2007-01-20 04:14:35 · 10 answers · asked by wise guy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
During saddam's era Sunni-shia issue was not there are at all. Its all power, Saddam also have killed many sunni including very religious sunnis as well. Saddam belonged to a party by name "Al Ba'athal Arabi" Meaning Rennaissance of Arab". This party was dounded by an arab christian. So, its stupid to judge saddam based on whether he was shia or sunni. The main point is that Saddam did not allow US to take control of oil in Iraq and US wanted some excuse or justification to throw out Saddam from power. And its done.
2007-01-21 21:28:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Saddam hadn't been Saddam, he would have been assassinated long ago, and the country would have been in the chaos it is in now, long ago. At least he kept control in the only way that that country understands. Also, there would have been a very serious risk that Iran would have taken over. Moreover, Saddam's' character was formed in a factionalised country, where death and brutality were commonplace. We seem to be assessing him against those brought up in suburbia. I honestly think that Saddam was confused by the attitude of the rest of the world to the way he operated.
I have simply made observations, not value judgements.
2007-01-21 05:52:37 · answer #2 · answered by Veritas 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Saddam had been more fair in his treatment, there would not be any sectarian violence.
We helped the Shiites win freedom and instead of thanking us, they have decided to go after Sunnis in retribution.
They want the Sunnis to suffer for 35 years just as the Shiites have.
There are many pockets where Shia and Sunni live together peacefully and in some instances have intermarried.
It's the Militia who is the problem, not the sects.
2007-01-20 04:20:32 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Forget the Sunni Shina thing, Saddam was man enough to give USA presidents go slow on all power to the West.
2007-01-20 04:21:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously Saddam was an evil man and would do anything to stay in power, but what the present situation has shown is that you need a strong personality to keep Iraq together. I dont think democracy will survive in Iraq.
2007-01-20 04:46:18 · answer #5 · answered by Roaming free 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Disagree. the international is lots safer place with out his rule. he's a tyrant. Ask the kurds. Civil conflict is their own making. The Iraqis fail to work out the forged that occuring around them. attempt telling a terrorist what he should not be doing. they think of their reason is paramount. the comparable way the Iraqi civil conflict is a few thing they could desire to come again to grips with. It has no longer something to do with what got here approximately during the previous couple of years.
2016-11-25 22:17:52 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i was thinking the same thing. He knew how to run his nation. We should not have invaded Iraq. I don't agree with what he did, but i think he knew how to Handel his rouges.Hey wiseguy, you can't make sense with these people. They no nothing about the living conditions in Iraq. This war is a big mess. I admit it but we're considered fools. There will be reductions fro this invasion of Iraq. Now there's Iran, and the like.
2007-01-20 04:20:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The methods Saddam used will never be right under any conditions. No, he was sadistic, not right.
2007-01-20 04:21:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What doe's it matter - dear old Saddam is now 'Loaf of Bread'
2007-01-23 22:35:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if you consider using torture, rape rooms, poison gas, murder squads to be keeping control, I guess he was the greatest leader the world has ever known. Idjit.
2007-01-20 04:18:56 · answer #10 · answered by sparkletina 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋