I believe that Iraq & the whole world were much better in the PRESENCE of Saddam Hussein. What do you think?

Question

At least Iraq was stable and the Iraqi people were living together....!

Answer 1

You know how to pick a controversial subject. I am no fan of Saddam, but if Bush had never invaded Iraq, that country would be in much better condition than it is in now. Iraq has always been such a divided country that it can not function well without a dictator in charge. Bush is such a hypocrite for saying there needs to be a democracy in Iraq, which will never work, while he does nothing to discourage the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan. America would have had far more resources available to destroy our real enemy... Bin Laden and other high ranking leaders of Al Qaeda hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan... if we had never invaded Iraq.
Interesting how people always point to all the Iraqi people Saddam has killed as a justification for us invading. Why is it when Saddam kills trouble makers in Iraq, it is unacceptable.. but when American troops kill them... it is ok? As far as innocent Iraqi citizens getting killed... American troops have already killed tens of thousands. At least Saddam was doing a better job than America at keeping the Iraqi people from killing each other like they are doing now.

Answer 2

The country had been under his dictatorship for over 20yrs,the west knew how the people lived,let's face it,he gassed a couple of thousand yrs ago,but still carried on being a leader.The US only really went in because of the oil.If the west were really concerned about the treatment of people in different countries,why haven't they gone into Darfaw,where the Arabs are wiping everyone out.Your probably right,going into Iraq has spiralled way out of control,its not as if anyone in the middle east cares for Westerners anyway.

Answer 3

I guess if you don't count the thousands of people that were assassinated or disappeared, the Sunnis that lived in the North that he tried to Gas and, machine gun by helicopter until we stopped him and then protected them with "fly overs" All the villages we found with there wells stuffed with village people machine gunned and gassed.
You might be right, had we left them alone, one day some people may have gone to Iraq and found the country empty, all the people gone, like Stalin, who killed twenty million of his own people while the world turn their backs to the insanity.

If you want o call them "stable" then somewhere along the line when I was in college I missed the class where "stable" was given and I lost the meaning. Perhaps you could explain it. By the way, where are you from? and, the people "living together" they were migrating faster then they could find a means to get out or, don't you read the news?

Answer 4

We should have never got involved in Iraq, Saddam was just a project that Bush Sr. requested Bush Jr. to complete. We stuck our nose in there country to provide peace in a 3rd world country, why dont we provide more for our citizens before starting foreign projects. By the way why no Osama still?

Answer 5

Yes, one can always be wiser after the event, However, it is a well known fact in allied military circles that the Brits opposed any frontal assault against Saddams army Preferring to go in in concentrated force via the back door and in a matter of days take on / take out every faction supporting him i.e. kill rub out any/all who stood in the way.

Conversely, using pin point ground tactics to ensure allied air force bombers flew in and destroyed all pre known sites, dumps, installations etc. Plus the chopper in of highly trained assault squads drooping on top of enemy forces i.e. politicians, military and whatever and killing them all in total!

However, this was overruled by Bush and Blair who wanted Iraq invested under conventional rules to show their armies could be beaten in "fair-fight"

We see all these years later as the then allied military planners laid out;

In the long term any other methods employed would be too costly in lives and highly unlikely to achieve the desired result. as it would drag on for years - as indeed did Vietnam .

Answer 6

At least he was killing more Muslims than we are. He was killing them by the millions. We are stopping the mass killings only to have to deal with them in the future. We could take a Saddam lesson here, if a group or race of people cause trouble, kill them all. We just have way to much compassion for the worlds population. Lets do it like he did.
March 28, 1988: Kurdish Catastrophe. Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians. (The attack is part of the government's campaign to suppress rebellious Kurds across northern Iraq. The campaign leaves 180,000 Kurds missing and presumed dead.)

Answer 7

Not the Sunni tribes Saddam tested occasionally chemical bombs on them, trying to eradicate them like rats. We the U.S were ok but the thousands probably the millions of people who died and were tortured by Saddam and his regime beg to differ.

Answer 8

I agree with you my friend,the worst thing that happened to the Iraqie people was the invasion by the Americans.One or more of your replys said about the thousands that died under Sadaam.The way it is now is now we are talking about hundreds of thousands.Has the invasion made the world a safer place?No of course not

Answer 9

Does that also go for the Iraqi citizens that Saddam killed too? Have you forgotten about them???

Answer 10

Wow so clever! Wish President Groege W Bush can think like u