Saddam Hussein a good person.

Have fun you crazy conservatives...I will write a response once I get the time to, and I would like to see what everyone has to say...also please try to stay on topic. I hate to see threads that veer away from the subject....

remington1_2006 said:

Have fun you crazy conservatives...I will write a response once I get the time to, and I would like to see what everyone has to say...also please try to stay on topic. I hate to see threads that veer away from the subject....

Click to expand...

I fail to see any point in this thread...seriously, what is the intent?

Saddam is an A$$Hole....Have fun you crazy Liberals...

Nope, no sense in that one either.

Subject?

What subject, you made a statement, you didn't ask a question.

If it was a question it's... well kind of ludicrous...

Not sure what the point is

Yeah I'll third that and I'm a liberal. There's maybe two people in the world that think Saddam is a good person. And one of them's his mother.

Yeah, This thread made absolutely no sense(Almost like Bush does every speech) What's the debate? You made an statement! What's the argument? You're one of three people that think Saddam is a nice person.

YourThrone said:

Yeah, This thread made absolutely no sense(Almost like Bush does every speech) What's the debate? You made an statement! What's the argument? You're one of three people that think Saddam is a nice person.

Click to expand...

*cough*two*cough* :2wave:

Kelzie said:

*cough*two*cough* :2wave:

Click to expand...

Can't we have a section just called "STUPID" that you can ship this to... Not to metion the starter didn't even present a side to his thoughts, just a thread

Kelzie said:

Yeah I'll third that and I'm a liberal. There's maybe two people in the world that think Saddam is a good person. And one of them's his mother.

Click to expand...

Who do you think the other is?

BTW, Kelzie, his mother didn't even want him...she had to be talked out of an abortion.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Who do you think the other is?

BTW, Kelzie, his mother didn't even want him...she had to be talked out of an abortion.

Click to expand...

Why this remington character, obviously. :lol:

Kelzie said:

Why this remington character, obviously. :lol:

Click to expand...

Silly me. :doh

Kelzie said:

Yeah I'll third that and I'm a liberal. There's maybe two people in the world that think Saddam is a good person. And one of them's his mother.

Click to expand...

Didn't he torture his mother? :shock:

Yeah, I agree <gulp> even with the libs on this one - there is no point to the post. You made a statement, obviously to stir up a hornet's nest...'cept looks like the Hornets ain't home. If it is your opinion, which you are certainly free to have, is that Hussein is a good man, my only comment/question would be.....

They let you have a computer and internet access over in that Iraqi jail, Saddam? Who'da thunk it?!

He improved the standard of life in iraq terms of education ,economically equality for women etc a hell of alot before the iran-iraq war.However he was never really a very good person at all he modeled himself on stalin and acted like stalin.

and sorta looks like him too...

...and slaughtered his own people just like Stalin, too.

It was with the Iraq war things was starting to fall apart for Saddam Hussein. If that war hasn't been started he could have been a "succefull dictator" today. He had could given the people a ok standard of living thanks to the oil reveneu. The country could have been stable and the small uprising from the minority could be supressed easily with not to harsh methods. He could also been a allied to the USA and west. That at the same time USA officials and many regulare americans belived it was necissary to be allied to him in the war against terror.

But of course there are no sutch things as good dictators and of course it would still be bad that Iraq was a dictatorship and yes people would have been opressed.

Bergslagstroll said:

It was with the Iraq war things was starting to fall apart for Saddam Hussein. If that war hasn't been started he could have been a "succefull dictator" today. He had could given the people a ok standard of living thanks to the oil reveneu. The country could have been stable and the small uprising from the minority could be supressed easily with not to harsh methods. He could also been a allied to the USA and west. That at the same time USA officials and many regulare americans belived it was necissary to be allied to him in the war against terror.

But of course there are no sutch things as good dictators and of course it would still be bad that Iraq was a dictatorship and yes people would have been opressed.

Click to expand...

I don't know Tito wasn't too bad. There were some aspects of his rule that were pretty unsavory, but he kept Yugoslavia united when pretty much everyone wanted to kill everyone else. He also maintained the highest standard of living in Eastern Europe for quite some time. In spite of some of the tactics he used, he did run a tight country.

A lot of people think that the most effective form of gov't is a true benevolent dictatorship. We haven't seen one yet that I can think of, but the concept is pretty solid. One person making the decisions that are best for the country would avoid all of the lost resources due to in-fighting and bickering between opposing points of view. I don't believe that there's anyone who could pull it off on a national scale, but the theory is pretty good. I also wouldn't like to live in such a country. Too much power in one person's hands is a formula for disaster if that person goes south, dies unexpectedly w/o a clear successor who would follow the original dictator's vision, or gets lazy.

Bergslagstroll said:

It was with the Iraq war things was starting to fall apart for Saddam Hussein. If that war hasn't been started he could have been a "succefull dictator" today. He had could given the people a ok standard of living thanks to the oil reveneu. The country could have been stable and the small uprising from the minority could be supressed easily with not to harsh methods. He could also been a allied to the USA and west. That at the same time USA officials and many regulare americans belived it was necissary to be allied to him in the war against terror.

But of course there are no sutch things as good dictators and of course it would still be bad that Iraq was a dictatorship and yes people would have been opressed.

Click to expand...

Earth to Bergsalgstroll....Nothing was truly falling apart for Hussein before we went in.
- Yeah, the U.N. had placed sanctions on him publicly, but secretly they were running a Black marketing ring which provided him with everything he needed.
- The Oil money was being siphoned off, stolen, by the U.n and International criminals like Jacques Chirac and Koffi & his son. The money making it back to Hussein was being used to build his palaces, including the gold toilets and sink fixtures! U.N. observers reported how, while Hussein, his sons, and those loyal to him were living large, the majority of the people were doing without a lot of foods and medicine!
- Meanwhile, he and his sons contnued raping, torturing, and murdering their own people. The small uprisings by the people - like the kurds (who did not have the power to threaten Hussein's dictatorship) - were met with extreme brutality, including chemical and biological attacks. He gassed his own friggin' people, for crying out loud!

He used to be allied with the U.S. a long time ago, but we split ways. He used the U.S. to get to power and then turned to 'the dark side' - the Islamic extrmist was where you hate and want to kill all Westerners/Americans. (maybe because he just wanted to blend in with the neighborhood he was living in :roll: ). He also had a few bad habits we couldn't tolerate, like....gassing your people and torturing your olympic atheletes upon their return home if they failed to win a medal.

The bottom line is that Hussein and his sons were very evil men.

easyt65 said:

Earth to Bergsalgstroll....Nothing was truly falling apart for Hussein before we went in.
- Yeah, the U.N. had placed sanctions on him publicly, but secretly they were running a Black marketing ring which provided him with everything he needed.
- The Oil money was being siphoned off, stolen, by the U.n and International criminals like Jacques Chirac and Koffi & his son. The money making it back to Hussein was being used to build his palaces, including the gold toilets and sink fixtures! U.N. observers reported how, while Hussein, his sons, and those loyal to him were living large, the majority of the people were doing without a lot of foods and medicine!
- Meanwhile, he and his sons contnued raping, torturing, and murdering their own people. The small uprisings by the people - like the kurds (who did not have the power to threaten Hussein's dictatorship) - were met with extreme brutality, including chemical and biological attacks. He gassed his own friggin' people, for crying out loud!

He used to be allied with the U.S. a long time ago, but we split ways. He used the U.S. to get to power and then turned to 'the dark side' - the Islamic extrmist was where you hate and want to kill all Westerners/Americans. (maybe because he just wanted to blend in with the neighborhood he was living in :roll: ). He also had a few bad habits we couldn't tolerate, like....gassing your people and torturing your olympic atheletes upon their return home if they failed to win a medal.

The bottom line is that Hussein and his sons were very evil men.

Click to expand...

Well first of all I'm terrible sorry that I'm writing to sloppy. Because that I meant and should have write was the Iraq-Iran war. So it's fully understandable that you get totally confused from my post.

So hope my post make more sense now.

I think Iraq was one of the less "islamic extremist" countries in the ME. It's also clear that USA started the hostilitys towards Iraq. First by supplying Iran with weapons during the Iraq-Iran war (that at the same time you supported Iraq). That Iraq in that war was an allied to USA and was seen as the country that should fight and defeat Islamic extremist in that war. Then the kuwait war wasn't a islamic extremist war it was a economicial and nationilistic war there Saddam belived it was worth the gamble in a tough ecomical situation after the Iraq-Iran war. After the USA intervention it's pretty obvius why Saddam became more and more anti-american. But of course the American intervention had there valide points.

Then it comes to Saddam brutality I don't know if it are clear proof that he was much more brutale then other ME dictatorship except then he was in desperate situations. First during the Iraq-Iran war and during the aftermath of the guilf war there he commited largescale massmurder and even genocide. Of course this is no justification for his action but maybee an explanation to them. That he maybee just would have been a "regulare me dictatore" if he didn't had have those conflicts.

And my point with this is that wars and supporting dictators can get alot of unexpted conseqvences. That at the same time that there are maybee loyale dictators but no good dictators.

Bergslagstroll said:

Well first of all I'm terrible sorry that I'm writing to sloppy. Because that I meant and should have write was the Iraq-Iran war. So it's fully understandable that you get totally confused from my post.

So hope my post make more sense now.

I think Iraq was one of the less "islamic extremist" countries in the ME. It's also clear that USA started the hostilitys towards Iraq. First by supplying Iran with weapons during the Iraq-Iran war (that at the same time you supported Iraq). That Iraq in that war was an allied to USA and was seen as the country that should fight and defeat Islamic extremist in that war. Then the kuwait war wasn't a islamic extremist war it was a economicial and nationilistic war there Saddam belived it was worth the gamble in a tough ecomical situation after the Iraq-Iran war. After the USA intervention it's pretty obvius why Saddam became more and more anti-american. But of course the American intervention had there valide points.

Then it comes to Saddam brutality I don't know if it are clear proof that he was much more brutale then other ME dictatorship except then he was in desperate situations. First during the Iraq-Iran war and during the aftermath of the guilf war there he commited largescale massmurder and even genocide. Of course this is no justification for his action but maybee an explanation to them. That he maybee just would have been a "regulare me dictatore" if he didn't had have those conflicts.

And my point with this is that wars and supporting dictators can get alot of unexpted conseqvences. That at the same time that there are maybee loyale dictators but no good dictators.

Click to expand...

Ah! That makes all perfect sense to me, then! Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Originally posted by easyt65:
Didn't he torture his mother?

Click to expand...

No, that was his grandmother/cousin on his fathers side.

Billo_Really said:

No, that was his grandmother/cousin on his fathers side.

Click to expand...

....twice removed. :lol:

Calm2Chaos said:

Can't we have a section just called "STUPID" that you can ship this to... Not to metion the starter didn't even present a side to his thoughts, just a thread

Click to expand...

I believe the point of this thread is to debate whether or not Saddam was a good person. If he was a good person then that would warrant that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but if he was a bad person then it would be another reason to invade.
Sadly I posted this reply on a different thread, but it would be suffice to post it here, because I think it applies in the same way.

You know it’s hard to defend a mass murder, like Saddam. So, arguing against this is kind of like saying I like genocide, or I believe in racism! However, my point is not that I support genocide, or whatever Saddam did or didn't do. The point is that if Saddam deserves the death sentence then many world leaders also deserve the death sentence. The book, Hegemony or Survival America's Quest for Global Dominance, points out that Turkey also did a mass genocide against Kurds, however the death toll is more like 3,000 which isn't that bad compared to Saddam.
I don't want to blame the victim when I say that the Kurds should have saw it coming. I mean Kurdistan controls a large portion of Iraq's oil, which means that the Kurds were in a strategic geopolitical area. The Kurds received funds from Iran for guerilla warfare,
according to the book, Essential Histories: The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988. When you think about it the Kurds were against Saddam and caused terrorist acts. What is America’s policy on terrorist? Oh yeah you go to a little torture camp in Guantanamo Bay. Wait, did I just say torture camps? Saddam had torture camps…America has torture camps… Anyway, if you don’t believe my internet blog, then you should read the book Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar. So, your right when you say, “Bush did not run mass-torture chambers inside police stations.” Bush didn’t run torture chambers inside police stations, but at Guantanamo. Now getting back to the genocide against the Kurds, it’s not right in the way Saddam committed the act. Chemical warfare against innocent citizens is completely wrong, and Saddam shouldn’t have done it. But, when you have a hostile terrorist ethnic group that control a significant supply of oil I can understand the actions, I don’t agree with the genocide. How else do you deal with terrorist in your own country???

The more pressing question is how did Iraq get the chemical weapons to use against the Kurds? I’ll tell you if you didn’t know America supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and America gave them chemical and biological weapons to use against the Kurds. Americans say that Iraq has no democracy and how it’s a travesty, but I ask the question to who put him in power? American CIA supported and put Saddam Hussein in power, but until he decided to go against US interest by cutting off oil rights and trying to diversify his country Iraq was considered an ally. Saddam’s purpose and his mandate of being in power for US was to destroy the Iraqi Democratic Revolution, which he did. Saddam Hussein destroyed other political parties and rivals to maintain power. He destroyed the Iraqi communist party, he destroyed the Iraqi Kurdish Democratic party, the reformist party, he destroyed the left wing of his own Ba’ath party, and he did it equip with, trained, advised, and paid for by the US government. I hate to point out that genocides are common and rarely acted upon in the international community. Take Turkey for example with the mass killing of the Kurds, and look at how in the early 1990’s how Boris Yeltsin killed 3,000 political hard line communist that supported the Supreme Court. Never mind the inhumanity at Kazakhstan considered by the U.N. and Washington Post, the single worst country dealing with human rights. Forget Sudan and their countless genocide you hear about daily. For the past 50 years Sudan has been in a skirmish. I say skirmish, because I did a research paper on Sudan and I said Sudan’s war that has claim a million lives, in class, and someone else just happened also to do some research on Sudan. They corrected me by saying Sudan isn’t in a constant state of war, but they have 50 guys fight in the bushes against another 50 guys. In a way he is right Sudan’s genocides have claimed rough estimates by the U.N. around a million lives in the past 50 years, so yes genocides are common and rarely acted on. In fact in Sudan International aid/support was pulled by Russia, US, and a few other countries because they don’t support what’s going on Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced from their homes and will die/ have died, but yet the international aid that wasn’t even able to support the displaced people to begin with is now cut. So, yes genocide sucks, but I wanted to point out that genocide happens a lot and they don’t always warrant an invasion. Or do genocides warrant invasion? I think they do, but that would be taking on the world, because countless countries have caused genocide, we couldn’t possible go to war with all the countries that have caused genocides. America has even caused genocide. Genocide is defined as follows: Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." America killed millions of Native Americans with intent to destroy them. Everyone remembers the blankets that were disease ridden. According to the Sociology book by, James M. Henslin used in college courses claims that 10 million Native Americans in North America existed prior to colonies. To quote from the book “…about 95 percent of Native Americans died” so, to put it gently it would be better to try to prevent genocides from happening instead of invading countries. This could be done through the U.N., yeah we sometimes forget about the U.N. mainly because they never do anything...

Saddam is not a nice man, but in context of the Middle East he’s not that bad. He was a tyrant, but he was Iraq’s tyrant. The tiny country of Iraq, if you want to free the people of “oppression” helps Kazakhstan, or Sudan. I look around Iraq and I don’t see any countries that are much better. Kuwait, a tiny country that is ruled by a select group of families by no means is it better than Iraq. The book, SADDAM HUSSEIN : A Political Biography, talks about the Kuwait invasion by Iraq, and it was comical. A press official asked Saddam why he invaded Iraq, and Saddam’s response was something like Western media doesn’t care why I invaded Kuwait they just want to make me look bad. Saddam goes on to talk about how Kuwait was stealing Iraq’s oil, political blackmailing, supported and funded terrorist acts against the state of Iraq, and refused Iraq the right to flyover or transport any goods over Kuwait.
Lets get back to Saddam deserving the death sentence now. Do Saddam’s deeds give premise for a hanging? Take a look at what he has done for his country first. Saddam gave free education to all social classes and to women. Saddam made a free universe health care system, subsidies for farmers, and promoted numerous other industries. Saddam brought electricity to nearly every city and outer laying areas, he modernized his country. For the Middle East this is unprecedented. Saddam gave some rights to women, he even won an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Saddam was inherently good for his country. I’ll let you decide whether he should be hanged or not. I’m not trying to say that Saddam’s actions were all good, or defend this dictator, but it would look that he has done some good things and some of his choices that look bad are really not that bad. So Saddam: torture camps, genocide, and oppression, … America torture camps, genocide, but no oppression we supported oppression in Iraq though.

P.S. I know this probably doesn’t change your mind, but at least think about. I also find Saddam’s hanging to be funny, because it sounds so old school. Who hangs people anymore? Anyway sorry that it was so long, I sincerely thank you if you read it completely.

Saddam Hussein a good person.

Click to expand...

Well. Somehow, I doubt it.
That said, he is an individual who possesses considerable personal charm and charisma, from what I've read.

Saddam was convicted by an Iraqi court of crimes against humanity and sentenced to hang. He is now a convicted mass murderer. If there is any poetic justice, he will be hung at Abu Ghraib prison where thousands of his victims suffered the same fate.

Tashah said:

Saddam was convicted by an Iraqi court of crimes against humanity and sentenced to hang. He is now a convicted mass murderer. If there is any poetic justice, he will be hung at Abu Ghraib prison where thousands of his victims suffered the same fate.

Click to expand...

Does anybody know..?
Can we get that on pay per view?