Why do people think the war in Iraq is wrong? what would life be like if Saddam was still in power?

Question

But nobody thinks what if saddam started to help Iran get the nuke

Yes i know all about the 10 year war that Iraq and Iran had,but I was suggesting that the biggest enemy the two countries would have are the US and Israel

Answer 1

Because they are uninformed, they follow the herd, and they allow themselves to become polarized.

I had a conversation with a 20 year old police academy student last night about the war and I swear to god when I used the word insurgent she stopped me and said, "what's an insurgent?". I almost fell on the floor, I was shocked.

The level of ignorance about what is going on in this world and WHY, is astounding.

As for Saddam, if he was still in power, especially after 9/11 you would see unprecedented amounts of corruption from the UN all the way to infusing terrorist groups with cash on a regular basis.

Answer 2

Look, the fact is that Iraq was a weak nation in 2003 that had UN no flight zones and sanctions placed on the civilians, killing over 1 million.

Saddam had no nuclear program. He didn't even have the basic components for nukes. He didn't even appear to have a plan for nukes

The US intelligence about Saddams nuclear program was from a single source. He was a convicted fraudster and was paid a million dollars just to lie.

Saddam was a tyrant, for sure. But he was an unarmed old man. He posed no threat & was under constant watch.

Saddam was weak, Iraq was weak, there were no terrorists, there was no WMD. There were no radical warlords. It was secular, It was no threat at all.

It's very clear that the Iraqi people hate the west and the war has made us less safe.

But get this. What is the motto for leaving? It's "When they stand-up, we'll sit down"

That means we'll leave when Iraq has a well armed and trained fighting force

So we went into a weak, unarmed, harmless secular nation.

We'll leave when it's a strong, well armed, bitterly angry, radical religious, tribal nation.

Isn't that back-to-front? Invade a weak nation that has no problem with us, then make them hate us, arm them, train them, put radical anti-American warlords in power and go home.

655,000 people are dead and millions of Iraqi's mourn them in anger. Kids have lost parents, brothers lost sisters etc. Let's hope they don't seek revenge !!

Answer 3

Amusing... and scary...

Saddam Hussein and the Iranian regime had just come from fighting a long war that left them both battered. A conflict by the way where the US supported Iraq and provided them with arms, and closed an eye or two to the treatment of the Kurds.

I am quite sure Saddam Hussein wouldn't be that stupid as to help his enemy to build a nuke.

If he was still in power?
Let me see... Chances are the Bathists would be controlling Iraq, the Sunni-Shia conflict wouldn't exist, the Kurds wouldn't be stirring problems in Turkey... and the Christians and Jews in Iraq would be much safer. Plus chances are most of us would be safer too..

Oh yeah, and the US and allied forces and the Iraqi civilians who died in Iraq as a result of the conflict might still be alive, barring a few accidents and sickness.

Answer 4

So much rhetoric, so little fact.

I think Saddam’s rule was horrific, and do not seek to defend that who I see as a murderous tyrant. But is life for Iraqis better now? I am no expert, no one here is, but any statistics from sources other than the governments of the coalition forces will show that life is worse.

How many died under Saddam’s rule? The stats vary. Prior to the invasion Blair told us that 400,000 graves were to be discovered at one point. After the invasion he admitted it was more like 5000 (1).

The prosecution at Saddam’s trial allege 180,000. As the prosecution we can assume this is an upper figure. (2)

Absolutely horrific. And this does not detail the undiscovered deaths and plain brutality.

But what now?

According to the most recent study 650,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion. The source on this one is as solid an independent as any source could be. (3)

And what of the torture and human rights?

What does Guantanamo mean to you?

A UN spokesman has already expressed fears that torture is worse in Iraq now than before the invasion (4).

(Sorry, I hate these talk of numbers. It makes it all seem so abstract, when really it’s peoples lives.)

And Autumn is right. I hate conspiracy theorists; I believe man landed on the moon and not that the CIA were behind 9/11. But anyone who thinks this is not a war for oil ask yourselves why haven’t we liberated Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea or Burma?

Anyone seeking to discredit my argument please provide facts and sources. Don’t thumb down simply because you don’t like what I’m saying.

Answer 5

Do you even know your history. Why would Saddam help Iran to get a Nuke. Iraq had no Nuclear reactor and thus couldn't produce and refine the Uranium to make a bomb. Their only reactor was destroyed by the Israelis before it was put online.

Secondly, Iraq and Iran were at war with each other. They were enemies and ideologically different to each other in their brand of Islam and attitude to religion.

Saddam in power would have killed less people than the "coalition" has!

Answer 6

You've obviously made your mind up about this war, so why raise issues you know will upset certain people. It is not right to invade another country on the pretense of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, kill a proportion of the populaton and claim that the world is a better place without Saddam in power. Any excuse to stay in Iraq after failing to find WMDs is WRONG! We went there to dismantle or stop the production of WMDs, they don't exist, we should not be there now! That's why the war is WRONG!

Answer 7

People feel the war in Iraq is wrong because so much evidence has been revealed that there were no WMD's and that Saddam had no ties to Al-Queda and that the Bush administration hyped up the danger of Saddam to America.
If Saddam were still in power he would be trading Iraqi oil in Euro's just like he started to do before America invaded and took over the oil fields and changed it back to dollars(the main reason Bush and his cronies wanted to invade) and at least there would be no civil war in Iraq right now.
Yes, he was a brutal dictator but when you have so many different factions and races squeezed into that one country that don't like each other you have to rule over them with an iron fist and the number of Iraqis killed by Saddams' henchman pale in comparison to the number of Iraqis killed by America and the ensuing chaos and violence after the invasion.

Answer 8

Iran and Iraq have always been bitter enemies (you don't know about the horrible Iran-Iraq war of the 80s?), so there's no frickin' way Saddam would have helped Iran get a nuke, so don't worry your pretty little head about that concept! If Saddam were still in power, life in Iraq would still suck, but not nearly as much as it sucks now!

Answer 9

If Saddam was still in power, he would be trying to get WMD.Unless the USA had attacked him in a limited way on the ground- gone into Bagdhad and chased him out to scare the bejesus out of him-and then withdrawn.More or less give him a punch in the nose.
He would have regrouped and held the country together.
650000 people would still be living their lives, and the USA would be billions of dollars in pocket.The inspectors would be on the job.And thousands of American lives would have avoided insufferable tragedy.
And you know what-Saddam is the type of guy that if the next president approached him with respect.It would be kiss and make up.America would have an oil rich ally instead of a nightmare.
This entire Iraq occupation thing is crazy and tragic.And unnecessary.

Answer 10

I think Saddam was just made to look bad so that the Americans have an excuse to invade and take the oil. Most Iraqis will tell you that much. You will be a mug if you think as they say that Saddam was killing everybody in sight. If you really think that then I will now tell you that you are thick.