Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands of people. But now that he has been executed, the civil war in Iraq seems to be out of control.
My question is: In this situation, do the pros outweigh the cons now that Saddam has been removed from power?
2007-07-27 00:16:16 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I just wanted to clarify the question a little. I wanted to know your opinions on if taking Saddam out of power was better for the world as a whole, not necessarily for a specific country.
Also, I understand that there were many false accusations made to Saddam i.e.- WMD's, affiliartion with 9/11, etc... But I want to know what you all think of the SITUATION in spite of the REASONS why he was put out of power. Thank you all!
2007-07-27 00:37:48 · update #1
This is a double edged question that I will try to answer carefully. When Saddam was in power, we have to look at two sad but necessary facts. Then man was a heck of a buffer between Iran and the rest of the Middle East. I don't know if you are aware of the religious differences between the Sunni and the Sh'ia branch of Islam, but it does factor into this as in that part of the world, religion is politics. Saddam was a muslim in name only, therefore neither side could stand him and held a tentative peace against a common enemy. With Saddam not there anymore, that tentative peace is collapsing in a hurry as both religious groups try to influence the politics of Iraq. Now, the bad thing about Saddam having been in power was the simple fact that all citizens living in Iraq lived in fear of the man. Now it seems they just live in fear of each other. On the pro side of him being gone, the people now have (hopefully) a better chance at self determination. However, if a stable government is not left in place, you can expect a bloody civil war with Iran, Syria, Saudi, and others all seeking domination and influence. The potential is there now that Saddam has been forever removed for this to become a lot worse. You could literally see the whole Middle East collapse into a war between moderate Islam and fundamental (radical) Islam, with the religious differences of the Sunni and Shia also being brought to bear.
2007-07-27 00:53:22 · answer #1 · answered by sc_conservative 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If we are not talking specifically about for the people of iraq, Sadaam in power was better. The way we removed him from power has created more terrorists, more hostility, thousands more deaths, a more dangerous world to live in. For the people of iraq, its a toughie. If Sadaam had been removed in the proper way without bombing the **** out of the country and killing thousands of people, and then the UN had been put in charge with peacekeepers as the main force, not american and british soldiers running amok, torturing people, and also getting killed themselves that would be much, much better.
2007-07-27 07:45:54 · answer #2 · answered by jungle bunny 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Saddam hasn't killed as many as we have! We starved 1/2 million kids under 5 to death with our blockades!
We would be a hell of a lot better off with Saddam still in power! After all, we put him there!! And he had nothing to do with 9/11, nor terrorist, nor did he have any WMDS! The only reason he was attacked is he has a lot of oil that Exxon is taking out of there every month!
We would not have killed an additional 60,000 to 600,000 (Gen Frank's didn't do body counts) wounded many more and have had 4,000 of our own killed for absolutely nothing!
2007-07-27 07:26:00 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It was better keeping Saddam there. Better for all concerned- except for the Kurds. For an average Suni or Shiite, they are hardly better off. - isnt it interesting how Bush 41's CIA incited Kurds to rebell in 90 - 91, and did nothing to help them afterwards ? Kurds are well advised not to trust the US eitther.
2007-07-27 07:22:42 · answer #4 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Saddam in power was worse. Yes it was worth it.
2007-07-27 07:39:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Worse for who? Its definitely been better for us. Saddam's execution has had no effect on the violence in Iraq, an indication that it was not Ba'athists perpetuating the violence, but Al Qaeda. If they weren't there, they'd be here.
2007-07-27 07:22:53 · answer #6 · answered by smartr-n-u 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
planksheer, I'm fairly sure the Kurds would disagree. Maybe before you pass judgment you should actually find out what they think.
2007-07-27 07:27:11 · answer #7 · answered by K M F 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Which one do you prefer? Frying Pan or Fire....
TO us, ie., normal people both are equally painful.
2007-07-27 07:24:19 · answer #8 · answered by Subhasis G 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
in power man, look what is happening now and what was happening before .
2007-07-27 07:21:01 · answer #9 · answered by AMR H 1 · 2⤊ 4⤋
its worse after they kill him
2007-07-27 07:25:33 · answer #10 · answered by tarik h 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋