Saddam Hussein vs. ISIS: Who would be better to govern Iraq?

[hangfan91]

Discuss.

[Maistre]

Neither?

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Saddam, and literally 100% of ISIS votes will be jokes or protests.

[Person Man]

That was easy.

[Cory]

Saddam, and literally 100% of ISIS votes will be jokes or protests.

[KCDem]

Saddam (sane).

[dead0man]

Saddam (mostly) only murdered several hundreds of thousands of Shias, ISIS will murder anybody that doesn't 100% toe the line if they get in charge so clearly Saddam is better.  But it's like saying getting shot in your gut is better than getting shot in your head.

[TDAS04]

Saddam. 

[The Mikado]

A false choice.

EDIT: of course, Saddam did waste huge amounts of lives and treasure on an ill-conceived invasion of Iran (less than two years after seizing power from his uncle) that resulted in no tangible gains and a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, caused the destruction of his oversized army in an ill-conceived invasion of Kuwait, dooming his population to starve under UN sanctions while embezzling all of the aid money from the Oil for Food program, and proved unbelievably out of touch with reality in the 2002-2003 runup to the second US Invasion of Iraq.  I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Saddam was anything other than a walking catastrophe for Iraq.

[Silent Hunter]

But it's like saying getting shot in your gut is better than getting shot in your head.

I'd say it was more a choice between hanging and decapitation.

[stepney]

Neither. Strange how Americans can be (and don't try to deny it) so belligerent, so bent on "U! S! A!" and not accept, because of a 250 year old hangup, that Western colonialism can often be a far more benevolent and a far more welcome state of affairs than the alternative.

If you feel so squeamish about colonising far off lands, why not let the Brits do it? We didn't half do a good job of pacifying Mesopotamia in the 1910s.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A false choice.

EDIT: of course, Saddam did waste huge amounts of lives and treasure on an ill-conceived invasion of Iran (less than two years after seizing power from his uncle) that resulted in no tangible gains and a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, caused the destruction of his oversized army in an ill-conceived invasion of Kuwait, dooming his population to starve under UN sanctions while embezzling all of the aid money from the Oil for Food program, and proved unbelievably out of touch with reality in the 2002-2003 runup to the second US Invasion of Iraq.  I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Saddam was anything other than a walking catastrophe for Iraq.

There's two groups of people who are incapable of understanding it's possible to oppose the Iraq War without being pro-Saddam: Idiot jingoinistic conservatives circa 2002-04 and True Leftists.