middle east that kept Iran in check

Answer 7

I dunno , but i am sure they did not need Bush and his dirty army.