Senator Rockefeller seems to think so. At least Saddam kept the electricity on and the water running.
2006-09-09 12:40:01 · 15 answers · asked by timor 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It's a reality that in some countries democracy and "Western ways" just don't work (if you can call what has been stablished in Iraq a democracy...). It may be due to tradition or culture, but some countries need or want totalitarian or un-democratic regimes in power. We all know that Saddam wasn't the nicest guy around, but he kept that part of the Middle East somewhat stabilized and wasn't a big fan of Islamic extremism himself, so he could have been an asset. I don't know if you can call it a case of a "necessary evil," but from every strategic point of view, removing Saddam from power and its consequences were and are a total disaster.
2006-09-09 12:52:07 · answer #1 · answered by Last Son 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. I think it would the height of naivity to think that Saddam would sit on his hands for the rest of his life; it was only a matter of time before he started something. And even if he didn't, his sons would've taken over in time and they are even more brutal than Saddam was. And they won't send troops anywhere; they'd give a terrorist a bomb, and help him get into the U.S. We'd have an investigation, like we always do, and then we'd send troops into Iraq, and by then their military would be something to worry about (thanks to the U.N. and the Oil for Food program), then there'd also be the insurgent threat. So it's pay 2,000 now, or 20,000 later.
2006-09-09 13:01:20 · answer #2 · answered by sarge 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We Americans might have been better off, but the Iraqis would
not be, since Saddam was robbing the oil for food program,
with the help of some unscruplous others and was slowly killing
his own people. When we invaded, the hospitals didnt even have
basic antibiotics or even sterile water. He only took care of his
chosen few at the expense of everybody else.
2006-09-09 12:52:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We would be 313 billion dollars (more than $1000/per man, woman and child) richer. And the military and civilian causualties would be alive. And Saddam was backed by US for the reason of keeping Iran in line. Yes Saddam was evil. But we supported his regime and he had little to gain from supporting terrorism. Look at it from the perspective of now. Don't you think a wily dictator like Saddam would want to reduce the chances of getting invaded? Why on earth would a non-religious, calculating man like that support terrorism and increase our anger toward him?
2006-09-09 12:51:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nicely Saddam did have each thing decrease than his power yet take in recommendations that he did kill 20,000 to a hundred, 000 for the Kurds and 60,000 to a hundred thirty,000 for Shi'ites. some have estimated 800,000 deaths brought about without postpone with the help of Saddam--those no longer which includes the casualties from the Iran-Iraq conflict.
2016-12-18 07:45:16 · answer #5 · answered by gilberte 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes because removing Saddam was replaced with the death of a minimum amount of 30 person death each day
and No because he was an ignorant murderer who only cared about his power and building a free country for his people
2006-09-09 13:02:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would we have been better ruled by England? Or as half a country with a confederate neighbor?
At least the colonies had fair trade and protection from natives.
At least the north had its industry and natural resources, and the south had its trade and massive blue blood estates.
Everyone was happy, and things were fine, Surely we woud have been better off without those wars and hardships.
2006-09-09 12:45:37 · answer #7 · answered by amosunknown 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Who is We? If WE is the US, yes, because we wouldn't be spending billions, plus thousands of lives. If WE is the Iraqi people, it is a hard call. Current problems area blip for them. When they are over, if freedom can be restored, life will be better.
2006-09-09 12:47:44 · answer #8 · answered by world traveler 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2600 plus American lives and 10's of thousands of Iraq all dead at the hand of George Bush. I am not sure if Iraq would be better off, but it could not be much worse. As for us, yes we would be much better off as all the money we have spent in Iraq is wasted money and all the lives that have been lost is just a shame.
2006-09-09 12:46:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Thats CRAZY!!!!!!!!! Tell that to the thousands of Iraqs Saddam Killed.
2006-09-09 12:44:28 · answer #10 · answered by prettiethings 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋