Saddam..............

R

Rojoe67

New member
I know we are past this guy for the most part. I was watching the History Channel last night and they ran his life story. Wow, did anyone else catch it? To be honest and fair, I don't think the History Channel has any reason to fabricate or juice up this story. I don't know if this station is owned by one or 20 persons? If anyone can tell me so I can rule out the idea that a few would think this program was just the Conservatives or Republicans trying to say (look we told ya so).

I am even more glad we got him out of power. Will his replacements now and later be worse? God knows I hope and pray that not be the case. I had no idea of the amount of people he killed and had beaten and tortured. He would have to be the modern day runner up to Hitler? I am sure a few other real awful dictators are and have recently had his way with evil power.

Again, just remembering how bad he was and how good it is to have him out of power. Now, before you argue with this point think again. I think it would be hard to argue having him out of power is in any form worse than letting him contine........
 
Well, he was undeniably a dictator and is responsible for the murder of many 1000's of his people. However, there was order (no civil war) and basic facilities (utilities etc) under his rule. We have a long way to go before conditions are better than before.
 
I saw this a few years ago. He is one SICK man. Killing your enemies is one thing but this clown brought things to whole different leval. He treated his own people this way, can you imagine how he treated Christians?
Kevin
 
Chorlton-
Agreed 100%. Which demonstrates, once again, that basic needs are most efficiently provided by a Police State. Depends what you demand from life, I guess. ;)
Rich
 
There are 'dictators' ruling countries in Africa that make Sadaam look like a member of the Chamber of Commerce. I sometimes wonder why we don't deal with them in a similar fashion. I don't think on it too much because I'm not sure I want to know the real answer.

Be that as it may, I'm glad he's out and the Iraqis have a realistic chance at charting their own future. I hope that we declare our mission complete in '06 and bring our folks home.
 
and.......

If I remember right........ he had his own son-in-law murdered? Now, that is a dictator with rules........... Start at home and work your way right to your neighboring countries as well........

Seems the number of persons killed while he was in power might be as high as a million. That is a guess that was noted on this History Channel program too..........not just many thousands. It's a sad note that former administrations saw this nut as the better of two evils. Iran was on the s*** list from the citizens taken during the Carter days.....

I wonder if the Middle East will ever be at peace with itself? I would guess not?
 
Hmm.....

True - but would we have said that about Hitler too?

One drop of American blood was too much....... I guess we could have just bombed the place into glass? That would have went over well with all the world...... Seems we did it in about as humane way as modern war is waged?
 
We would have gone after Germany anyway, but Hitler declared war on us in accordance with the terms of the Tripartite Pact....

Sorry, I'm an old history teacher.
 
I should also state that I know it has been at a horrible cost, but I think we did the right thing going into Iraq.

We do not know what would have happened if we hadn't gone in, but history is replete with examples of what happens when the world does not stop tyranny. Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland...nothing was done. Hitler rejected the naval provisions of Versailles...nothing was done. Hitler reintroduced the Luftwaffe...nothing was done. Hitler reintroduced conscription...nothing was done. Hitler annexed Austria...nothing was done. Hitler annexed the Sudetenland...nothing was done. Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia...nothing was done. Hitler invaded Poland...

and sixty million people world-wide died.

Hard to know when to say when, isn't it?
 
We didn't just pick Saddam and Iraq out of the phone book. This all started when Saddam left his borders and attacked Kuwait. We played by the UN rules and didn't finish the job then. Too many people wear blinders and only see what they want to see.

kenny b
 
can you imagine how he treated Christians?
Click to expand...
Actually; we do not have to "imagine" how he treated Christians.

But outside of two reports, one before and after the invasion (USA Today and Time - or perhaps Newsweek), I have yet to hear or read a single story on the fate of the half million or so Christians that remain there, now that the Muslim fanatics are free to run amok except in sectors under tight U.S. control - how ever many meagre square miles that is.

The Chaldean Catholics numbered about one million in Iraq before the invasion, the Church there having been founded by St. Thomas himself.

They lived and practived their religion freely, and represented a significant majority of the private businesses etc in Iraq.

Culturally, Iraq was ahead of about every other country in the Middle East, with perhaps the highest per capita number of educated people, thanks to the universities there etc.

What Saddam's government did do was protect them against any antagonistic religious groups, keeping the various Muslim fanatics under control.
 
Thanks

Thanks history teacher......... I had forgot a few of those things Hitler did. Your right about the facts..... I was just trying to explain why I compare the two....... Sadam wasn't a drop in the ugly bucket if we look at all Hitler did. Sadam was still a person that needed to be kicked out......... It was done and I stand behind it. Why is it so many countries rather wish the evils of other countries away? Sure, if we take action we know blood will be lost. Had we not taken action how much more evil and blood would have been on this dictators hands? I'm glad the U.S. took action. I don't try to understand the thought process of many other nations that wanted to wait. The only thing that stopped many was that those countries had money under the table and evidence in Iraq with their names on.

Regards......... Rojoe
 
I hate to be a cynic but Saddam became a bad dictator when he crossed our interests. We used to like him.

We only stop tyranny when it is a threat to us.

This doesn't mean anything about my position on any other issue - :D

I'm only talking about historical fact - do we act against folk as they violate human rights or do we act in our interest? I say the latter is the operative variable but we use the former in our rhetoric when we do the latter.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

We can find our leaders of both parties shaking and holding the hands of some really crappy guys when it suits us.
 
<rant>
Preface: I recently had an argument with a sort-of former friend of mine who now resides in California regarding this.

I love it when people start spouting on about when we used to support Saddam or tribes in Afghanistan. Did everyone get hit in the head and forget about the Cold War? Does anyone remember that the Soviets (Yeah, back then they were Soviets, not just Russians) invaded Afghanistan? Does anyone recall that Saddam was in a shooting match with Iran run by the Ayatollah Khomeini (sp)? Judging actions completely out of context now re: our involvement back then, is just about as ridiculous as the smug righteousness of condemning George Washington for owning slaves 100 years before the Emancipation Proclamation.
It's also nuts to go on about "if we can't overthrow all of the other dictators around the world at the same time then why did we bother with just one?" So, we should just sit on our hands because we can't save the entire world all at the same time? WTF? How much sense does that make? Whenever someone starts complaining about that I feel like smacking them upside the head with a copy of "The Art of War" opened to the section about attacking where your enemies are weak rather than beating your head against their strongest defenses. It's about as close to a common sense manual as I've seen regarding strategy. I'm no expert but COME ON!
Do we operate in our best interests? Absolutely! Anyone who wants to pay someone to act in another country's best interest is free to mail them a check of their own private money. You want to go pick up a rifle and overthrow all the dictators in the world? Send me a postcard. Just don't expect our own people to go do it for them/get killed for another country's interests/the rest of us to pay for it. The [censored] U.N. is all about that particular form of absurdity. Screw that!
Was invading Iraq worth it? Ask that question in ten or twenty years when it's been long enough to tell. We're in it right now so blathering on about that particular question serves about as much purpose as sitting in the backseat of the family station wagon on summer vacation and chanting "are we there yet?" Maybe in 2025 the History Channel will do a special. Maybe then I'll sit down and watch it.

</rant>

LAK,
He hardly kept the fanatical muslim terrorists under control. He let them move in and out of the country, set up training bases, and use hospital facilities in Baghdad. What a paragon of restraint!
 
rant, rant, rant -

The empirical question is whether invading in Iraq is in our best interests. That is still unknown.

Is 'freeing' the Iraqis in our best interest because it brings some material gain and safety to us or is 'best' interest' freeing folks for some ideological mission - a kind of bring civilization conversion and new version of the 'white man's burden'

Interesting historical counterfactual - was supporting Islamic extremists to ge the Soviets out of Afghanistan in our best interest? They sure are grateful folks.

We are in Iraq but we better have clear motives to determine our course of action there - rather than just some ideological blather that doesn't further the real interests of the USA. If all I hear is such blather - then I'm not impressed. I only care about results.

That's my problem with the speeches. All after the fact, BS.

If we are going to win in Iraq then we really need to go to war and exert ourselves. Have we yet? No - not going to start the force level debate again as it is well known. I agree with Tom Friedman, if we are going to stay - more force for a decisive victory. As I see it now, we are angling for another VietNam declare our guys will take up the burder and we skeedaddle to let it fall apart.

duh - kan't spel tooday!
 
Wow, apple...that was quite a vowel movement. Been saving up for awhile?

I didn't suggest that we go after every dictator on the face of the planet. I don't believe that we should sit with our thumbs in our backsides, frozen somewhere between moral outrage and indecision.
I said that there are plenty of other folks who deserve worse than what Sadaam got yet are allowed to continue to waste air. I still wonder why. Pity that my pondering makes you so upset.

The problem of having supported jackals like Sadaam in the past is that we put ourselves at risk for blowback; the future damage that results from allying oneself with the devil in order to defeat a percieved greater evil. Happens everytime we attempt to play the game.

Even today, the big news story is that the mastermind of the London bombings was/is a double agent for MI-6 Brit Intel. Got his training in Kosovo in a joint CIA/MI program where Al Qaida types were hired and trained to protect the Muslim population there. Bin Laden had a hands off policy toward the Brits due to their lax immigration policies and their live and let live attitude toward the Muslimm extremists in their country.
Guess what...truce is off and the Brits get hit with the blowback. c'est la vie...c'est la guerre. Try the decaf. ;)
 
I love it when people start spouting on about when we used to support Saddam or tribes in Afghanistan. Did everyone get hit in the head and forget about the Cold War? Does anyone remember that the Soviets (Yeah, back then they were Soviets, not just Russians) invaded Afghanistan? Does anyone recall that Saddam was in a shooting match with Iran run by the Ayatollah Khomeini (sp)?
Click to expand...

yeh Rumsfeld was in charge of that Charlie Foxtrot also :D

and then we Hire Rumsfeld back and hes in charge of the Iraq War :eek:

we never learn do we......... :(
 
Lotta civil order and good facilities in them rape rooms and acid showers was there? Cuz I cant remember hearin about that. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top