PDA

View Full Version : Does Iraq need another dictator?



renak
03-23-2006, 05:33 AM
Considering that the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds cannot live in peace with one another, do you think that Iraq needs another dictator? Perhaps Saddam Hussein knew more about running the Iraqi government than he was given credit.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
north_malaysian
03-23-2006, 05:37 AM
Bush should be the first American dictator President of Iraq. Because he's directed by God. (What a moron!). I think Bush is perfect to be a dictator in Iraq, because he cant do so in USA.;D
Reply

Ummu Amatullah
03-23-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally Posted by renak
Considering that the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds cannot live in peace with one another, do you think that Iraq needs another dictator? Perhaps Saddam Hussein knew more about running the Iraqi government than he was given credit.
:sl:
Sis I really think that Saddam Hussein was the best for the job,but now since he's not in control the whole land is just falling apart to the hands of the enemy.I don't and Insh'Allah will never beleive that an innocent pious sunni muslim like him could do so many bad things.I'm sure the Bush administration just added a million lies to one single fact.Since he's looked at as the,"Enemy," I'm sure Bush would do anything to get rid of him even if it meant lying about him.The Bush administration and the media are working side by side to spread a negative picture of their current and old enemies.I mean it seriously in every country the enemy is always portrayed as being deadly,oppressive,vile savages or barbarians.
:w:
Reply

itsme01
03-23-2006, 05:51 AM
Originally Posted by renak
Considering that the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds cannot live in peace with one another, do you think that Iraq needs another dictator? Perhaps Saddam Hussein knew more about running the Iraqi government than he was given credit.
Iraq has been known to the world as: Library of Wisdom. Several Crusaders tried invading Iraq but failed, but one that succeeded, raped Iraqs glorious knowledge. (i think that was in the 15th centuary or so).

The Nation of Iraq - Never had such problems until the 19th centuary. After Saddam was brought into power (by US) -- things got uglier. His attrocities against the resistors are gruesome. However, since he is gone - and people of Iraq left into the worst condition by the new invaders, do not need a dictator.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
itsme01
03-23-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally Posted by Shukri
:sl:
Sis I really think that Saddam Hussein was the best for the job,but now since he's not in control the whole land is just falling apart to the hands of the enemy.I don't and Insh'Allah will never beleive that an innocent pious sunni muslim like him could do so many bad things.I'm sure the Bush administration just added a million lies to one single fact.Since he's looked at as the,"Enemy," I'm sure Bush would do anything to get rid of him even if it meant lying about him.The Bush administration and the media are working side by side to spread a negative picture of their current and old enemies.I mean it seriously in every country the enemy is always portrayed as being deadly,oppressive,vile savages or barbarians.
:w:
True sis. And i agree with you to some extent. However, he did wage the gulf war, no? - that wasn't very Muslim of him. Yes, so i heard and believe, that after the Gulf war, he changed quite significant( for good ) - but his past mistakes should not go unpunish.
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2006, 05:57 AM
Originally Posted by itsme01
Iraq has been known to the world as: Library of Wisdom. Several Crusaders tried invading Iraq but failed, but one that succeeded, raped Iraqs glorious knowledge. (i think that was in the 15th centuary or so).

The Nation of Iraq - Never had such problems until the 19th centuary. After Saddam was brought into power (by US) -- things got uglier. His attrocities against the resistors are gruesome. However, since he is gone - and people of Iraq left into the worst condition by the new invaders, do not need a dictator.
Agreed.
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 06:22 AM
Salaam Alaykum:sl: ...Ummmm...this is really something I have wondered about...I know that Saddam committed many atrocities while he was ruling iraq...But it does seem that the poor Iraqis were not suffering nearly as bad as they are now..i completely understand that most people think that USA is saving Iraq...but..sometimes some people do better with this kind(Not as Drastic though) of leadership..I mean look how Iraq is falling apart now.America is crazy to believe we will ever get them to practice their politics even close to ours..(we have done such a bang up job in this country:heated: One thing is for sure though, we need to get out of Iraq once and for all and let them take care of their own affairs..Things will certainly be better for them then they are now.
Wa Salaam:w: , Susan:sister:
Reply

Allandaros
03-23-2006, 07:17 AM
I'm rather dubious about the existence of any circumstances which would require a dictator. The only one I can think of is something like a military unit or a ship's captain - not a living situation for an extended period of time. What would be far better than a dictatorship to force people to live together is a division of the country. I realize that this might very well cause problems (my family's from Pakistan, we have experience with partitions... *grins wryly*), but with a divided country, each group would have its own territory, its own "turf," and there would presumably be less cause for strife.

Dictatorship is, I believe, defined as a regime where the state has disproportionate power over the individual members of society and their lives. It's inherently a repressive state of affairs, and one which cannot be tolerated.

Rrright, now to the Saddam/Bush/US Invasion question. My view:
1. Saddam was a vicious tyrant. Very repressive government, mass killings of Iraqi citizens who happened to be from a different racial group - that qualifies a leader as bad juju in my book.
2. That said, Bush's invasion was also wrong. He brought the US in under false pretenses, and without following the due process of international law.
3. I don't know enough about the situation to say whether or not things are better/worse now, as opposed to under Hussein's regime. So I won't comment on this one.
4. To my mind, there's one fundamental thing wrong with all the statements of "US Pull Out Now" - they're not considering the consequences which would follow such an action. Is it really in Iraq's best interest to have a generation lost to infighting and civil war? I must reluctantly state that keeping the US military in-theatre now seems to be America's only option, to prevent the situation from devolving.

...sorry if any of this sounded preachy or high-handed, it's been a long day.
Reply

HeiGou
03-23-2006, 07:35 AM
Originally Posted by itsme01
Iraq has been known to the world as: Library of Wisdom. Several Crusaders tried invading Iraq but failed, but one that succeeded, raped Iraqs glorious knowledge. (i think that was in the 15th centuary or so).
If you have any news of any Crusader making it to Iraq I would love to know of it. The 15th century is a little late for Crusaders.

The Nation of Iraq - Never had such problems until the 19th centuary. After Saddam was brought into power (by US) -- things got uglier. His attrocities against the resistors are gruesome. However, since he is gone - and people of Iraq left into the worst condition by the new invaders, do not need a dictator.
Never had such problems? Come on, let's have some historical perspective here. How about the Mongols? Even the Turks inflicted worse things on Iraq. Saddam was not brought to power by the US. He took power in a coup within the Bath Party which came to power by kicking the King, the West's choice, out.

It doesn't matter what Iraq needs. What it is going to get is clear and it is not democracy but Iran-lite.
Reply

Allandaros
03-23-2006, 07:41 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
If you have any news of any Crusader making it to Iraq I would love to know of it. The 15th century is a little late for Crusaders.
Heh, good catch. According to my reading of Wikipedia, Iraq didn't have any Western incursions until WWI.

It doesn't matter what Iraq needs. What it is going to get is clear and it is not democracy but Iran-lite.
Somebody's feeling optimistic! :) Could you elaborate on why you think that, HeiGou?
Reply

north_malaysian
03-23-2006, 08:04 AM
Originally Posted by Allandaros
Heh, good catch. According to my reading of Wikipedia, Iraq didn't have any Western incursions until WWI.



Somebody's feeling optimistic! :) Could you elaborate on why you think that, HeiGou?
Wikipedia can be trusted? Anybody could write and edit wikipedia.
Reply

Nicola
03-23-2006, 10:52 AM
It doesn't matter what Iraq needs. What it is going to get is clear and it is not democracy but Iran-lite.
I can see this coming also
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-23-2006, 10:54 AM
Yes they can... they did for centuries. The solution is shari'ah, and a good and just leader. Simple.
Reply

usamuslimah64
03-23-2006, 12:31 PM
Assalaamu Aaykum:sl: , I can see them becoming like Iran...The larger majority of Muslims in Iraq are Shia..It seems to work for the Iranians..Maybe they could get some pointers from Iran:-)
Wa Salaam, Susan
Reply

Allandaros
03-23-2006, 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Wikipedia can be trusted? Anybody could write and edit wikipedia.
Offtopic, but I have to respond to this. Wikipedia is actually MORE trustworthy than many other sources, in that there's a complete and accurate paper trail of who edited things (so you can always see the history of the page, and every revision that's been made to it), and it's got a group of users who "patrol" Wikipedia to combat malicious users. I will admit that there have been one or two incidents with Wikipedia in the past, where inaccurate information has remained on a page. But on the whole, it's a reliable (and often surprisingly in-depth) source for general needs. For academic needs, it's frowned upon (but then again, so are most encyclopedias).

(Sorry 'bout the offtopicness. If someone wants to continue this discussion, I'd ask that either the mods split the topic, or the discussion be continued through email).
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-21-2011, 01:21 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 07:25 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-30-2006, 06:45 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!