Do you accept that every person has a different perspective to things? Then WHO THE HELL IS BUSH TO DECIDE - Saddam is a tyrant and needs to be brought down.
2006-10-14 18:05:05 · 32 answers · asked by Vivek S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
well by the way the people are acting since they got freedom i think he knew his people best. his iron hand policy seems to be the only thing these people understand. bush did not decide this alone allot of democrats also felt this was a necessary thing.
see what the democrats had to say
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
2006-10-14 18:08:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We cannot make a wild decision on Iraq just from some propaganda by the media, US and the UK alone. Whether Iraq really was a hell under the rule of Saddam or not, is not known to anyone except to the ones who attacked it. For example, the claims by the US president, "Weapons of Mass destruction" and the end of an evil ruler, are still puzzling to everyone.
1. The UN was sent to investigate about those weapons, yet nothing was found.
2. The US and the UK attacked Iraq without listening or getting an approval from UN or the then UN Secretary General (Kofi Anan). When the two invaders decided to comence attack, the entire UN building was empty with no one to raise a word.
3. After the war was over, the US and the British military captured and annexed all the Oil wells and the refineries in Iraq. Clearly it came to everyones mind that the US and the UK attacked Iraq because they just wanted the Oil
2006-10-14 18:54:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam did what was necessary to control a nation with the cultural behaviour of his people. He knows best how to control the country.
I don't approve of killing innocent people, but Bush is too stupid to realise that. His main focus is that at the end of the war, he and Cheney would control the oil fields. Therefore getting back their money spent during the war.
Democratic rule does not work in the arab world. Just take a look at the surrounding neighbours of Iraq.
How long has Bush stayed in Iraq to really understand whats makes Iraq ticked.
The only chance for Iraq to be stable is to have a very strong leader to do what was necesssary to stablised the country. Possible a General / Dictator like in Paskistan.
Zhang Ze Min of China took over the army before he took over as president.
2006-10-14 18:27:39 · answer #3 · answered by wang l 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is clear that to the western world his rule appeared unjust. But that is because we decided to ignore the true cultural history of the area as a result of being blinded by the black gold. The area is very very tribal, this is not a bad thing, just different to the way we operate because of this tribal structure it required a very firm hand to control the tribes. Just wait and see what happens when the US and UK pull out, it's going to be a blood bath by the end of which more people will have been killed then ever were under Saddam. The figure already stands 650,000 and rising. Which is the lesser evil, Saddam or the ignorant west? I know which one would get my vote!!
2006-10-15 07:17:18 · answer #4 · answered by the little ninja 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam is missed now. The great coalition of the willing clowns are
making a mess of Iraq. With all their military fire power they can not provide security , stability in Iraq now. Saddam was definitley doing a MUCH BETTER job. And talk about democracy? Its a laugh.
Now the clowns say Iraqis are killing each other. Why cant these clowns do something about it?? they are wholly responsible for this.
Is the world safe now?? Its only the beginning of militancy.
Eventually these clowns either will up their as*es and run or will most likely be made to run. Just wait. Then the militancy is going to come after them to their own lands and around the globe.
THE FOOLS!!!
2006-10-14 18:41:44 · answer #5 · answered by jaco 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadam served his purpose for Uncle Sam when they needed him. Now they need his oil more.
He was a tyrant but had a lot of help from the CIA and The American Government in carrying out his tyrranical rule. They put him there and supported him with arms and intel on his enemies so that he could do their dirty work for them.
Now the USA have an agenda which does not include a Mr. S Husain in its make up. Do you know the USA are actually talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan and will include them in the Afghan Govnt? I guess Hamid Karzai is no longer America's envoy in Afghanistan.
Oil is thicker than blood - and George Bush is thicker than oil.
2006-10-18 14:05:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anya 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was a tyrant. But he was the USA's tyrant. He did their bidding and gave them oil. He murdered his people and was backed by the USA. To the USA he was a good leader!
He threatened the oil supply!!!!!! He became a mass murderer. He had to go to free Iraq! Amazing what the black stuff does!
As long as he was under their control he could do whatever and kill whoever he wanted. He was a good leader!! But fall out with the Bully and although he is still doing what he done when under control he is now a mass murderer and must be removed..
Yes he was an evil man. But he was evil before and after the Yanks fell out with him!
2006-10-15 10:46:00 · answer #7 · answered by Firbolg 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was a bad man, no doubt. Some of the things that he did was downright gruesome. But, George Bush has changed his story about Iraq so much that I do not think even he knows why we invaded this country. Bush and America has no business in another sovereign nation overthrowing a government for the sole purpose of building a government in our image. This will never work and will probably come back to bite us on the azz even worse then it already has.
2006-10-14 18:14:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
With hindsight, Saddam seemed to hold the balance of power in the region. Maybe you needed that sort of Dictator to control the various factions in the region. And also, to keep Iran under control. With Saddam gone those checks and balances have been removed. It makes you wonder whether Iraqis deserved a despot like Saddam to rule them, because, without it, they are out of control. Some lessons have to be learned the hard way, and you can't always protect people from themselves.
2006-10-15 01:42:48 · answer #9 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that Saddam was a tyrant, but maybe that is just the type of government that worked for that region. Under his regime there was not much insurgency. And that was not because they liked him, but feared him. So I would say neither unfair or just, it just was. And I do say that Bush had no right to even interfere.
2006-10-14 18:09:45 · answer #10 · answered by mike g 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Im from Iraq live in Baghdad Now and not a refuge let me tell youv some thing
Saddam more mercy than USA occupied army
Saddam more fair than USA occupied army
2006-10-18 07:10:56 · answer #11 · answered by abu 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋