Who was better at controling murderous muslims Saddam's gov't or present Iraqi gov't.?

Answer 1

No one would deny that Saddam was a cruel, sadistic madman. However, given the current chaos in Iraq, sadly he was the lesser of two evils.

Answer 2

Honestly, if we had done our homework we would have noticed that Saddam and his minority bath party had a whole region (not just a country) a whole entire middle eastern region under control. Saddam should have been used not removed.
Saddam had a profound hatred for the very Shiite we want to save in Iraq and we so much hate ourselves in Iran ... how can that be?
Where those that make any sense at all?
Saddam's atrocity as much as i denounce them myself were meanly an attempt for him to stay alive ... how would one react when millions around you are trying to get you ... and you found out? will you say it s OK no problem i forgive you or would you crush the "rebellion"? It is all a different perspective.

Answer 3

SADDAM, hands down. One powerful murderer will control every other murderer. That's how the Saddam government worked.

But I am sure that ONCE the present Iraqi government get's authority and RECOGNITION, then they too will become powerful. But that is unlikely because the Sunni murderers will NEVER accept the current Shiite-led government.

Answer 4

Saddam.

Answer 5

In the ultimate Double-Think, Dubya does seem to be coming around to the realization that the regime they deposed in Iraq was more their friend than enemy. While they have not been openly supporting the Sunni insurgency, they are looking the other way while Saudi Arabia supports the insurgents. While they single out Hezbollah as dangerous, they count among their allies the Iraqi Daiwa sect, founders of Hezbollah.

The Administration position is coming closer to the realization of my bizarre speculation that the US may well switch sides in Iraq.



But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran.

The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.

“It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.”

Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that “the Middle East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War.”

The Administration’s new policy for containing Iran seems to complicate its strategy for winning the war in Iraq. Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran and the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued, however, that closer ties between the United States and moderate or even radical Sunnis could put “fear” into the government of Prime Minister Maliki and “make him worry that the Sunnis could actually win” the civil war there. Clawson said that this might give Maliki an incentive to coöperate with the United States in suppressing radical Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

Even so, for the moment, the U.S. remains dependent on the coöperation of Iraqi Shiite leaders. The Mahdi Army may be openly hostile to American interests, but other Shiite militias are counted as U.S. allies. Both Moqtada al-Sadr and the White House back Maliki. A memorandum written late last year by Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser, suggested that the Administration try to separate Maliki from his more radical Shiite allies by building his base among moderate Sunnis and Kurds, but so far the trends have been in the opposite direction. As the Iraqi Army continues to founder in its confrontations with insurgents, the power of the Shiite militias has steadily increased.

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

Answer 6

Is that a rhetorical question? Nobody dared step out of line under Saddam. Just ask the ~150 people he executed under his country's law for breaking other laws (for which we later executed him so that there would be no court evidence showing where he got the chemicals he used to gas the Kurds.)

Answer 7

There are two options in Iraq, and we're afraid to try either.

We can either pull out immediately, or tell the military to "just win the war. Do whatever it takes."

Both would work, but the gov't won't do them.

Answer 8

Saddam, of course... and he was also better at torture, mayhem, and genocide than the present Iraqi Government. What is your point?

Answer 9

Saddam was a dictator Leader, so it easy to control your people by force if you are dictator leader.

Answer 10

Are you suggesting that America use the same tactics and methods that Sadam used to control his people? Really?

I think the islamic fascist deserve nothing better that those methods. But it is an abberration to think that all should be punished to get at the few.

Are you suggesting the Iraqi people were better off under Sadam?

I hope you aren't seriously thinking that.

And if you are, you are not just an idiot, you are a sadistic idiot.