How do you respond to this crazy statement? "The Iraqis needed

[Maraya1969]

such a strong dictator as Saddam. That is why there is such chaos now; because they are such violent people"

I was taken aback buy this one from a Republican family member. I know it reeks of racism but I was so shocked that this person said such a thing that I couldn't respond. So now I'd like some help if possible from my friends here at DU so I can give her a good reply.

[meegbear]

1. Then why did we invade and take him out?

[gordianot]

2. Americans also have a violent history, until recently we have survived without dictators.

Just look at how we deal with enemy combatants.

[acmavm]

3. Saddam did keep all the factions of Iraq together because he

was a strong dictator. Look at all the people that inhabit that region. Their differences are ethnic and religions.

The Middle East has such horrible problems because the West thought they knew best how do carve up the place after WWII. Now we all have to live with the mess they made. And the people that pay are the innocent civilians who die in all the sectarian/ethnic violence.

[whoneedstickets]

4. Iraq is a fiction....

Iraq is an artificial construct, crafted by colonial powers following the collapse of the last Middle Eastern empire (Ottoman). It combined into one 'state' at least three major ethno-religious groups, but made one dominant. Iraq was only prevented from disintegrating by the repressive and sometimes brutal methods of the ruling elite of this faction. It is not the 'nature' of the people who live in the region that makes it a violent place, it is the history that has been imposed on them from outside.

[savemefromdumbya]

5. yes

I guess Rumsfeld had a hand in placing Saddam in there?

[wishlist]

6. U.S. invasion and occupation has wreaked chaos and incited violence.

Saddam's iron hand rule managed to keep the country together without the current extreme sectarian violence we are now seeing. Your relative's opinion is understandable but fails to take into account that our invasion and incompetency there has inflamed insurgent and sectarian violence at a level that did not previously exist under Saddam.

[Dhalgren]

7. The "problem" isn't that Arabs are incapable of self government,

the "problem" is human nature and common sense. Iraq was essentially three separate peoples, artificially grouped together, where one of the three oppressed the other two. The Sunni minority oppressed the Kurds and the Shiite majority. Now, the Sunnis want to maintain their rights as first class citizens, but as a minority, they have no power (as far as they are concerned); the Shiites have the power and do not trust the (formerly) oppressive Sunnis, period; the Kurds will never, ever, again be in a powerless position vis a vis Arabs (or Turkmen, for that matter). This has nothing to do with Iraqis "requiring" a dictator, it has to do with what a people expect (or a person expects) from "freedom" and "liberty". Saddam was not just a dictator, he dictated through his Sunni power-base. No one can expect or require that the Kurds and Shiites just forget that. This is far, far too complicated a situation for any "sound-byte" to encompass. And we haven't even mentioned petro-chemical resources...

[CBHagman]

8. I heard similar claims made about Bosnia.

That is, during the '90s, when the Clinton administration was pursuing an end to the war in the Balkans, I'd hear pundits and politicians -- more often than not, they were Republicans -- claiming that "those people" had been killing each other for centuries, and our intervention wouldn't change that. :eyes:

In one sense, statements like that are an apologia for passivity and indifference, and they provide plenty of cover for people who need excuses. And as you observed, a claim like the one your relative made is rather bigoted.

That said, the end of a dictator's reign or some similarly cataclysmic event does sometimes reveal unresolved problems and/or whip up tensions and animosities. But it doesn't indicate that one ethnic, national, or religious group is any more inherently warlike than any other.

[The2ndWheel]

9. Entropy

America would be the same way if we didn't use 25% of the world's energy. If Iraq starts to build an infrastructure needed for a modern day population, we'll get less energy here, and we'll be more violent too.

If not for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we could all live forever. However, everything is about entropy. Civilization is the large scale fight against it.