Maybe Iraq would have been better off with Saddam

[skjpm]

If the UN had successfully defanged Saddam with inspectors on the ground preventing weapons build-up and human rights abuses, Iraq might have been better off with Saddam as leader. I think that we are beginning to see that fear of Saddam helped keep the various factions together. If the fear was there without the abuses, the country might have stayed unified, and with trade and diplomacy, might have been led toward real democracy.

[tom_paine]

1. Ugh! Even if true overall, the horrible abuses of Saddam

make that an unacceptable sentiment.

I would rather say that while the Iraqis are marginally better off without Saddam there, invading them based on a lie wasn't the way to go about it.

[hexola]

2. I don't know...do you think that the "abuses" are more...

myth than truth...? The guy was paper tiger...he didn't have to do nasty things - just make people think he did...

I wonder...

We hear about "mass graves" - we have them everywhere in America...called "cemetaries"

If I were trying take over and country and a culture - destroying their sense of history might be good place to start...dig up their dead sons and brothers and sisters...

[tom_paine]

6. No, I don't think the abuses ae more myth than truth

Sure, the "Babies in the Incubators" in 1991 was Standard Bushevik/Nazi Pravda.

But there are PLENTY of confirmed, internationally corroborated stories about Saddam's brutality.

Think about it. Be careful of going too far in the other direction and being a credulous "Lefty Dittohead".

Retain your skepticism. Corrboration wherever possible. Just because it hurts the Busheviks doesn't automatically make it true.

Saddam was a bastard.

[Jacobin]

9. "unacceptable sentiment"????????

Unacceptable to the conventional "wisdom" of the bush administration perhaps.

I wonder how "unacceptable" that sentiment is among Iraqis. (but i'm sure you are about to tell me, so, never mind)

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Sadly true

And a lot of Iraqis seem to be saying the same thing now.

[skjpm]

4. saddam filled his mass graves with our help

but at the point of the latest Iraq war, I think "paper tiger" describes him well. We didn't need to invade, we simply needed to finish the defanging process. Let him stand before his people shooting guns while UN inspectors made sure nothing happened. And as he and his regime grew older and died, ultimately democracy would take over.

[hexola]

7. Were Uday or Qusay REALLY leadership material...?

I think Iraq would have crumbled once one of these putzes got took over.

Patience...

[Old and In the Way]

5. War wasn't the answer.

But somehow the world needs to send a message to dictators that human rights abuses and domestic terror are not acceptable and won't be tolerated.

I think there should be a mechanism where the UN can legitimize a hit on a dictator that meets the threshhold criteria for this edict.

Taking out a Saddam via bullet or surgical strike would save thousands of innocents and avoid massive destruction on the scale we've seen in Iraq. Plus it would send a clear message to other tyrants that there is a price to pay for their actions.

[library_max]

10. But who gets to decide who is and isn't a dictator?

Who gets to decide those "threshhold criteria"?

This kind of idea sounds nice until you stop and think about the mechanics of it. Remember, Saddam was elected. Oh, but the election was rigged and fraudulent, you say. So was Bush's. Should the UN be empowered to put out a hit on Bush? Okay, it's a fun idea, but seriously now.

If the UN had that kind of power, it'd have to become a player in the military balance of power. More than one nation would make war on the UN.

The desire to "do something" about dictators comes a cropper when you really think about the what, who, and how of it. Self-determination for sovereign nations (as long as they keep their military hands to themselves) is the only way to go.

[Old and In the Way]

11. Who better than the UN? Certainly no single country should

make this decision or have this unilateral power. Isn't that the basis for us entering Iraq, to "git Saddam"...or was there other items on our agenda? Elections are meaningless....do you believe 100% of the people "elected" Saddam? Without paper ballots, our touchscreen voting could be a hitech distortion of the people's majority intent.

I'm not saying that this threshhold criteria should not be a riorous definition and based on totally documentable and verifaible facts. But when a dictator starts an external war (Hitler) or commits domestic atrocities (like Idi Amin), there is a clear interest of the world to react to these people. And yes, Bush, too. Just because he happens to be our dictator doesn't mean he is incapable of imperialistic designs on the world (see PNAC and "Pax Americana").

Perhaps if this is implemented by the UN, future dictators will be less reticent to abuse domestic civil rights or create wars of aggression if they understand those actions come with a personal price. Otherwise, we will be fighting wars and killing innocent civilians to deal with the tyrants that alone deserve a quick and final solution.

[Jacobin]

8. You can't say that out loud, so be quiet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Within a couple of years, after we get our silly little imperialist asses kicked out of Iraq, a fundamentalist Islamic freakazoid will more than likely become the ruler/dictator/Ayatollah of Iraq and you can bet your ass the people of Iraq (especially the women) will wish they had Saddam back.

Can you say Sharia law????

[maggrwaggr]

12. I posted about that yesterday. Perhaps Iraq can only be ruled w/iron fist

A ruler like Saddam may be an inevitability ina place like that.

Is Bremer up for the task?

How bout a nice photoshop of Bremer with a mustache, anyone?