Will removing Saddam lead to regional stability?

Will removing Saddam lead to regional stability?

President George W Bush has said Iraq without Saddam Hussein could be an example of freedom in the Middle East.

In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Mr Bush stated that the removal of Saddam would also starve anti-Israeli extremists of support and set the stage for a "truly democratic" Palestinian state.

The president admitted that rebuilding Iraq would require sustained commitment from many nations, including the United States, but the international community would only remain in the country for as long as was necessary.

And any future the Iraqi people chose for themselves would be better than living in a "nightmare world" under Saddam Hussein.

Do you agree with President Bush's comments? Would his vision of Iraq without Saddam create more stability in the Middle East?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

I disagree with President Bush. My belief is that, in the long term, there will be no increased stability and the "humanitarian" costs could bankrupt the UN member nations. Evil will always exist, in some form. We acted too late to contain the threat now.
CA Smith, USA

Which other Arab nation is run according to Democratic principles? Is Bush naive enough to think democracy would miraculously work there? Sorry, but that's not the way it's worked for hundreds of years.
Sam M, Belize

Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan? When one looks at the recent history of "nation building" and "bringing democracy" accumulated by the US, it's enough to give you a cold chill down the spine.
Stephane, USA

President Bush is correct. Let's stay focused on what the real price to pay is for no action with a madman.

We saw the results of hoping evil would just go away on September 11th.

Melanie,USA

We saw the results of hoping evil would just go away on September 11th. Giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to put their chosen leader in place is definitely an improvement to being ruled by a murderous liar. While it won't be a perfect scenario afterwards, it will be an improvement. As for whether war is good - of course it isn't. However, it is necessary in this instance. History has proven you can not trust France to make sound choices when it comes to defence. I prefer to listen to proven leadership - like that from President Bush.
Melanie, USA

I strongly disagree with Bush's comments. War begets war. Bush's cabal is committed to expanding American empire, without regard for life.
Barry J.C. Kissin, U.S.A.

A grand speech, full of generosity, and high ideals, and, unfortunately, a bit too much arrogance.
George, Canada

Removing the Israeli government and restoring Palestine as an international territory would do far more for regional stability than bombing Iraq.
Paul G., USA

There is a real possibility for peace in the region with Iraq under new leadership. It is well known that Palestine has Iraqi based organizations there who's primary goal is to support organizations of terrorism. While they may not take a physically active role, they do provide financial support and stoke the fire's of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are very active at this. For years, various countries in the Middle-east have said that the United States should be more involved with peace process. With September 11th, we were definitively brought into the Middle-east issue. It is my opinion that most American's support the removal of Saddam Hussein and his weapons, most support the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, and most support peace with Israel.
Vince, USA

SUGGEST A DEBATE

This topic was suggested by Eric, USA

President Bush has recently said that removing Saddam from power would pave a way for peace and democracy in the Arab world. Do you agree?

Send us your suggestions for Have Your Say debates

No, I do not agree with President Bush's comments, nor do I believe in his policy. Neither does anyone I have talked to in the past few months. Many, many Americans are frustrated beyond belief!
Susanne Page, USA

To Susanne Page, USA: It seems you are selecting the view points as you see fit. Last time I checked 60% of Americans backed Bush in this war on terror (and that includes Iraq). I am one who strongly supports Bush.
Dave, USA

As an American, I'm supposed to rally around the flag, but I found this latest speech by Bush to be both patronizing and condescending to every nation beyond our borders. It's our way or no way. And we've all got two more years to put up with this before we here get a chance to throw him out.
Mike, USA

When Bush says that we will keep our troops in Iraq, how long is he talking about? We have stabilised Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Why are our troops still stationed there?
N, USA

I regret that I won't be there this time to see the task that we started then finally finished now

Tony, USA

It really is kind of funny to hear all of these individuals from around the world bashing Bush and Blair. Fortunately, no one in power is paying them any mind! Who are you naysayer to decide what the policy of the two greatest nations on the face of this planet is? I was there for the first Gulf War, I saw with my own eyes what happened and I regret that I won't be there this time to see the task that we started then finally finished now. Saddam is a menace to world peace and those of you who don't see the need to get rid of him are worse than the appeasers of World War Two who thought Hitler could be contained. When will you finally wake up and realise the world will be better off without him?
Tony, USA

It is important for the world community to realise that many of us in the US strongly disagree with GW Bush's position and the position of his administration regarding war with Iraq. It seems fairly obvious to just about every nation except the USA that a war will do nothing more than destabilise the region even more and increase the threat of terrorism around the world. And in response to Tony from the USA, it is this "we are the greatest nation" arrogance that is leading to much of the problems we now face.
Paul, USA

The problem I have with my fellow members of the peace movement is they categorically reject the use of force under any circumstances. Reason can only work if it is backed up with resolve.
Mike, Chicago, USA

Maybe it is in the way of America to remove and replace presidents of other sovereign nations at their whim and caprices but from statements made so far by Mr Bush, we can deduce that America will rule Iraq for "as long as necessary" which could mean twenty years or less! How long can people like G.W. Bush continue to play 'Fatal politics' with human lives? The chaos that America created in Afghanistan is still uncontrollable and now, another one in Iraq?
Deji Saanu, Nigeria

What do the Iraqi people want? Freedom, democracy, food, safety, prosperity, etc.? Do they have them now? No. If they could over-throw Saddam they would have done it already. They need our help.
Eric M, US

There is no doubt that Bush's alleged vision for Iraq 'without Saddam' is a ruse. Simply put, US, or any other nation for that matter, has no moral right to invade another sovereign nation for whatever reason. It is equally oppressive, arrogant and rude! Having said that, if the US is looking for an oppressive regime to remove, Israel qualifies 10 times over before Iraqi's Saddam.
Abu Fawaz, Nigeria

WOW.....what a wonderful plan.....We can barely address the medical, employment, economy etc. concerns in our own country and plan on leasing another country. A classic example of "smoking the peace pipe a little too often and not necessarily with tobacco"
ARK, USA

Saddam's regime like all the rest will fall in time

Geoff Dawson, Brit in USA

The Cold war was the supreme example of how "doing nothing" actually prevented untold horrors. Saddam's regime like all the rest will fall in time - even if it takes thirty years.
Geoff Dawson, Brit in USA

What would Bush know about anything "truly democratic"? Last count I saw, Al Gore is democratically the US president. Unfortunately the undemocratic Electoral College nipped that in the bud.
cath, UKUS

Everyone knows that the biggest supporter of dictatorships in the recent history has been USA. I think the removal of Saddam will destabilize not only the Middle East but also US and UK. There will be a loss of democratic values in both these countries.
Abraham K, Canada

In Japan and more recently Bosnia and Kosovo, American troops have always done well in bringing regional stability, peace and economic development as well as good constitution to the people involved. We hope the same happens to Iraq. Here the stakes are very high as it brings peace in the entire Middle East region. Bush-Blair team work is simply great!
V.V.Srinivasu, India

It seems obvious that Saddam is not the guy you would like to be governed by... To have him replaced by a democratic chief sounds good but the problem is that this should come from the Iraqi people, not from the US administration. I think, as an Iraqi citizen, I would not appreciate having my country controlled by "the international community" however sincere their intentions.
Camille, France

Although I very much question the US Government's word when they say they "have no intention" of determining the precise form of the post-Hussein government of Iraq (which is then contradicted by an insistence that the form be a democratic republic), I must grudgingly admit that having Iraq under such a system will widen the scope of Middle Eastern countries that can be used as "early interception" points for terrorist activity. The problem with this (and I don't believe my government is fully aware of the ramifications) is that we are simply placing a buffer zone between the US and the terrorists. After all, if there is some prosperous democracy in Iraq, which is the goal here, then won't said terrorists attack "them"? Won't Iraq be seen as a sort of "Great Satan II"?
Bob James, USA

An irresistible example to much of the Middle East

Robert Morpheal, Canada

A democratic and prosperous Iraq, opened to new ideas, and to new forms of modern progress, would be an irresistible example to much of the Middle East. It would also prove to be an excellent buffer against other local ambitions, undermining tendencies towards political oppression and extremism in its neighbouring nations.
Robert Morpheal, Canada

As much as I despise the regime of Saddam the pain and suffering it has caused to some very close friends who are Iraqi exiles, I, and they, remain adamant that there are other ways to ensure a better quality of life for the Iraqi people. War is truly a horrible thing and to say that is the lesser of two evils while they (the US/UK) have not given enough consideration to the post Saddam government. There has been very little liaison between the would-be 'saviour' states and Iraqi exile groups. How can the people of Iraq feel that they are now governing themselves justly with an American General in Bagdad?
Simon Macdonald, UK

As with Afghanistan, President Bush doesn't appear to understand what happens when you remove a regime from power - you create power struggles. In Iraq there are a number of regimes that would happily war with each other to determine the victor - Saddam Hussein in power is stopping these wars. So, who would be responsible if Iraq turns to civil war if the US government topple the current Iraqi government - a war which could kill thousands? The USofA of course and George Dubya Bush.
Brian, UK

This comes from a man who has no understanding of what the rest of the world means. Have we learned nothing from history? Forcing your values and ideals upon people is not the way of achieving peace and stability. American values are American, and just that. The moment Mr. Bush understands that the world does not revolve around America and its interests, will be a clear win for true diplomacy and democracy.
Aly, Canada/France

Well, there will still be 21 authoritarian, undemocratic regimes in the Middle East, so not much stability there.
Meerkat, USA

I am not sure if it will lead to regional stability, as a conflict between the Turks and Kurds may erupt, but I think Iraqis will embrace democracy if they can see early on that it will work.
Knowlton, USA

History tells us that doing nothing is not an option

Cameron Rose, UK

We can't be sure it will lead to peace and stability - but history tells us that doing nothing is not an option. We sought peace at any cost in the 30's and ignored the rise of Nazism. Failing to take firm action by those who have the power to do so is an abdication of responsibility. It usually ends up worse in the long run.
Cameron Rose, UK

Bush may talk about democracy and human rights but the simple fact is that as long as any replacement for Saddam toes the US line, he won't care what will happen. Already we see the same thing happening in Afghanistan. Quite frankly a nation with the power to enforce its will backed by the largest and most powerful arsenal of WMDs is more frightening than a tinpot dictator with little more than rusty tanks and planes at the head of a broken nation.
Mo, UK

Bush has a clear and well-articulated vision, and is absolutely right to take on the patronising hypocrites who try to claim that democracy can't work for the Arab world.
Peter Kennedy, UK

Mr Bush is either deluding himself or is distinctly aware of the turmoil that will be caused by his plan to invade Iraq. While most people agree that removing Saddam Hussein would be a blessing, the way in which he intends to do so will ignite a fire that will still be burning in years to come (and I do not mean the oil fields).
Faraz Kermani, UK

All very nice in theory, but somehow I am a bit sceptical as to whether his plans to rebuild Iraq into a shining example of democracy and prosperity will actually happen and even if they do, is the price worth paying?
Harry, Germany ex UK

The issue of stability of the region does not lie with the removal of Saddam but the bullying tactic of Bush. His approach of 'either you are with us or not ..' does not leave room for agreeing to disagree.
Albert, Philippines