Why do people say Sadam was better off in power?
Topic: Nature china research
July 19, 2019 / By Alene Question:
but do you remember the rape rooms he had and the treaties he broke plus guess what he had wmd's but remember that he tried to block the UN against going over there.
I see your an anti Millitary look at one thing bad they did then there all bad I don't like people like you
Best Answers: Why do people say Sadam was better off in power?
Trueman | 4 days ago
Here let me try to enter the mind of Bush or a fox news viewer and answer you...
The Empire's work in Iraq is only beginning. Permanent military base completion, generous dispensation of depleted uranium and white phosphorus, murder, mayhem, and environmental devastation will keep us busy for a few more years. Once we have secured Iraq and the precious oil, we can take a serious look at Iran. While there are several compelling reasons to refrain from attacking Iran today, once we bring the nation of Iraq to its knees (regardless of the cost), we can set our sights on another member of the Axis of Evil. In the interim, we will further solidify our strategic position in the Middle East through our unflinching support of Israeli genocide against the malevolent Palestinians. They made their bed by electing Hamas. Now they must lie in it. Unless Hamas quietly acquiesces to the ongoing rape of its people, we will teach them obedience. We will not rest until the vermin infesting the West Bank and Gaza are servile or dead.
We can stem the tide of the ongoing threat from our subhuman black population by stepping up implementation of the death penalty. Since public lynchings are no longer an option, state murders need to become public events once again. We know that black males in particular have natural criminal inclinations, so we need this powerful deterrent to keep their savage tendencies in check.
Embryonic stem cell research must not take place. Blastocysts are human lives, whether they have been implanted in a womb or not. We need to appropriate federal funding for funerals and proper burials for those tiny human beings discarded by fertility clinics. God mandates that we deter the murderers who want to use these precious little children for their evil scientific experiments.
Finally, to keep the citizens of the Empire complacent and fulfilled, we will continue to burnish unbridled consumption into their psyches. Alluring advertising from Madison Avenue, easy credit, and the commercialization of virtually every aspect of our culture (we will even have to desecrate our sacred Christianity a bit, but such is the nature of an imperial dynasty) will prompt consumers to power the engine of America's economy.
Mirroring our spiritual bankruptcy, our people and our government will revel in false riches derived from borrowed money we can never hope to repay. But who will challenge the most powerful nation on the planet? If China calls our notes due, we will simply incinerate them with the space weapons we will have developed.
👍 156 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? Why do people say Sadam was better off in power?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Nature china research
Originally Answered: Christians do you think that Mabus is Sadam or someone else to come?
I have never heard the term "Mabus", and I have been a practicing Christian all of my life; There have been a number of instances in recent history that have been latched onto as heralding the "end of times", i.e., the Berlin Wall being torn down (reference to the nation split asunder by the sword being healed and coming together); Hitler (charismatic orator of humble origin rising to great power); Saddam (references to the Anti-Christ originating in the Near East, as well as references to his headgear - the beret that Saddam was frequently seen wearing in publicity photos); The US and Russia (references to the battle or conflict between the Bear and the Eagle), etc., etc., etc. Some are biblical, most are not. And rather telling, most of the correlations are made LONG AFTER the events take place, with hindsight, of course, being 20/20.
I personally enjoy watching the shows on the History channel like the one you mentioned, but mostly for comedic value. Many, if not all, of the assertions they make are the aforementioned hindsight correlations, or are wildy dramatic hypotheses of what MIGHT happen if this, this, that, and that OTHER thing happen, or contiue to happen.
Thing is, from a biblical standpoint, we will not know that the end time is coming until it GETS here and smacks us dead in the face. Bibical references are very vlear on stating that we shall not know the day, nor the hour, that the second coming will be "Like a thief in the night" when it arrives; those of us not prepared beforehand will be too late in their repentance and obedience once the hour has arrived.
I'm going to answer your question on a very literal level...
Sadam was better off in power because now he's dead. I would rather be in power than dead.
If you meant to ask, "Why do some people say that the people of Iraq were better off when Sadam was in power?" ... then the answer differs slightly.
"but do you remember the rape rooms he had and the treaties he broke plus guess what he had wmd's but remember that he tried to block the UN against going over there."
We (the US Government) have Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, black sites and rendition operations where we send people to be tortured and sometimes killed.
We have the most nuclear weapons (WMDs), have broken the non-proliferation treaty, and are currently financing a surge in more weapons.
We have removed ourselves from the Geneva Conventions treaty, honor none of the UN human rights declarations and don't pay our UN bill.
If we were Sadam we would have kicked our own a** a long time ago.
With estimates of over 650,000 deaths, millions of refugees displaced, and now with their country in a civil war and occupied by foreign military personnel (US again) and private contractors protected by the military so their resources can be plundered --- I'm not sure how anyone could pose the thesis that the people of Iraq are better now??
👍 60 | 👎 -2
Saddam ruled through fear. He wasn't afraid to show people that he meant business. He would kill a persons family, if one member of that family did him wrong. That kept people in line. You can say all you want about our troops building roads, schools, etc...when you have an insurgent blowing up a building or three for every school we build...whats the point?
Since Americans want to be viewed as the global police (i.e. the good guys), we won't do anything that would instill fear in a populace (that was sarcasm, I saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib, too) without someone complaining about it. Saddam didn't care if he offended anyone.
👍 57 | 👎 -8
Sadam was certianly better off in power than he was in a spider hole or being lynched by the Mahdi army.
I assume you meant to say that Iraq was better off under Sadam. There was more order - order impossed by brutal totalitarian opression, but some people really like order.
👍 54 | 👎 -14
Better off? I don't know if I would say that, but ONE thing Saddam Hussein and the US agreed on: That al Qaeda was dangerous and not to be tolerated.
Hussein loathed bin Laden for having so much power; bin Laden called Hussein an "infidel", about the worst thing one Muslim can call another. bin Laden was basically lumping Hussein in with Americans and Israelis, the reason he thought Hussein was as bad as America is that he felt Hussein was leading Iraq in "too secular (non-religious)" a direction.
So, al Qaeda was not allowed to go into Iraq, they had no training camps there, and Hussein wanted no one to support al Qaeda in Iraq.. That's not to say Hussein didn't train terrorists, but none had ever attacked the US or its embassies, none had ever attacked Americans living abroad or on vacation, and Saddam Hussein never even THREATENED to attack the US, not once, ever.
We know he had WMDs what Bush said was, Saddam had NUCLEAR weapons, which he didn't, but that was Bush's justification to invade.
Now we are arming the Sunni insurgents, because they promise to only use the weapons against al Qaeda in Iraq. We spent BILLIONS removing this group from power, they are going to get the credit for overcoming al Qaeda in Iraq, they will be swept back into power, as they will be able to truthfully tell the citizens of Iraq, "See? America couldn't get rid of al Qaeda, they couldn't even get the power back on in Baghdad, only WE were able to do that", and we will be even worse off with the "Devil we don't know" ruling Iraq.
So we will have pissed away over half a trillion dollars, another 4,000 or 5,000 American troops will be killed and we will be no further along in this silly and unprosecutable "war on Terror".
So yeah, maybe leaving the ONE Middle East ruler who hated al Qaeda as much as America does in power would have been a smarter thing to do.
👍 51 | 👎 -20