Who thinks Saddam was better at running Iraq?
 

When Saddam was in power, there weren't any insurgents. No bombings, kidnappings, most people didn't have any guns. The money used for the war could have been used just to keep an eye on him and we wouldn't have those 1000+ dead soldiers.

So, who thinks Saddam was better?

Flame away ........ but I do ........

its like looking at a man with cancer - can look healthy on the outside, but inside dying fast.

sure, saddam help a tight grip on things that didnt allow for much shit, plus .. hard to consider crime when getting your head chopped off / shot or raped was the result. Laws that strict tend to make the country a bit easier to run, but also leads to a corrupt government.

even russia was in a bad state when they switched over, and they went through years of struggling that they are still just coming out of - but which one of us wants them back rich the way they were, but communist??

we need saddam gone, if anything - under close observation - yet I dont think the way it happened was the best option.

You'd probably have had a better response making this a poll. I dare say a lot of people have a view but can;t be bothered with political debates on boards.

:glugglug

:glugglug

Agreed. I think it could have been done better. I definitely think leaving Saddam alone was better than what we've done.

I actually wanted people to post. I like to hear thoughts on issues.

Well the funny thing is these countries was crazy religious fanatics need a 'stong man'. You just have to take a look at history.
I'm not saying i like the guy.

Well, all signs point to them being a religious theocracy like Iran within the next decade, and possibly breaking up into several unstable states. The US government loves dictators, they only stopped liking Saddam when he stopped playing ball with them. The best they can hope for is another dictator taking over who's friendly to US interests. I suspect they're grooming Alawi to take Saddam's place, since he has no shot of winning any election.

The only thing it has no chance of becoming is a democracy. Democracy can't be forced on nationalistic people, especially ones who are extremely stubborn and traditional.

http://www.unknownnews.net/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

http://www.unknownnews.net/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

insert C I A puppet on right.

You'd have still gotten the posts. Those who love this sort of debate wouldn't be able to resist. However you'd also have had a very good gauge of peoples true feelings at a glance which would have been interesting. Just my :2 cents: . Obviously your thread so you can do what the hell you like with it :)

Neither do I. You couldn't pay me enough to live there, now or then. However, I do think it was safer when he was in power.

Pumpkin Head thinks Saddam was better....

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphic...rry1092704.jpg

you have got te be kidding me ?


every fuckin person in iraq has weoponery it has always been like that !!


eventhough I agree with your view , but that comment was just plain stupid !

Can never get enough of these an we?
http://www.jscsc.org.uk/news/2003/im...20Memorial.JPG

that is one way to look at it - or perhaps (pumpkin head) had a more peaceful or strategic way of handling the issue than bombing the hell and wasting resources.

this isnt a discussion on that

Actually, no. Saddam had some very strict laws about weapons. I'm sure people were keeping them hidden, but I would have to agree that everyone has a gun now.

Ummmmm, maybe stupid 16 year olds do?

Hell I think we should of just let Saddam stay in power. He's not a religious fanatic that only cares about power. Would of kept all those other countries in the region in check.

We need a "none of the above" vote. If that happens, elections are held the follow year and neither candidate can run.

at least it was quiet before your friend jumped on him.

And all the other stupid people think Bush is doing a good job -lol.

Friend?

True.

And what is happening now in Iraq ( insurgency, beheadings, clerics getting more power, etc...) is watched carefully by the religious population of neighborhood countries ( Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Dubai ) in the perspective of replicating the situation in those countries ( all controled by dictators, friends today of the US but Foe tomorrow ???).
:2 cents:

Yes the attack was uncalled for.:batman

Saddam was barely able to hold the country together with an iron fist. I really don't see the country holding itself together with hugs and assurances of fairness for all. Civil war looms.

Topic: Who thinks Saddam was better at running Iraq?

This is the kind of mind fuck the Repubs are spinning on Kerry right now. Kerry was against the war=Kerry supported Hussein. :mad:

Definitley should have left sadam alone no doubt , we could have monitored him from a distance. We could have used all thouse billions and billions and hundreds of billions of dollars on developing hydrogen highways and hydrogen powerplants and tax cuts for anyone who buys hydrogen powered cars, cause lets face it we did it for the oil and becuase sadam won't be bush's pupet. I can't be sure on the numbers but what has been spent on this war and rebuilding iraq is more money then the US has spent in the last 100 years in looking for alternative power supplies like solar, hydrogen and bio diesels. probably more spent on this war and rebuilding iraq then the whole planet has spent on developing alternative power supplies in the last 30 years, all three technologies are at a point where with a little more reserch and a little investment all three could be viable unlimited energy resource's , would have sure helped the economy not having to depend on importing petro from other countries and would help the enviroment around us and lead the US into a new energy revolution . but oh well people don't really care to much about the future of the planet or the future economy we like wars truth is we are allmost always at war rather it be public or secret US is always sticking thier nose's where it doesn't belong trying to dictate the planet into beliving in our beliefs acting the way we think they should and doing what we want them to, I love the US but our president and our country sometimes are very short sighted.

saying that I don't like eaither bush or carey for prisident we need some more choice's

At least when he was in power and abused prisonors no one knew about it.

i don't think saddam is better/good!

LOL ... He didn't let digital picture around ...

yeah but there were alot of things happening behind the scenes that were worse

And still are .... just by a different master.

Sad but true.

Saddam was an asset. Bush Sr ruined that relationship. Bush Jr made an even bigger mistake. Saddam could crush islamic extremists without America being blamed. He was really the only obstacle to another theocracy. He kept Iran in check for us. Even after Bush Sr backstabbed him over the Kuwait incident, it remained strategically valuable to have him sitting there. He was an excellent guard dog.

Of course he isn't good -lol. But he did a better job than Bush is doing.

Ah, that's quite a happy picture you paint of Iraq there, before the invasion there never was Iraqi terrorism or terrorists?
Think again:

Abu Nidel Organization (FRC) established in Baghdad, by a palestinian, Sabri Al Banna - December 1985 attacked ticket counter of Et Al, killing eighteen people, wounding forty, linked to the assassination of Meir Kahane

Abdul Rahman Yasin:
Born in Bloomington Indian, grew up in Baghdad - alleged to have mixed chemicals for the bomb used in First WTC bombing.

Ramsey Ahmed Yousef:
Obtained Visa for for Pakistan in Baghdad, April 1992, made numerous claims he was an Iraqi citizen (to date no solid proof is known of his origin) mastermind behind the WTC bombing, planned to hijack commercial fligts etc.

Terrorists are nothing new in Iraq, just like most of the world they have always had them - just like most corners of the earth.

First, I never said there wasn't any terrorists FROM Iraq. Second, I never tried to paint a happy picture of Iraq. You couldn't pay me enough to live there, before or after Saddam. Finally, my point is that Saddam did a better job running Iraq, nothing else.

Saddam Was Better! If you close your eyes on the violence he and his sons inflicted on inoccent people.

Saddam tortured and murdered all that opposed him, he ruled the country by fear, whole families dissapeared under his regime, it is hardly because he was a great leader, and a nice guy. so "better job" is kind of relative?