Is world better without Saddam?
December 29, 2015 at 5:01 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2015 at 5:04 pm by TrueChristian.)
Greetings all.
Given the rise of ISIS, and the antagonism of the Bush/Cheney/Christian crowd toward him originally, it might be tempting to think that Saddam Hussein, while a repellent person was what "Iraq needed" and it is sort of a shame he is gone.
But is that really true?
The more I read about him, the more I am convinced that Saddam eventually would have posed a danger of some sort to the USA, and the war might have prevented that from happening.
Apparently from 1991-2003 Iraq was a fairly strange and dystopian country in sort of a twilight zone of sovereignty. It was subjected to around 13 UN resolutions and was constantly visited by UN personell, convinced apparently that Iraq had WMD or was interested in acquiring them. While he ultimately did not have them, I believe one of the biggest reasons he did not was the great damage of the first Gulf War, and all the tough and rigorous sanctions on his country.
Iraq during this time had no control of 2/3s of it's airspace, which was patrolled by British/US pilots to stop him from gassing/bombing innocent Kurds and Shias.
Also, I am not too sure about Saddam's regime being "secular" or putting a lid on Islamic extremism. I believe he started out that way, but towards the end of his reign Iraq had strict Sharia punishments for theft, prostitution, etc. and even had "Allah Akbar" on it's flag.
When 9/11 happened I recall nearly every leader in the middle east (even Iran and Syria!)condemning the attacks and saying they had nothing to do with Islam.
Saddam was the only one who declined, saying something to the effect of "America has reaped what it has sowed" and refusing to condemn them.
I know it is an unpopular belief, and one I have only held recently, but I think that there may have been a cost to keeping Saddam in power. Would we have suffered if we had not invaded his country? What would Iraq be like with him in power?
It is hard to say. But I believe some leftists present us with the false notion that there would have been no regional or national security consequences to keeping Saddam around. Thoughts?
Also some links
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biol...ns_program
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rihab_Taha
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat...Commission
4. http://www.cfr.org/iraq/testimony-richar...tion/p4687
Given the rise of ISIS, and the antagonism of the Bush/Cheney/Christian crowd toward him originally, it might be tempting to think that Saddam Hussein, while a repellent person was what "Iraq needed" and it is sort of a shame he is gone.
But is that really true?
The more I read about him, the more I am convinced that Saddam eventually would have posed a danger of some sort to the USA, and the war might have prevented that from happening.
Apparently from 1991-2003 Iraq was a fairly strange and dystopian country in sort of a twilight zone of sovereignty. It was subjected to around 13 UN resolutions and was constantly visited by UN personell, convinced apparently that Iraq had WMD or was interested in acquiring them. While he ultimately did not have them, I believe one of the biggest reasons he did not was the great damage of the first Gulf War, and all the tough and rigorous sanctions on his country.
Iraq during this time had no control of 2/3s of it's airspace, which was patrolled by British/US pilots to stop him from gassing/bombing innocent Kurds and Shias.
Also, I am not too sure about Saddam's regime being "secular" or putting a lid on Islamic extremism. I believe he started out that way, but towards the end of his reign Iraq had strict Sharia punishments for theft, prostitution, etc. and even had "Allah Akbar" on it's flag.
When 9/11 happened I recall nearly every leader in the middle east (even Iran and Syria!)condemning the attacks and saying they had nothing to do with Islam.
Saddam was the only one who declined, saying something to the effect of "America has reaped what it has sowed" and refusing to condemn them.
I know it is an unpopular belief, and one I have only held recently, but I think that there may have been a cost to keeping Saddam in power. Would we have suffered if we had not invaded his country? What would Iraq be like with him in power?
It is hard to say. But I believe some leftists present us with the false notion that there would have been no regional or national security consequences to keeping Saddam around. Thoughts?
Also some links
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biol...ns_program
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rihab_Taha
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat...Commission
4. http://www.cfr.org/iraq/testimony-richar...tion/p4687
