He was a nasty fucker butm should we have taken him out?
2007-05-13 11:25:19 · 4 answers · asked by townailer 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. He was no worse or better than many brutal dictators that the West has supported in the past. Realistically, he was a secular socialist who held Iraq together and kept the fanatical Muslims tightly reigned in. Contrary to popular belief, he and bin Laden despised each other.
He also acted as a counterbalance to Iran. He did, for his own political reasons, support the Palestinians - but this - especially the Fatah movement, had naught to do with Al Queda.
2007-05-14 02:43:56 · answer #1 · answered by gortamor 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problems today in Iraq are largely a result of the way Saddam ruled. He needed to go, the problem is no one thought about what happens next, after he was gone.
2007-05-14 01:26:19 · answer #2 · answered by Paul K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you read the history of Iraq you will find that all of who rule Iraq was more or less like Saddam.
you cant rule Iraq other than this way because it is full of different nations and culture and ever one want there lows to be followed. the other way is to divide Iraq in to different countries.
you can see what is happening now.
2007-05-14 18:18:30 · answer #3 · answered by sun set 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh the benefits of 20:20 vision ...
Focus should now be on 'what next ?' rather than waste our time on 'shoud we / could we have done something different' ... leave the "should we's" to the historians (and other writers of fiction)
2007-05-14 02:48:36 · answer #4 · answered by Steve B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋