Would it have been better to leave Saddam in power - the poll
 

The one thing the war in Iraq has made me realise is that to maintain order in a country like Iraq you need a dictator with an iron fist. There is simply no other way to do it. These people don't have a history of democracy, nor does it look like they want one now.

With the current clusterfuck in Iraq and with things looking like they are only going to get worse, the question becomes obvious: In retrospect, would it have been better to leave Saddam in power?

Vote now. :winkwink:

Well, better for who?

Better for Iraq.

Saddam ruled with an iron fist. Crushing anyone who opposed him or threatened the stablility of his Iraqi government.

Now, we rule with an iron fist killing anyone who threatens the establishment of a new Iraqi government.... with our tax dollars.... and the lives of our citizens.

You figure it out.

first of all, lets keep the conversation in perspective. people can hate the war, hate the US, hate Bush, call it a mistake etc... thats all fine and well and easily defensible... but don't forget in the conversation that even though you see suicide bombings here and there and bad shit in Iraq today, life in Iraq was not exactly Utopia under Saddam either. Don't forget that kidnappings, disappearances of people, torture, political executions were rampant under Saddam and even acts of genocide were on his agenda. He had one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world while he was building billion dollar palaces for himself.

What a fuckin' mess that sand pit is.

So by the same analogy, if they were lighting their huts by candlelight, even though it was archaic and uncomfortable and inefficient, although it's a pain in the ass to get them to use electricity..... maybe we should stay with candles, right?

Democracy isn't the problem.... how could you not as a human being want a right to determine your own destiny... what you have are thugs, and warlords, and bullies saying they don't want to give up their right to be assholes and get things their way.

If the Iraqi people ever stood up completely as one, there would be no stopping things..... but that takes sacrifice.... people have to die. Our Revolutionary War wasn't won quietly or without sacrifice.

Should we pull out???? Can you imagine how much worse the country and for that matter the region will be if we do? It may suck right now... but that solution is 100 times worse. No question about it.

What pisses me off is the political correctness required and that most other nations fail to have any interest in getting this to a solution... HEY USA.. you started this problem.. make it work!!! Yeah.. thanks for the help... Even if we did fuck up starting it... By neglecting things now, you are about half a step behind in the blame department.

Yeah, but what else are the options?

Saddam was a tyrant but this war has destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and unleashed a vicious sectarian slaughter that Saddam somehow kept a lid on. Ultimately, he knew Iraq and how it needed to be run.

George Bush and company obviously don't have a fucking clue.

Either way, thousands die.

Very well said.

your thread was not about options.. it was about setting people up for an "either/or" answer... as if it is a black and white issue with a clear cut answer. its a fuck story now, it was a fuck story before. there is no perfect answer.

Saddam had more than his share of "vicious sectarian slaughters" himself from full out gassing villages, to draining the marshes to wipe out some of the worlds oldest cultures, to strafing crowds of protesters with helicopter gunships.

you can't say he "kept a lid on violence" as if he was just a firm, but fair guy. there was a "lid on violence" because he was continually killing the opposition.

Ironically... yes. There are plenty Saddam's the world over - this one was nothing special.

The positive side of having him there is now obvious - he kept the country under control, tho on his terms.

The flipside is the amazingly naive, kinda dumb and ignorant display the US admin demonstrated in thinking that nation could, with very few allies, invade and keep any country under their control. It is prob accurate, and this is been proven, that an initial "victory" would be successful - but that is only the start of the first course of the meal. Seriously doubt we have even reached the main course yet.

The damage done to Iraq is enormous and would outlive Saddam even if he was not executed.

That damage will range from the ongoing tribal conflicts to extended problems directly attributable to this elected "war". The former will last as long as the population want them to last - irrespective of any occupying force. The latter will last many decades and show in several ways, not least from an infant mortality rate ranking highest in the world and substantial increases in various cancers caused by depleted uranium.

Who are the victims?? They are normal Iraqi people, the majority of whom are not involved in any conflict. They have already lost members of their families, their wives are delivering malformed (leukemia etc) children, their existing children can't even attend a school, there are both water and food shortages, 4500 children died of hunger alone in 2006 forgetting those killed or maimed.

It is ironic that an invading nation does not consider even attempting a body count of those who were being giving a "democracy". With the concern the US has shown for the people who lived under Saddam, this may seem odd.

Equally odd and offensive is that in the next short while there is an event known as "US Children Day" (or whatever it's called) - it's a pity the US has never given the same consideration to the children of Iraq, but left them with a legacy of disease from DU while will last most of their lives or even given a thought to feeding them.

Even Saddam could not manage to achieve that awesome legacy...

Congratulations to the US admin - all of em need rounded up, including those who resigned/retired/moved on plus the current mafia, and shot.

Nobody knows what really went on in Saddam's Iraq. Most people just speculate. I've never heard of protestors being strafed with gunfire from helicopter gunships. The reality is nobody can put a figure on how many he had killed. I have no doubt it was hundreds of thousands over the course of his rule but is the average Iraqi better off now or then? The only people who really know are the Iraqi's and I'm sure you would find some who loved Saddam and some who didn't. It all depends on whose side you were on.

Like I said, thousands died then and thousands die now. The only difference now are the billions being spent to achieve the same outcome.

Too bad heads of state and the UN do not come to GFY before making major decisions.

Pity they never asked baddog who has offered nothing so far :pimp

Who says they don't? Just because I don't give it away for free here doesn't mean I don't provide answers for a fee.

OK... let's keep the conversation in balance...

The US admin elected to enter a war - forget the multiple excuses, alleged logic and utter drivel supplied as the reasoning, since they are just that - drivel.

Saddam was a thug. There are many thug leaders on this planet - he is no different. Tho, the US elected to have him as an ally when that was convenient.

Crappy excuses for this and that are irrelevant. The people who are the core issue right now are the Iraqi people.

The US elected to invade - what exactly has the US got to offer them??

Can we have a chat in the corner in private baddog and arrange the fee? :winkwink:

And he did it all with our money and support! so The Iron Fist was backed by the US during his time.

Won't hit off the point, but that is valid in other areas. There never was a reluctance to support regimes of terror/torture in the past. Those regimes were no different to Iraq under Saddam....

Anyways... back to the point :pimp

carpet bombs?

I dunno.

I love our troops... but I hate this war.

Well... suppose this is the problem man... there is basically nothing to offer.