Is world better without Saddam?

[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

[The Grand Nudger]

Yup.

[CapnAwesome]

No, I mean obviously not. Iraq was certainly better with him in place. He might have been an evil fuck, but what replaced him is far far worse.

He wasn't a threat to the US. He had no weapons of mass destruction and no means of making them very limited connection to terrorist organ, much less a system required to reach the US. Eventually he'd be out of power anyway. It pains me to say it, but the world would probably be better if he was still in charge of Iraq.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

That's one of the most outstandingly stupid things I've heard in a long time. It is no more morally right to launch a pre-emptive war than it is to shoot someone on the off chance he might decide to rob a bank someday.

Boru

[Napoléon]

I honestly don't think there'd be such a thing called ISIS if Saddam was still in power, but hey, what do I know.

[Minimalist]

Considering that ISIS has many former Bathists in its ranks that is a reasonable conclusion.

[abaris]

I honestly don't think there'd be such a thing called ISIS if Saddam was still in power, but hey, what do I know.

Absolutely correct. And it's not as if this hadn't been predicted by many experts around the world before Shrub started his little adventure. Removing the lid from the kettle is never a good idea. But the idiots surrounding the president obviously didn't have any clue of what would happen.

[bennyboy]

I don't think there's really any question about this at this point-- clearly, no.

[TrueChristian]

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.

That's one of the most outstandingly stupid things I've heard in a long time.  It is no more morally right to launch a pre-emptive war than it is to shoot someone on the off chance he might decide to rob a bank someday.

Boru

If you read the links you might know that there was wide suspicion that Saddam was making deadly WMDs: Nerve gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons, smallpox, etc etc.

The USA was already in a war with him, since the first Gulf War had not ended.

I suppose I wonder what if any adverse consequenes would there be if he and his regime were still around? Would he be a threat or would he help keep Iran in check like he did in the 80s?

[abaris]

If you read the links you might know that there was wide suspicion that Saddam was making deadly WMDs: Nerve gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons, smallpox, etc etc.

The USA was already in a war with him, since the first Gulf War had not ended.

Wide suspicion as in USA and several puny bootlickers. I'm European and I'm old enough to remember the prelude pretty clearly. How the German foreign minister publicly told Rumsfeld off for not having made the case. How French politicians reacted to Bush's plans. Basically the whole of Europe, except some Eastern European countries and Aznar's Spain presented the findings of their own secret services to counter Bush's allegations. They trusted in what the UN commission, led by Mohammed el-Baradei presented, after investigating Iraq. An investigation, cut short by Bush's cronies, by basically ordering them out, since they wanted to finally start their war. Even Collin Powell was and still is outraged over what he had to present to the UN. False documents, based on one single source. A source, the German BND warned to be a phony, since they already investigated him.

Here's Joschka Fischer, then German foreign minster, adressing Rumsfeld at a conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k_QbpFl7RM

Finally, the feudal attitude of the former Bush administration manifested itself in the transcript of a press conference, Bush, Aznar and Blair gave, right before giving their marching orders. In the transcript, everything said by Aznar was labelled to have been said by "josè". Same with Blair, who was adressed as "Tony". Only Bush was adressed as "The president of the United States". That in itself speak volumes about the coalition of the willing and their role.

And by the way, Bush and cronies took an extended piss on the grave of Justice Jackson, chief persecutor at the Nuremberg tribunals. In his opening statement, Jackson seeked to criminalize all forms of aggressive war. The full statement can be read here.

https://www.roberthjackson.org/speech-an...-tribunal/