Saddam Hussein?

Question

watching tv and seeing our british and american boys slaughtered over in iraq and afganistan, i think we should have left saddam in charge, when he was in charge you never had bombers in cars beheadings put onthe internetect, yes he was no angel put by god he kept them in there place, more than cam be said for the british and americn goverments combined, they just used him as an excuse, have a good look at zimbabee mugabe is doing mutch worse why not do something there, can answer that in two words NO OIL

Answer 1

You are correct to say that Oil drives American interventionism. Just a little too eager in my opinion to laud the good ole days of Saddam Hussein the dictator.

It was political expediency that caused US policy makers to support Saddam Hussein for years, and caused such hardship on the Iraqi people. The US has a very long record of supporting dictators around the world, who promise stability at the expense of their people, in order that US business can exploit them. Bush II's sudden policy of democratizing Iraq is but a sham excuse for his invasion. In the main, his policy makers have not supported democracy in the world.

It was Regan-Bush I who supported a terrible war between Iraq and Iran, in order to bleed the Iranians after the deposing of the Shah, another US supported dictator. So don't forget this Son of Ishtar when you argue in favor of the Bush II administration's war policy. You listen to what Bush II says, rather than what he does. What he says is he wants democracy in Iraq. What he does is to create chaos and a weak central Iraqi government, a government incapable of protecting Iraq's own oil resources against US exploitation.

Answer 2

The problem with Saddam was that he should have been stopped long ago. Think of the gassing of thousands of Kurds in 1988. (Halabja). The international community didn't turn a hair - because Iran was public enemy No. 1 at the time and Saddam was the 'blue eyed boy'. Also his draining of the waterways around Basra, where most of the population were Shia Muslims and therefore, Iranian sympathisers.
When the UK P.M. said he would not meet Robert Mugabe, he was condemned by the media.

Answer 3

I agree 100%...

We used Saddam as a tool to get back at Iran. The use of chemicals was never condoned, but I feel that GW was a little to anxious to jump on the bandwagon to get some payback for what Saddam tried to do to "daddy"...

One thing is for sure - he kept the region in line. Hell, if I knew then what I know now, I would have let him keep Kuwait as well.

Answer 4

Yeah, that's our Bush Whitehouse for you. Instead of tracking down and killing Bin Laden, he goes for the weakest target and topples Saddam. And in the process has squandered all the goodwill the world felt towards us post 9-11.

It's all about the money, the oil, and making his buddies richer than they already are. He doesn't give a damn about anything else.

Answer 5

I don't think America and the other countries should get involved in other people's culture. If they wanted to do something about him, they would in some time. All america wants is OIL, and hides that with the pretended suspicion of nuclear weapons.

Answer 6

ARE You a total idiot?

Im iraqi, Saddam was responsible for starting a war with Iran that cost over 1 million lives! He invaded Kuwait, starting the first Gulf War, he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, he religiously persecuted Shia Arabs. he racially persecuted, Kurds, Assyrian christians, Turcoman, Yazidis and Armenians...he was scum, like hitler or stalin, no different!

Sure, the US and UK messed up how to reorganise the country after the war, but that was always going to happen. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq was a FALSE country, made up after WW1...Pushing together Arab Sunni, Arab Shia, Kurds, Christian Assyrians, Armenians, Turcoman, Shabaks and Mandeans all into one!

What happened in Yugoslavia was always going to happen in Iraq, but Yugoslavia is better now, 16 years later, give Iraq time!

The British Created Iraq, the West Created Saddam!, both should never have come into being, therefore it is up to the west to clear up their mess!

Answer 7

I think you are right. About the oil that is.
Saddam needed to be removed he was a evil evil man and his sons were no better.
When he decided his time had come to give power over it would have only been to his son who was just as sick.
The Iraq people are better off without him.

Answer 8

wonderful thing hindsight, your 100% right, they hung an old man....also hung his side of the story

Answer 9

I take it you have served there before???? If not, dont dare talk about the troops across there. We enjoy what we do.

Answer 10

strange that saddam was put in power by the U.S and U.K. then when he got to powerful was taken out by the U.S and U.K..any excuse to rape another country of its riches.read your history books before T.D. me.