Some people claim the citizens of Iraq would be better off if Saddam Hussein had not been captured, convicted, and executed. The reason Saddam was captured was because he was guilty of thousands of murders. He was charged, tried, and convicted for under 200 muders, but the actual death count was in the thousands.
Here is a page charting some of the killings at the hands of Saddam Hussein by use of chemical weapons:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/attacks.htm
Let us step back for a moment and ask ourselves what we would prefer if our president had killed thousands of our citizens with chemical weapons. Would we want him to simply step down and receive pardons for the murders? Would we want him to face trial, conviction, and punishment? Or would we be better off ignoring these crimes simply to keep our president in power?
Now back to Iraq. What about Saddam? Should he have been left alone or faced the same justice all murderers should face?
2007-08-10 04:17:32 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Saddam should have been paraded around the country, half naked, in a circus cage. This would have completely destroyed the mystique of power he created, and the fear people felt for him.
Well, maybe that's just a wonderful daydream, but dictators like Saddam somehow need to have their illusion of absolute power broken. The people who lived under Saddam lived incomplete lives. They often couldn't travel without government permission. They couldn't make even the basic decisions that determine the kind of lives they and their families will have.
Even if some people lived well under Saddam, it was an artificial existence. Now people can vote, create laws that suit the country, travel, study what interests them, and do all the things citizens of legitimate nations take for granted.
Just recently, people who are normally enemies in Iraq: Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis, all celebrated together when they beat Saudi Arabia in a big soccer match. This would have been impossible under Saddam. Slowly, these people will learn to live with one another. When Iraqi athletes participate in the Olympics, they can wear real smiles, not the ones their government ordered them to wear, or face severe reprisals. Athletes who don't perform well will no longer have to fear the routine torture Saddam's son Uday would mete out on the unfortunate ones.
Iraq is an infant democracy. Sure, at the beginning there will be a hard period of adjustment, but as time passes these people will be able to live the kind of life everyone should have, with freedom, dignity, and human rights.
2007-08-10 04:37:02 · answer #1 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Even though the violence is bad in Iraq at least now the people have freedoms they wouldn't have ever had before. Most of the violence in Iraq is coming from outside influences that want to gain power in an unstable country. In the long run they will be better off. I'm not a war supporter because I don't really feel we should be doing so much to help Iraq but I do belive they are better off now.
2007-08-10 11:31:40 · answer #2 · answered by Jerbson 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One thing for sure, as soon as we pulled Saddam out of Iraq, we saw insurgency and suicide bombings rise to an all-time high. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein was a good person (he killed thousands of innocents), but he definitely kept the situation of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites under control. We really shouldn't have forced a democracy into a world that wasn't prepared for it. Thank you for your time.
2007-08-10 11:29:10 · answer #3 · answered by jade4stone 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did Hussein have weapons of mass distruction? HE WAS A WEAPON OF MASS DISTRUCTION all by himself. He killed thousands upon thousands of citizens, tortured even more and anyone has the nerve to think the USA is the enemy???
BTW, my nephew is an Army Sergant who spent over a year in Iraq. The military itself does not hold the same oppinion that the media claims they do. The media are the ones doing the injustice to us, not the soldiers.
2007-08-10 11:31:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it would not be better off. He killed thousands of his own people. He jailed anyone that didn't agree with him. The only reason they had less street violence is because he didn't allow any freedom so nobody had an opinion on anything to fight over.
Jess - We aren't killing Iraqi people they are killing each other.
2007-08-10 12:45:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would Iraq be better off with Saddam in charge oh NO..
2007-08-10 11:22:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes they would have been better off.... Saddam was a horibble leader.. But nothing has been more horrifying than having forgien troops come and kill over 600,000 people... leaving the country in a mess.. It's really pathetic when even troops see that what is going on is wrong.. put people contuinue to be ignorant....... btw Hussien never had nuclear weapons.. it was a faulty claim and already proved wrong by the UN.. nice try
2007-08-10 11:23:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
it would be completely worse. Yes we may be causeing a lot of deaths, but we're not rounded them up 1 by 1 and hanging them like Saddam was! Saddam was almost as bad as Hitler. His appointed politicians who had no experience. They were people he could trust. He didn't trust many people. which lead to him killing millions. So no, it would be worse. Oh and he also tortered people.
2007-08-10 11:28:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Can't unring the bell, but it would have been better if the people of Iraq rose up against him themselves instead of having someone come and "save" them from him.
2007-08-10 11:21:58 · answer #9 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Iraq would be a lot better off, as well as the rest of the area.
2007-08-10 11:53:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋