Saddam, Qaddaffi, and Mubarak (and Assad) were stylish but crazy dictators, who kept their even more crazy people in check. They would never have beheaded American and British journalists before the world's cameras.
You could say the ousting Saddam led to the electing of Obama.
Saddam fighting his own kind? But they do that all the time over there, as well as help them when a common enemy is focused on (all that help he gave Hamas, al-Qa’eda and others must not be forgotten). There is also his “faith campaign” during the mid-1990s when he financed madrassas and mosques across Iraq.
Ba’athists were and are Islamic national socialists (Nazis for short, or IslamoNazis). Dreaming that Saddam would take care of our problem with Islamic terrorists, when he was one himself, is pure folly, never mind cravenness.
Did Saddam Hussein Do a Better Job Fighting Radical Muslims Than America?
yeap!
I kinda think he did. It should be clear to all now that Muslims do not value democracy as we do in the west. The “Strong Man” approach seems to work best in Muslim countries. Sure, Saddam and his sons were cruel dictators, but there are probably more rapes/tortures/executions in the region now than when they were in power. As cruel as Saddam was, raw Islam is even crueler.
All major powers in the Mideast, including the USA, believe they can control radical groups that ostensibly are on their side
If you keep asking this question you are going to make John McCain cry!
Assad is the worst thing EVER EVER EVER!!! All Allowites must be beheaded right now!
It’s important for McCain and Graham to get their checks from the Saudis!
Interesting question.
I suppose it is possible he did.
I almost wish that SOB were still alive. Because I would threaten to open up his cell door and put him back into power. Let’s not forget his job as dictator was to keep the Iranian backed shiite militias in check. Anyone remember that shiithead muqtada al sadr?
“Islam makes Arabs crazy.”
I have suspected for years now that it’s inbreeding that makes them crazy. Half of the ragheads in the Middle East marry their first cousins and it’s been going on for 1400 years. At this point it’s not a fixable problem...
Yes, he did. Evil as Saddam’s Ba’athist regime was, it kept the lid on unrest inside Iraq. The terror group later known to be ISIS would never have had any opportunity to substantially form in Iraq had Saddam been left in power.
He didn’t have to get it cleared to take a shot.
Saddam was a radical Muslim, and was writing the Quran in his own blood, and seeking to become the leader of Islam.
People are rewriting him.
Ha! With about 100% collateral damage
Saddam was a good muzzie zoo keeper and a natural enemy of Iran. I think Bush Sr. was wise to keep him in place. Jr. Boooosh made a mistake invading Iraq—not that Saddam wasn’t a bad man but keeping him as the heavy-handed zookeeper over the radicals would have spared a ton of hassles and grief.
It’s always easier to control your enemies in a dictatorship. There’s no rules and no pressure to be the good guy.
“Did Saddam Hussein Do a Better Job Fighting Radical Muslims Than America?”
Certainly better than Obama who supports the Muslim Brotherhood.
Saddam harbored some very nasty characters in his country. He also supported the 9/11 attacks.
The filthy islamist saudis should have preceded him. And should still be taken down.
Saddam never had to worry about collateral damage.
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.