Did Saddam Hussein Do a Better Job Fighting Radical Muslims Than America?

[BCW]

YES - trust me - I no fan of any of them over there...

His family did bad things to foreigners and Shia alike...well beyond anything that US interrogators were accused of...

Saddam understood one thing - the one thing that got him in power - and that is violence.

Yes - he prescribed to National Arabism (socialism) much like the Nazis - but everyone was kept in check. Doesn’t mean that ISIS would not have risen and he would have faced them - but the Sunni Republican Guard I don’t think would have deserted their posts - and Saddam would have gassed the entire lot!

But - that’s all speculation at this point...the issue now is - How does the US elect qualified leaders that will do the right thing - even if it means hunting down actual humans that are responsible for the recent violence.

If IS is not stopped - others will spring forth and emerge in Africa - Asia - etc...like a virus of ideology that is beyond poisonous!

[what's up]

I agree. What's wrong with protecting oil anyway? Do these people really want the West to be shut out of the oil fields?

Bizzare.

[ScottinVA]

You’re talking about the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the group that tried to overthrow the mullahs in Iran. There’s been much conjecture as to whether that group deserves the “terror” label at all.

That said, I’m not lionizing Saddam Hussein. The question was.. would his regime be able to stop ISIS. The answer, IMO is yes. Bad as he was, Iraq would be a far less messier situation than it is now. Like Assad for Syria and Khadafy was to Libya.. the dictators are the least-worst option.

[DoughtyOne]

Actually, I was referencing his payments of $25k to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. (if we’re both referencing the same comments)

I didn’t think you were lionizing him. I understood your emphasis pretty accurately, I believe. I just don’t think he would be an overall positive even if he were up against ISIS.

As for Assad, Khadaffy, and Hussein, the only reason I see Hussein differently is because he wouldn’t settle down like the others had. Assad wasn’t as vocal and overt against the U. S. either, at least not that I observed. He was problematic for Israel.

Khadaffy had been terrible, but even he realized the gig was up and settled down.

So dictators yes, to a point...

[X Fretensis]

I disagree with labeling these men as crazy. Saddam, Qadaffi, Mubarak, and Assad are/were sane, but they are cold blooded, ruthless, brutal, remorseless dictators, that would go to any end to maintain their political power.
For them no crime was to heinous, inhuman or criminal.
If hundreds died in an attack on a village while trying to get one or two, so be it. Calling them crazy is excusal.
Being judged crazy is considered extenuating or mitigating circumstances in a criminal proceeding. Nothing in their actions warrant being called crazy. It is just the heartless exercise of naked dictatorial power. Call these people what you like, crazy does not describe the width or depth of inhumanity in these people.