Good thing or bad thing? Will the Iraqi people be better off without this brutal dictator, even if the Islamic terrorists stage a Las Vegas-style convention in Baghdad? Or would they be better off under his filthy thumb? Your thoughts, please.
2006-12-29 19:27:36 · 10 answers · asked by Warren D 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Saddam wasn't a prince. "Goodbye Sweet Prince" is a variation on a quote from Shakespeare.
2006-12-30 02:06:09 · update #1
I am not thrilled and delighted with any of these answers to the extent that I can select a best answer from them. I will let this ride a few more days in hopes someone will come up with a better answer.
Meanwhile let me address one point raised here and elsewhere. It may be true that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam than they are now--that is, those people he tolerated were better off.
But it was also true that the German people were better off under Hitler prior to 1939, and that the American Colonists were better off under the British than they were in 1779. Sometimes you have to have a little suffering on the way to making things a lot better.
The suffering--by and large--is being caused by Islamic terrorists. The terrorists cannot defeat us, only we can defeat ourselves.
But whatever else happens, Iraq and the world are much better off without Saddam Houssain. Good riddance to bad rubbish, and remember--it was the Iraqis that executed him.
2006-12-30 19:08:40 · update #2
That's not funny. Saddam Hussein's last minutes were as follows:
Saddam (as the noose is put around his neck): Ya Allah (Oh God).
Someone in the audience: Mercy be on those who pray for Mohammed and the household of Mohammed. (Everyone repeats the prayer, including Saddam.)
Executioner and two people in the audience: And hasten his return (the Mehdi), curse his enemy and grant victory to his son, Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada! (This is a common Sadrist chant.)
Saddam (smirking): Muqtada?
NSA Muwafaq Al-Rubai'i: To Hell!
Saddam: (laughing)
Prosecutor Munqidh Al-Far'awn: Please, no.
Muwafaq Al-Rubi'i: Long live Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr!
Someone in the audience: To Hell!
Saddam (solemnly recites the Shahada prayer): I witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. I witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Mohammed is the- (trap door is opened).
Audience: Prayers for Mohammed and the household of Mohammed.
Someone: The tyrant has fallen. May Allah's curse be upon him.
Someone: No. No. Stay back.
Someone: Leave him for 8 minutes. Don't take him down.
Someone: Everyone. Stay back.
2007-01-01 03:14:17 · answer #1 · answered by Ivri_Anokhi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My take is : Bad thing.
For a start, life was better under Saddam (prior the Iran-Iraq Conflict). During his reign, the country was stable and the society flourished.
His intention for his people was never bad albeit that he ruled with an iron fist. Come on, was Saddam the only one? What can we say of Russia, China, Cuba and etc? Can we say that China is doing a bad job now?
Different cultures require different styles of ruling. Americans are famous for selling bullshit as pancakes and thus, the whole media coverage over these episodes have been bias. This is not to mention that the whole 2003 invasion was unilateral and illegal without an international mandate from the U.N.
Saddam is ruthless no doubt but you can never rule out the fact that the country was more controlled under his reign than now. America's ideology of democracy might not be the very democracy Iraq needs.
What's left over now are sectarian violences, societal breakdowns, economic meltdowns with a Shiites-dominated legislature with no apparent separation of powers (at least in essence), rule of law nor administrative capability.
At the end of the day, the Americans would just exit (most probably after Bush steps down) like what they did in Vietnam. Is the American purported "democracy" better now that Saddam's dead? The answer is quite an evidential "No".
Saddam's thumb might be filthy but for a superpower country to rape the sovereignty of another nation without international support is pure mindless carnage.
2006-12-30 03:45:27 · answer #2 · answered by Josephus 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe he probably deserved to die, but I wish they could have taken the high road and left him in prison. I don't think he was a threat to anyone at that point, and perhaps by killing him they've made him into a martyr in the minds of some. The new Iraqi government had an excellent chance to show the world how different they are from dictators like Saddam, however they ended up treating him just like he would have in their place.
2006-12-30 03:52:45 · answer #3 · answered by Geoffrey S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Such execution means only one thing: a dragoon is dead, hello a new dragoon. Cruelity and violence serve only for further violence. People received a message from new democrats. And information has such a feature that it can not be deleted from heads normally.
Most funny that Mr.Bush congratulated the fact... that exceeded worst presentiments about him.
2006-12-30 03:32:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definately better without! Thank God Saddam is GONE!
2006-12-30 03:30:52 · answer #5 · answered by buzzbait0u812 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are worse dictators then Saddam out there...
2006-12-30 03:36:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I pray for peace for both sides. His reign is officially over. It is time to put this to rest. War,anger,and the pain it all causes gets no one anything!
2006-12-30 03:30:52 · answer #7 · answered by L.T. 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm not going to judge. also i did not know he was a prince. I thought he was just a political guy.
2006-12-30 03:29:13 · answer #8 · answered by evilive 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good riddance.
2006-12-30 03:29:29 · answer #9 · answered by TurnMeOut 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One question to you, how would you feel if you had to live under his thumb?
2006-12-30 03:34:17 · answer #10 · answered by evildragon1952 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋