Was Saddam The Enemy & Scourge of Shiite Islamic Jihad?

Question

That's what a lot Middle East experts thought.

Saddam's regime was the most secular of any Muslim country and "his own people" whom he killed imprisoned and tortured etc (besides 5,000 Kurds) were actually Jihad Mujahadeen Iranian-backed Shiite extremists.
The evidence of course is great that this is the truth.
Certainly in his ten-year war with Iran, which caused 1 million Iraqi deaths, that's exactly who he was fighting.

If Saddam was a Jihadist holy warrior as Bush/GOP & Co claim(ed), he never would have fought the Iranian Jihad, and/or Bin laden would have been in Iraq and not Afghanistan.
What do you think?

Answer 1

Yes , he was the enemy of the Shias because they were friendly with Iran.
Now the Americans have put a government in charge of Iraq that has a Shia majority.
This will turn out to be as Anti-American as Iran

Answer 2

without doubt Saddam was a dictator and was no better than Hitler. the world doesn't need any more leaders like that and the sooner they are all gone the world will be a better place. The one sin a Muslim can do is kill his Muslim brother, so how come that's all they seem to want to do ? Should this faith be disbanded and made illegal as its the one religion that seems to hate even off shoots of its faith. There believe of dying for their faith goes against the grain of any other faith and if their religious leaders cant translate the Koran correctly, make me believe its time to put an end to Islam.

Answer 3

Well, except for protecting our national interests when Saddam attacked Kuwait, and protecting an ally when Saddam paid suicide bombers who successfully killed civilians in Israel, and attempting to kill our former President Bush, and stating quite clearly that he wanted the United States destroyed, I'd say that we were foolish for going in.

But considering those things? We'd have been foolish not to.

In fact, we were foolish. We waited a decade while the U.N. made foolish threats they did not follow up on with Saddam, while Saddam bragged to his allies about how foolish he was making the U.N. and the West and how he was still making WMDs (whether he was or not).

We should have finished it the first time. We were soft. We got what we deserved with a decade of delay, and again by trying to rebuild Iraq instead of simply getting him, bombing their military into rubble, and making clear that the next nation who attacks us or our property or our allies gets the same.

Oh, we'll leave if your government asks for it (we did with Panama, even though it was DEFINITELY not in our interests). But attack us? Wrong choice.

Answer 4

I think you really need to go back and study your statements. Most of what you have posted is incorrect. You should start with the rise of the Bath party through the Iran-Iraq war and up to today. You'd be surprised at how little you know about what your talking about.

I'll even give you a link to get started. If you really want to learn the subject there's a lot more material available.

http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/iraniraq.htm