as the region is descending into chaos. surely he wasn't all that bad? i acknowledge that the kurds have had a horrible time under his dictatorship but at least 100+ people were not dying a day.
what do you reckon?
2006-10-10 10:49:38 · 25 answers · asked by bagyman 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
In international law it is illegal to invade a country to bring about regime change - the UK and USA did that. It is only legal to invade a country if it is posing a real and present threat to the security and safety of the invading country - Iraq wasn't as there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein may have been a tyrant and guilty of human rights violations and mass murder - but so is Robert Mugabe and nobody's interested in the way he treats his people.
At least Saddam Hussein knew what a bunch of warring religious tyrants his country was made up of and kept them down with fear - he may have been killing some, but then that is also the case today in Iraq - just different people killing each other.
Blair and Bush were idiots to even consider they could bring order to an Arab country - if that was why they invaded illegally. Just over 100 years ago they were all living in tents and riding on camels - how can one expect a race to adapt to the mind set of the 21st century in such a short time? The wealthy Lybian children drive up and down sand dunes in Mercedes to have fun and pass their time away! Yet the people in Benghazi still find it difficult to make friends with the people in Tripoli because of the tribal culture.
2006-10-10 22:42:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
properly, being plunged into poverty when you have been a enhanced u . s . a .? i could say confident. there became extra opportunities in Iraq under Saddam's rule. there's a flow of refugees from Iraq to show this- those people who stayed for the time of the dictatorship of Saddam at the instant are fleeing the country. And what options have they have been given? not purely do they should worry terrorists, yet in addition US militia's errors. The infrastructure has broken down, and there at the instant are not any jobs different than starting to be a member of the police or the militia, or the optimal paid- starting to be an extremist fighter. --- Iran, did not have an sensible nuclear weapons application (they nevertheless do not), and Iraq became regulated strictly by using the international community so as that it may in no way replace right into a danger lower back (yet, u . s . a . nevertheless attacked).
2016-11-27 19:58:14 · answer #2 · answered by hillhouse 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, of course.
Churchill gassed the Kurds as well and he was a "hero". When Saddam did it, it was an "internal matter".
Over 90% of the people in Iraq want the foreign troops and mercenaries to leave and the iraq is now supposed to be "democratic". Will they leave and accept the democratic decision?
They cant even get fuel for their cars now.
2006-10-10 11:08:21 · answer #3 · answered by Nothing to say? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems incredible that when they are liberated from this awful dictator, they manage to get together and plant bombs and ensure that lots of innocent people die each day, and yet when Sadam was there nobody was taking these risks. I'm not saying that Sadam was a nice guy; I'm sure he was an evil guy. But the people who are planting these bombs and taking these risks have got convictions so I can't understand that nobody had these convictions under Sadam's rule. Either he controlled that country so well that nobody was able to be subversive - and if he did, then he was a very clever guy - or he was not as unpopular as everybody wanted to make out. One thing must be true: if his people hated him so much, some of them would have taken action to protest - they're all doing it now without too much trouble!
2006-10-10 10:56:45 · answer #4 · answered by John P 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wish'd that I were qualified to give an answer. But I guess I'm no less qualified than the people who caused Iraq to descend into Chaos in the first place... 'The Blair Bush Project'.
2006-10-10 11:27:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not better off with Saddam still in power.
Still not better off under the crown of Bush.
America should stop building mega military bases in Iraq for our use, and pay more attention to keeping the lights on, and toilets flushing, for the Iraqi people .
2006-10-10 11:21:45 · answer #6 · answered by navymom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam messed with the oil supply by turning his production up and down. This caused fluctuations in the Oil prices on the international market. He was able to hurt the profits of American oil corporations. Saddam had to go. Screw the Iraqis. When the USA takes over death squads always appear. This is how occupying nations always works. If a friendly government is put in place they will be supplied with training by USA on how to use death and terror squads to control the new US property of Iraq, just like the Pahlavi Shah of Iran was before the Ayatollah Khomeini. chased him away.
2006-10-10 11:14:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
"under his dictatorship but at least 100+ people were not dying a day"
Wanna bet? See here we have something called the 1st Amendment, you know freedom of speech so we can complain all we want about our government. Under Saddam, you could complain also, but only once.
2006-10-10 10:53:54 · answer #8 · answered by Charles B 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Let me tell you that it is better with out him because maybe he was the bad seed in the goverment. If he was or not, we couldn't have taken that risk.
When I say he was a bad seed, I reffer my self that he was the leader of islam extremist in Irak and by removing him form office we are able to ensure a littel, just a littel, more of safety.
But, may I say that if we want to be safe the only way to do it is that every one of the citizens of the World copreate to mantain peace and to be able to live in a real comunity with real love.
2006-10-10 11:06:08 · answer #9 · answered by Gulembo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I don't think the Republicans are there because they love people and democracy. That is for sure.
I think the Republicans torture and kill and can assemble a naked pyramid better than Saddam. That is the only thing that is done better.
2006-10-10 10:57:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋