Was Sadaam Hussein a better manager of Iraq than we are? And was he (to our benefit) a counter-force to Iran?

Answer 1

He put a cap on tribal violence.

He was a mass murderer, but so is Bush for that matter. You know, the winner gets to call the loser all the nasty names.

If this shocks you, you tell me what a man is who attacks a country on a whim, for no good reason, and destroys 100,000 lives with American weapons?

Right, you got nothing to say.

Saddam was a strong man and a psychopath. Nothing to admire, but he did have control over violence and certainly despised Al-Queda.

His methods were wrong, and Bush's methods are wrong. They both suck as managers of Iraq.

And so humanity continues to suffer from the folly of deluded men.

Answer 2

No. A good manager takes care of his people and his people take care of him. Hussein used an old equation of fear+hate=power to rule. And the International Energy Agency recently reported that current Iraqi oil production in barrels per day is higher than it ever was under Hussein.
All of the Arab States are a counterforce to Iran. Iranians are Persians and the ancient emnity between Arab and Persian has never gone away. Add to that the fact that most of the Arab nations in the Islamic Crescent are of the Sunni sect of Islam, versus Iran's Shia sect, and you don't have a lot of folks rooting for Iraq from the Magreeb to the Arabian Peninsula. The sole exception might be a minority of Shia in the former Kingdom of Basra which is now the southern part of Iraq.

Answer 3

It may look like the answer right now is yes but in the long run it will be no. The religions groups that run the political parties are continuously working on compromising things in order to run the country. The Sunnis, Shiiets, are the majority of the parties and they strongly disagree and the democractic setup of the country is that of a political style like our and that does not work in a country where differences in religion play a major role in the politics of the country. An example would be Catholics and Babtist running the politcal parties and this counrty would not have a fully funictional democray until that happend. He was a counter force to Iran.

Answer 4

well if you mean that you would be woken up in the middle of the night, taken to a prison cell, tortured, beaten, and then executed, um yeah he was better than us. anybody that disagreed with him didn't breathe very long. his two sons would go into a village, take what ever they wanted including little girls as young as 8, use them as sexual outlets (basically they raped them), and then killed them when they grew tired of them then yeah. if you mean gassing an entire town and killing more than 5,000 to get compliance, yes he was better than us. if you mean beheading a soccer goalie because he didn't stop a ball, then yes he was better than us. get the picture !!!!!! and no he wasn't a counter-force to iran. we had nothing to worry about until our good president jimmy carter let the revolutionaries overtake out embassy and hold our people hostage for 444 days. we hated or disliked both iraq and iran but during the iraq-iran war of 1980-1988 we did support iraq based on the embassy in tehran being taken over. if the first bush had let the 101st take over baghdad in 91 we wouldn't have the problem we have their now.

Answer 5

Yes, the majority of Iraqi's did not like him but they did enjoy a secular modern society which they thought would be maintained after the invasion. The USA failed miserably to restore order, electricity, water or inplement democracy therefore opening the door for the very forces they went into Iraq to eliminate. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion because Saddam killed them all ( and anyone around them).

Answer 6

Yes. Most of the Iraqi's now would say that Saddam was better. With Saddam gone, they don't have a country that is ran by one person to take care of things like water, roads, electricity, transportation, security and rival tribes. If Saddam was still in power, he would not allow a civil war to escalate to the magnitude that it is now. Even if he killed people, thousands die each day from us being there so we are basicly killing more people then he did. Yes, he was a counter force to Iran.

Answer 7

There would be fewer people dying if that is important. These people are not experienced with democracy as a form of government, and consequently are having a severe problem
with something entirely new to them. The main goal of any government is to maintain order. There was more order when Hussein was in power.
Yes,sometimes we must combine with rather doubtful friends in order to defeat an enemy. In W.W.11, we sided with the U.S.S.R. in order to defeat Hitler.

Answer 8

He was a great manager of Iraq the state. He was not a great manager of the people.

He held the country together with ruthless brutality.

But, no matter how you look at it, he is doing a far better job then we are since Iraq is basically falling apart because of us.

Answer 9

Yes but he did it with an iron fist kind of like Hitler and Stalin. The day he took over his government he called all the government officials together and started calling out names. If your name was called you were escorted outside and shot right then thus eliminating any opposition. These same tactics are what kept him in power.

Answer 10

Yes. If you define "better" as the ability to suppress opposition.

He was also a counter-force to Iran.

But what is your point? I hope it is not to say he was a good guy, because he was not. Nor could we work with him, because he was never going to be our ally.

The people I feel sorry for are the Kurds, who have gotten the short end from us and the Iraqis, Turks, and Iranians. If any one of them honestly gave them a homeland, they would be their allies forever.