Middle East better off under dictators?

Question

Nobody liked Saddam but you have to admit that Iraq and indeed the west was better off with him in power. That he was a murdering tyrant is cold hard fact, but at least with him we knew who we were dealing with. He managed to keep the waring factions in Iraq from this mass slaughter and any attempt by Al Qaeda to try and overthrow him would have been met by the full force of the Republican Guard. Also, as a Sunni he provided a much needed credible threat to Iran which served as a nice way of keeping them in check and making sure their attention was split. With Saddam you knew what you were facing, a mad man with a moderately powerful ARMY. As I'm sure any military commander will tell you, its much easier fighting a regular army than a swarm of religious radicals infiltrating every aspect of civilian life. The west AT ALL COSTS must not allow Muslim countries to be run by radical Islam. Military dictators can be bargained with and contained, radical Isalm cannot. Your thoughts?

Answer 1

You are dead wrong. There is never an excuse for a dictator. Iraq was not better off. He killed more people than are dying now. He lost his war with Iran. Dictators are as bad as muslim radicals. Freedom of choice is the only viable long term answer.

Answer 2

My thoughts? What they have always been. There is an old saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I never believed Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The reason being he and Bin Ladin were mutual enemies. I never had the slightest sympathy for Saddam and still don't. He was a thug. But if we wanted to destroy his regime the time was back in '91. then we had 80 % of his military in the open desert and total air superiority. The difference now is we have them in the city's and that is the hardest way to fight any guerrilla war. Hiding among people is the best cover in existence. This is the way Mick Collin's fought the British. Mao put it like this " the guerrilla is a fish and the people the sea". The reason Afghanistan has gone better is simple. There are less big city's and that force's the other side to fight in they countryside more. There our high tech gives us the advantage. Iraq is now just the opposite. As for Iran, this is where it all started. It used to be our biggest ally in the mideast. We let it be taken over by radical Islam. We have been regreting it ever since. In Iraq we have done what they always wanted. The job they wish they had the power to do. Overthrown the Sunni and left a vacaum they are stepping into. In '91 if we had finished it the shock to the region would have been devasting. Saddam would have fell naturally. The Kurd's could have created a homeland. Iran would have seen what happened and been unwilling to get directly involved. We would have also had a military we built during the Cold War a lot stronger in number's. The difference between '91 and 2003, simple. Open desert with total air superiority. Plus a decade to get used to our tactic's and a smaller military on our part.

Answer 3

Whats wrong with Hugo Chavez, what did he ever do bad, aside from resisting american imperialism? Next you will say the venezula leader is also bad.

Resisiting occupation and imperialism is not a crime. So do not criticise such leaders, whose intentions are only to prevent their people from being brain washed.

Furthermore why is that america always labels the countries iraq, iran, venezula and practically the whole middleast, as the axis of evil? Well the link here is all these countries are rich with oil and it is only in the interest of the American's to destabilise these countries to rob them of their wealth.

Why is it that the american government wants to place missile launches around countries bordering Russia. The government is imperialist and believes America should be the dominent power and controller of the entire world.

Lastly there is no such thing as a democracy. In the end all the governments are dictators, with personal ambitions and no care for the citizens.

Answer 4

I agree with your line of thinking. I don't think Iraq had a formidable army what so ever, but it is easier to contain tyranny if it is coming from one source (Saddam) than to control multiple voilent sects. I feel that the US needs to take a more controling stance in Iraq. We need to be "governing" and making all the security decisions in Iraq until there is stability in the region. The only way is total control by one entity that has leadership and strength, which for this situation, a dictator type rule serves best.

Answer 5

You logic would make Mr. Spock proud: emotionless and unflinching.

However, there is one thing you haven't considered: once Iraq and Afghanistan become stable democracies, its neighbors will begin to be jealous of the freedoms they enjoy there, just like the Soviet satellite countries seethed with envy when they saw the indicators of West Germany's prosperity, or anytime they saw a foreign tourist with his fancy clothes and expensive electronics.

Already, Iranian youth are disinterested in religion. I have heard this over and over from young Iranians, they just don't want to pursue the backwards type of lifestyle that the Islamic religion fosters. They want designer clothes and rock music, not to listen to some bearded relic in a robe talk nonsense.

The greatest threat to radical Islam is not our superior military, it is democracy. Democracy fosters tolerance and respect for human rights. Things that are commonplace under a tyrants rule are impossible under a democratic system of government. Ironically, democracy also seems to have the undeniable effect of weakening peoples' attachment to religion, as evidenced by how churches across the globe have effectively turned into museums of a bygone era.

Look at what has happened already. The quote below comes from the website I cite.

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Radical Islam cannot live withi its own Berlin Wall, a wall of ignorance, myth, and backwardness. Democracy is like the sledgehammers that knocked down the Berlin Wall.

Answer 6

And the coward Bush didn't care enough to understand the impact of waging war on Iraq and the middle east. He wanted revenge because Saddam said he wanted to assassinate his daddy. Big deal. He has destabilized the entire middle east, spread terrorism around the globe and now he's crawling to Iran for help to moderate the situation. Bush the Coward is the US first proclaimed dictator. So much for America that so many of us fought for.

Answer 7

it was said of samoza "he's an s.o.b., but he's our s.o.b." and so was saddam. many people in our highly developed western world fail to understand that a large portion of the world still lives in a condition of tribalism; afghanistan is a great example of this. as is iraq. democracy, in a tribal setting, would best be described as chaos. by their very nature, tribes are best governed by a chief, or a headman; an authority. the very concept of democracy is alien to some, makes no good sense whatsoever.

Answer 8

Your out of your mind. He harbored Al-Qaeda, killed his own people and tried to invade another country.

You sympathizers kill me. Next thing you know, you'll call Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il a great guy. Get a grip.

Answer 9

i do no longer trust Kofi Annan approximately something. I additionally think of that for the period of basic terms the Iraqis are qualified to assert no rely if or no longer they have been extra effectual off under Saddam. thinking the way they celebrated while Saddam replaced into carried out, i do no longer think of they want to circulate returned to that way of life.

Answer 10

I agree and in fact they seemed in some ways better off with a dictator and many there don't want us. Since someone wants to be there so bad why not send Bush himself. He wants to be there, our families don't need to be there, so let him go there and dictate.