2006-09-09 08:18:29 · 24 answers · asked by Richard S 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
i dont think it would make much difference to tell you the truth
there is enough lunatics as it is in this world that make it unsafe
2006-09-09 08:21:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is almost impossible to know but I'll give you my best guess.
For starters Iran is not safer with Saddam's removal. They are now facing the possibility of two democracy's on it's boarders with Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran feels more threatened by this prospect then it had in the 1990's by a quarantined Saddam regime.
Second, although Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 they did support the terrorist killing Jews and had even planned the assassination of former president George Bush. Iraq was a menace. Ask the Israeli's if they feel safer with him gone! Ask Kuwait if they feel safer with him gone.
It may seem naive of me to say but I do not think you would have seen the elections in Palestine or in Lebanon if Saddam was still in power, not to mention the elections in Iraq .
By removing Saddam three countries/peoples have had a chance to vote. The Lebanese, Palestinians and the Iraq's have had elections and know they have a chance to put down their arms and work on building a better country and lives for themselves.
If this elected governments can lead the region to peace stability and progress, the 21st century will be one full of hope and promise for all. If this governments fail and fall into continued violence, then 21st century will be full of conflict with little hope for peace.
So it is a wait and see scenerio, but I would say that by removing Saddam we at least have the prospects of a change for the better in the region and for the world.
2006-09-09 11:16:03 · answer #2 · answered by jbreed312000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq would be safer. The Kurds had their own "State within a state" for years, which is still a calmer part of Iraq. Maybe some effort used on Iraq could have gone to finishing the job in Afganistan, and the Taliban wouldn't have another war to copy IED ideas from. Britain might still have people plotting to blow up subways & planes, but I doubt they would have more such people if Saddam was still in power. So, yes, it would be safer - but not totally safe.
2006-09-09 08:30:40 · answer #3 · answered by Eric 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably,Saddam was a vicious sadistic person but Iraq was a stabilizing influence against Iranian power in the area. Saddam ruled Iraq as a secular country in that he would not allow the mullahs to share in his power. Seeing that Iraq had no way to project any military power outside the immediate area and we could have easily won any war with Iraq ,the world would be safer with him. George H W Bush was briefed on this during Desert Storm and it was one factor in not taking Saddam out at that time
2006-09-09 08:34:47 · answer #4 · answered by spicoli 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes
I don't think there is any evidence that he was murdering Kurds in 2001. We know he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and 7/7 would not have happened if he was in power.
In 1993 I was considering an overland trip to South-East Asia. The reason I decided it wasn't safe (on foreign office advice) was not because of Iran, I was even considering going through Afghanistan. The reason I decided against it was because westerners were being kidnapped in Eastern Turkey _by_Kurds_.
If Saddam were still in power I don't think we'd be so worried about Iran.
2006-09-09 08:34:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The WORLD? YES,
Iraq was the nation that kept Iran in check
Iraq dislike, distrust, and at odds with Al Quada and company
Iraq rewards suicide bomber against Israel only.
Iraq is not safe for some of its own people, but that was always the case prior to Saddam.
2006-09-09 08:41:12 · answer #6 · answered by timer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The world would be a safer place if the whole of the Middle East was a golf course
2006-09-09 10:38:10 · answer #7 · answered by GARY J 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know, but one thing's for sure - the world would've been a safer place if George W Bush hadn't come to power. He's the despot that caused the problems in the first place... him and his dad.
2006-09-09 13:04:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is clear Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. If anyone thinks he did they must have their head in the sand.
Saying that, he was a very dangerous indvidual, but only to the people of Iraq. The fall out of Iraq is that we are creating more nutters who want to blow themselves up.
So in a word, yes!
2006-09-09 08:48:47 · answer #9 · answered by andrew_carr_blue 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no I dont think so sadam was just a dictator like mugabe ,musolini, hitler and the lot but he was and still is no threat to the world remember most of these terrorists are now home grown
2006-09-09 08:46:49 · answer #10 · answered by malaika 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not if your a Kurd living in Iraq!
2006-09-09 08:26:58 · answer #11 · answered by Nicola H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋