Do you think Saddam Hussein should still be in power?

Question

I hear people people say that we should have never went in to Iraq.

That being the case, then they are saying that they didn't have a problem with Hussien.

With him torturing and killing people on a daily basis.

Which I think would have went on forever as his sons would have evebntually taken over and their sons.

To me, it's like doing nothing about Hitler back in WWII, but i'm sure someone will try to say that it's different, even though it's not.

people are people.

I would like to hear this justified please.

Answer 1

No, but it was none of our business to take him out of power. And we had virtually no support from other countries - look at the mess it's gotten us AND Iraq into? And it's only getting worse.

Unfortunatlely, some people cannot understand why people are against the Iraq invasion and reduce it to "you must be a Sadaam supporter." It's kind of scary.

Much of the world thinks that Bush should not be in power. Should they invade the U.S.?

Answer 2

Dead men don't rule?... History lesson. In the1980's he dropped chemical bombs on a village because people didn't vote for him there. When ask why he did that his answer was "to teach them a lesson"... Enough said?... Sorry an after thought. He signed his death warrant on that day. There are people on this planet that will fight for personal freedom No mater who's freedom it is. That is why we are there. Is oil a factor? Yes. The world can not be robbed of it's current most viable resource. That was the way things were headed. .. remember the oil fields in Kuwait? I hope him and Adolf have a nice time in Hell.

Answer 3

In hindsight, yes. He was bottled up pretty tightly with no-fly zones in the north and south and trade tightly restricted. He was not a great threat to anyone outside Iraq. While life was bad for the Iraqi people it was at least stable and their main threat was know. Conditions are far worse now as far as their personal peril and will likely be worse still before they get better.

Your World War II/Hitler comparison is not apt. Hussein was not out conquering his neighbors, was not a growing threat to anyone outside his country, and in fact was denied control of a great portion of his own country. He was contained.

Answer 4

honestly, no; however, allow me to play devil's advocate. saddam should have remained in power, while inpowerm iraq was a more stable and prosperous country. the middle east was in less turmoil and the iraqi people had a strong leader in charge. there were fewer bombings. so what if he cut people's heads off or tortured their family for speaking out. he couldn't have that,lest an insurrection occurs. it was all in a day's work. that what made him an effective dictator. his people feared him.
ps. remeber i am playing devil's advocate, so keep that in mind, don't attack me

Answer 5

if america had never gone to irak, saddam hussein would not have been in power in the first place.... he was put in power after the second gulf war to take care of koeweit, and stabalise the regions, or more so, the oil supply.

its the americans that got him to power, but i guess you didnt know that did you?

saddam hussein was a vicious dictator, and should not have been in power in the first place.

oh and hte whole idea of removing a government of a country (even a dictators government) to create stability, could only have been thought up by a bush...

Answer 6

honestly...Saddam was doing his thang when the US was supplying him with the weapons. Who gave him the mustard gas????

AND if they wanted to remove him wasn't the Gulf War the best time to do it and NOT when we should have been focusing on eradicating Al Queda and the Taliban??? Who seem stronger today now that we have "liberated" Iraq?????

And what about N. Korea, 90% of all African nations, Eastern Europe?????

Answer 7

That balloon head Bush senior should have finished the job he started.

Answer 8

You still want him to be in power ?

Answer 9

No

Answer 10

you bet ye.