Maybe Sadam Hussein was needed to rule Iraq?

Question

Yesterday one faction car-bombed civilians in market places full of another faction. Today the retribution was to set 5 people on fire.

Does anyone else think that it is just possible that however tyrannical Hussein was, he kept order?

Now that we got rid of him, aren't we obligated to restore order at all cost until the tribes decide to live together peacefully? Or "forever"?

Is anyone out there still denying We Goofed?

Answer 1

I'm sure about it. He knew a lot about his country and about keeping order in it.

We may agree or not on the methods used (I don't). But my humble opinion is that: only the people who live in a country are to decide about their future. Their history, their culture, their beliefs... will make them take decisions. Of course, this seems not easy when you're not "free". But in any case I still think that only Iraqi people should have decided when Sadam should leave (and even if he should), and how.

There's nothing on Earth like a "preventive war" like that started in Iraq by the US. There's no way to impose freedom and democracy to people who are just not ready for that. And of course, if it exists a way to do it, it's not war. For people who have never learned to respect one another ideas and beliefs, and behave only under menaces, the result of a sudden change is uncertain. If the change has not been requested by anyone and comes from an old enemy, you can be sure that it will not be welcome, even if it's "for good".

If people in Iraq had just had time to get ready for changes, many things would have been different. Society could have been able to evolve at an appropriate pace to identify the advantages of living together in peace, and to adapt to new ways to do things. Now it's too late. Unfortunately, people who started this will never suffer the consequences...

Answer 2

The UN mission in Iraq was and still is important.Perhaps Hussein did keep the other warring tribes in check but in doing so he was committing atrocities against his countrymen and taunting the world by snubbing the UN for over a decade.
Perhaps we should pull our troops and force the warring factions in Iraq to settle their own current issues as we have much larger fish to fry. Iran IS telling the world what they will do once they have nuclear weapons and they answer to nobody except Allah. The extremist regime is not concerned whether or not they begin armageddon, they have those "72 virgins" to look forward to.
Ahmnadinejad is this century's Hitler. Once this madman possesses the weapons he desires, there is no doubt he WILL use them. At least Kim Jong Il has China keeping him in check, for now that is.

We did goof by not warning the people of Iraq that we plan to level their capital and then just doing so. Teheran should realize that our leaders have probably learned an important lesson in Iraq, they will not be dealt with in the same manner, especially if they become nuclear aggressors..

Answer 3

I understand exactly what you're saying. But you have to ask yourself was it REALLY "Peace?" It was fear. So, what you suggest is that we either institute another dictatorship or we commit genocide. Hmmm... What about dividing the country into three separate states?
Was going to war there a mistake? Biblically, "Yes." Politically, had the French's UN not screwed the pooch and held Saddam to the cease fire agreement, we wouldn't be there now. It SHOULD have been the UNs job. People tend and like to conveniently forget about all of the times the Iraqis would light up one of our jets and then we'd have to do something about that. Tit for tat gets to be very old and a worthless endevour. What needs to happen now is the UN needs to be billed for the expenses incurred and then required to take over the whole operation. But wait. It was the UN's corruption that got us into this mess in the first place...

Answer 4

I don't know that we goofed to want freedom for Iraqis or that Hussein keeping order by tyranny was right and acceptable either. Until these sects stop killing each other over which version of the "religion of peace" is correct the only hope is foreign firepower.

Or should we let them fight it out themselves per this article?

http://jihadidujour.blogspot.com/2006/11/its-civil-war-and-i-say-let-them-fight.html

Answer 5

We have this idea that "democracy" is for everybody, and the sad fact is - it isn't. The U.S.S.R. fell apart because its citizens weren't used to fending for themselves. Hussein kept order in Iraq - the U.S.A. destroyed it by meddling into a culture it didn't - and still doesn't - understand. The Bush administration has ruined this country. But, we didn't "goof" - it was all part of the plan.
American motorists are dependent on foreign OIL, and some of the most easily-accessible OIL comes from Iraq. The U.S. invaded Iraq for one reason: OIL. We are now building the largest embassy in the world on a 104-acre site in downtown Baghdad overlooking the 'new' Iraqi puppet government installed by the Bushites.
We will be there for decades, until we suck every drop of OIL out of Iraq's sands.
And the blood of 655,000 Iraqis and 2,800 U.S. soldiers (so far) will be on the hands of the Bush administration; the most evil, contemptible, corrupt Congress in U.S. history; and the people of the United States of America who believe it's their "right" to drive around in $60,000 gas-guzzling SUVs. -RKO-

Answer 6

Greetings!

We certainly hear a lot about how evil Saddam was. However, being someone who reads foreign newspapers, and media news in general from foreign nations, I must tell you that claims made by our government are probably not the truth.
Did he and was he successful in keeping a peace? Yes. Perhaps the goal of this government was simply regime change.
All the lies we have been told by the Bush Government, how and why should we be dumb enough to believe he was telling the truth about Saddam?
Also one of the larger questions remaining is when the US invaded, why didn't they disarm the country?
We can go on and on.
Common sense dictates that the logical point of view when looking at the events of a day in Iraq, is that the US made a huge blunder, provoked by an arrogant leader.
As such like a CEO that he is, President Bush should do the right thing and resign.
He can't continue to let American, and Iraqui people die for nothing.

Good Luck

Answer 7

Their country doesn't seem to want to defend themselves.

I too have wondered if He was needed. Sick as he is, they do not seem to be able to or want to stand on their own and be independent.

You know at least half of the country is protecting and hiding the insurgents.

Let us all pray we are out of there soon.

Yes and I am a very unhappy Republican.

Answer 8

I agree, those people seem to need a iron fist to rule them.

Answer 9

If it's because he wasn't there then the country is really f*cked either way.

Answer 10

hmm...kept order by killing many many MANY people??? boy, that really makes sense now, doesn't it?