Is history now showing us that Saddam was a Genius? He's appears to be the only guy who could get 3 different muslim cultures (Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd) to live in one country with some semblence of peace? Albeit, he has to kill and rape a few hundred thousand to achieve this..... bring in a strongman tyrant to take over this mess!
2007-07-20 04:33:38 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
History shows this can be done. Look at Marshall Tito in Yugoslavia. He kept the Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins and Kosovans together from the end of WW2 to the early nineties. Look what happened after the soviets left? Total bedlam. But the question is that the right answer? You could argue the British kept the Indians and Pakistanis together until independence. Look what happened there. But the difference is here is that the US INVADED. Not left or pulled out. Two wrongs do not make a right.
2007-07-20 05:19:22 · answer #1 · answered by Teacher 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, but he knew how to rule his country with an iron fist, and most of the population saw him as the legitimate ruler.
Beneath it all,this may be the problem with the current government of Iraq. It's seen as a US puppet, as weak, as unrepresentative. The basic feeling of many Iraqis is that the government is not a lawful authority, and that the US troops do not belong there.
There was a proposal about a year ago to bring in a 5 man junta to rule Iraq. It was backed by many factions, but the US rejected it. Interesting reading:
2007-07-20 11:56:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not a genius. Just a dictator.
And yes, that kind of oppressive force is the only way to keep three warring factions from attacking each other. Which is exactly what the US has been trying to do for 3 years.
2007-07-20 11:37:23 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think a genius would have let UN inspectors go anywhere they wanted to before the war started.
Seems like a simple way to save your own neck when you don't possess any WMD's.
2007-07-20 11:55:26 · answer #4 · answered by Le BigMac 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think that there was peace in Iraq before, you have not been paying attention. I'm pretty sure the Kurds he executed simply for being Kurds will disagree with your assessment.
2007-07-20 11:37:32 · answer #5 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
If you put proven results ahead of anticipated effort, yes he was a genius. However, in America we have always put anticipated effort ahead of proven results in the way we vote. It's always been lip service by our politicians over results every time.
2007-07-20 11:58:46 · answer #6 · answered by Billy M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Saddam was a genius, he wouldn't be dead.
He was a strong-arm thug and was able to beat the people into submission.
However, he was no better/worse than any other dicatator that US supported....like Karimov of Uzbekistan.
2007-07-20 11:39:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think people overestimate genius. It is possible that he was a genius. Heck, I'm a genius (yes I have been tested). More important is motivation and drive, and how you use your talent.
2007-07-20 11:53:17 · answer #8 · answered by idahoarchmage 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I heard it said he was a genius of a Civil Engineer. I would not be surprised if he conspired with other Al-Queda operatives on the implementation process of what would bring down WTC.
2007-07-20 11:40:59 · answer #9 · answered by just curious 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is sad but it seems like the Iraqis respected Saddam more than the coalition. It seems that most Muslims only understand brute force and violence. The "I'm stronger than you so you will serve me" mentality. Democracy is a more European dervived thing and it was make for people who are more rational.
2007-07-20 11:38:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋