Saddam was a nice guy "really"

#2
What irony. The cemetaries of Iraq are full of people that trusted Saddam.
He wasnt as bad for Iraq as say Pol Pot. He wasnt anywhere near the killer Stalin or Hitler was. But a nice guy ? Hardly.
 
#3
tomahawk6 said:
What irony. The cemetaries of Iraq are full of people that trusted Saddam.
He wasnt as bad for Iraq as say Pol Pot. He wasnt anywhere near the killer Stalin or Hitler was. But a nice guy ? Hardly.
He's still nicer than Blair and Brown put together...
 
#6
Maybe places like Iraq need someone such as saddam to keep it in order! I suppose one good thing about dictators is that they keep the unruly in order.
 
#8
Fallschirmjager said:
Maybe places like Iraq need someone such as saddam to keep it in order! I suppose one good thing about dictators is that they keep the unruly in order.
Even if the odd 100,000 innocents get killed?
 
#11
shaka said:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13559690,00.html

He said the deposed president wrote poetry, told of reading his children bedtime stories and fed birds crusts of bread saved from his meal.
What about the time he took two of his sons to a prison, gave them guns, and told them to shoot the prisoners? He was a vicious man who raised his children to be vicious.

Of course he's a complex character. He lived with a paranoid uncle after being abandoned by his unstable mother. He was sent back to live with his mother and incredibly abusive step-father after his uncle was arrested for his role in an unsuccesful Nazi backed uprisig against the British. He was not born this way, he was made this way. He made his sons into the monsters they were.

This was a man who killed loyal people to make sure everyone knew their place. He was a racist, greedy, selfish murderer. The mass graves littered throughout the desert speak speak volumes of his character.

We try to compare Saddam and Coalition era Iraq. Let's step back. What about pre-saddam Iraq? Saddam polarized the various groups of the country through deceit and guile. The division we see today is his doing.

What remains to be seen is if Iraq can heal, and return to it's former glory as a place of scholars, art, thinkers, and farmers. Poor planning has allowed Saddam's legacy to grow.
 
#13
I'm sure they will be delighted at the thought of dying as part of a Pogrom.... or if not on purpose, by accident?

If the Programme was just, and not based on bullshit, bent info and an ego trip for two of the most dangerous arrseholes on the planet I'd be inclined to agree.

Sadly for the marvellous liberating free west, Saddam went with more dignity that those two pricks could ever dream of having.
 
#14
The story of internecine war between different groups of people living under oppressive foreign occupation is an old one.

Its a form of national self loathing and self harm.

Before any of us British start getting too self righteous perhaps it might be a good idea to examine our longstanding involvement in Iraq dating back to the first world war.

Its been argued that the British welshed on a deal made with the Arabs by Lawrence.
Either way we invaded Iraq at the end of the war.
The Black Watch taking Baghdad.

We bombed them with gas during our occupation then and we have invaded them again.
I wonder how many of them we have killed over this period of Anglo/Iraqi involvement?

Bet it rivals Saddam's total.
And how many Iraqis have come to our shores and killed any of us?

I think I would be safe in sticking my neck out and saying, none.
 
#15
SLRboy said:
The story of internecine war between different groups of people living under oppressive foreign occupation is an old one.

Its a form of national self loathing and self harm.

Before any of us British start getting too self righteous perhaps it might be a good idea to examine our longstanding involvement in Iraq dating back to the first world war.

Its been argued that the British welshed on a deal made with the Arabs by Lawrence.
Either way we invaded Iraq at the end of the war.
The Black Watch taking Baghdad.

We bombed them with gas during our occupation then and we have invaded them again.
I wonder how many of them we have killed over this period of Anglo/Iraqi involvement?

Bet it rivals Saddam's total.
And how many Iraqis have come to our shores and killed any of us?

I think I would be safe in sticking my neck out and saying, none.
You have proof - and not just Wikipedia?
 
#16
Proof of what exactly?

That we invaded in 1919?
That we remained under 'mandate'?
That we gas bombed from the air?
Erh...that we Blitzkrieged them in 2003?

Why not check Hansard yourself, sven?
 
#17
SLRboy said:
Proof of what exactly?

That we invaded in 1919?
That we remained under 'mandate'?
That we gas bombed from the air?
Erh...that we Blitzkrieged them in 2003?

Why not check Hansard yourself, sven?

It was the "Bet it rivals Saddam's total." bit that did it for me.



So - You got any?
 
#18
We don't count who we kill - remember?
 
#19
Fallschirmjager said:
Maybe places like Iraq need someone such as saddam to keep it in order! I suppose one good thing about dictators is that they keep the unruly in order.
Very true. As bad as he was, his country was relatively stable.

100,000 dead from 1978 to 2003 compared to at least 200,000 dead since we embarked on this adventure.

Hmmm. Hardly a fair comparison.
 
#20
Again, nobody wonders about pre-saddam Iraq. I know some nice Kurdish refugees who would love to hear about how Saddam was doing what was best for them.

This whole thing is a mess, but Saddam was not a "good" dictator. A case can be made for men like Tito or Ho Chi Minh, but Saddam was a despicable monster. We are partially responsible because he had so much aid from the west that allowed him to become who he was, which made it an obligation for the west to do something about him.

It was a mistake to assume that getting rid of him would simply solve the problem, his crimes are not undone and his influence on Iraq is not void.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top