NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a little sampling of the carefree lifestyle that Saddam provided his people.

http://members.cox.net/free_iraq/Free_Iraq.htm

http://www.defendamerica.mil/specials/june2003/atrocities.html

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040312-074010-1766r

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/04/07/MailCall/Saddams.Atrocities.Are.Enough.To.Justify.The.New.War.Against.Iraq-514399.shtml

http://craigpages3.100megsfree5.com/Partisan_Media_Ignores_Saddam_Torture.html

Now, can you honestly say that someone didn't need to step in and do something?

If anyone needed to do anything, it was the Iraqis. In case you've noticed, whenever someone invades and tries to set up a new government, the government is usually corrupt. Like, our escapades in South America.

No one said Saddam was a good guy, I think people are just pointing out that the Iraqi people are worse off now then they were under Saddam, at least there was security and stability within the country. More Iraqi's are dying every day now then ever did under Saddam in the last 15 years.

I'll ask the same question I did in the other thread:

Is the United States going to attack every non-democratic country on Earth and liberate the oppressed people? How about a fun theocracy like Iran?

Saddam was definitely a threat to his own people but I dont think it prompted 'liberation'

What country made Saddam great and why? What country helped establish and strengthen Saddams reign?

The cruelty that Saddam's regime inflicted upon the Iraqis wasn't the reason the US invaded Iraq for the second time. There are many countries to be invaded if that were the case. Iraq simply has acces to the biggest oil reserve in the world and the oilwells in the US are soon to be depleted. It isn't about democracy at all, you can't exploit a democracy. They'll just put a friend on top again, and in time he will become a new enemy and it will start all over again.

People are so short-sighted. Yes, more people are dying after Saddam was deposed but for God's sake it's only one year later! Take a look at Germany in 1946 and it was a hell hole. 20 years later it was and still is the most powerful economy in Europe. If you expect a miracle it's most likely you'll come away disappointed.

People are so short-sighted. Yes, more people are dying after Saddam was deposed but for God's sake it's only one year later! Take a look at Germany in 1946 and it was a hell hole. 20 years later it was and still is the most powerful economy in Europe. If you expect a miracle it's most likely you'll come away disappointed.

Actually that's not true. Germany was not a hell hole a year after V day.. and further, Iraq is not Germany. The middle east is a very different case then Germany.

Actually that's not true. Germany was not a hell hole a year after V day.. and further, Iraq is not Germany. The middle east is a very different case then Germany.
Germany never fully recovered IMO until the Berlin Wall fell. The Middle East, well . . . erm . . . *cannot express in words the dystopia that is the Middle East*

OMG!! you guys are sooo stupid!! whos job is it to free themselves?? the iraqis and bush had no business going there....he tried to connect al qaeda and saddam but it didnt work and now he made an even bigger fool outta himself!

yes! you are so right! Those poor people needed to be liberated! You know who else needs liberation? Those In saudi Arabia! Im sure Bush will Go into Saudi Land, arrest the Royal family and Institute Democracy right? Or is there something I'm Missing? <end Sarcasm>

Now, can you honestly say that someone didn't need to step in and do something?

If Bush hadn't wanted to invade Iraq you wouldn't have given a shit about the Iraqis.

If Bush hadn't wanted to invade Iraq you wouldn't have given a shit about the Iraqis.

You make a valid point.. I mean where have for the last 15 years all those "Save Iraq" protesters in the streets been? I don't seem to recall any..

Conservatives aren't quick of wit, so this bears repeating; Saddam's wrongs don't make Bush's wrongs right. Not too hard to grasp, is it?

Here is a little sampling of the carefree lifestyle that Saddam provided his people.

http://members.cox.net/free_iraq/Free_Iraq.htm

http://www.defendamerica.mil/specials/june2003/atrocities.html

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040312-074010-1766r

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/04/07/MailCall/Saddams.Atrocities.Are.Enough.To.Justify.The.New.War.Against.Iraq-514399.shtml

http://craigpages3.100megsfree5.com/Partisan_Media_Ignores_Saddam_Torture.html

Now, can you honestly say that someone didn't need to step in and do something?

HEY ASSHOLE!!! THANKS FOR THE PIC WARNING!!! :mad:

:upyours:

Zooke is right, he was a fun guy, he murdered and gassed
his own nations people, he murdered his own family.

Zooke is right, he was a fun guy, he murdered and gassed
his own nations people, he murdered his own family.
US of America murders it's own citizens aswell (death penalty), violates human rights aswell (e.g. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay). US of America wages illegal wars (Iraq) and supports dictators world-wide for geostrategical gain. What's the moral superiority of the US? I see none.

Also, did Saddam's family not die in the Iraq War Episode 2? Not that his sons were any better than he himself, but I recall the cheers when his sons were found dead... or did I miss something?

US of America murders it's own citizens aswell (death penalty), violates human rights aswell (e.g. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay). US of America wages illegal wars (Iraq) and supports dictators world-wide for geostrategical gain. What's the moral superiority of the US? I see none.

Also, did Saddam's family not die in the Iraq War Episode 2? Not that his sons were any better than he himself, but I recall the cheers when his sons were found dead... or did I miss something?

His son-in-law plotted against him and fled to the West. He was the one that gave intel to the UN inspectors in the mid-90s about a couple of WMD programs that Saddam had managed to hide. He eventually returned to IRaq, and was executed by Saddam.

Big suprise.

I'm pretty sure the US has the death penalty for treason too....


Incidentally, what most people forget is that he was in charge of the WMD programs through the 80s and stated unequivocably that beyond those last couple of hidden programs that all the rest had been dismantled. Completely. That he had been in charge of the program destruction. The UN inspectors dismantled the ones he had leaked to them before they left in '98, and never found anything else.

Of course, neither did GW.


Guess he was right.


But no - GW had to believe a convicted felon named Chalabi instead of the guy who actually ran the programs.....

No one said Saddam was a good guy, I think people are just pointing out that the Iraqi people are worse off now then they were under Saddam, at least there was security and stability within the country. More Iraqi's are dying every day now then ever did under Saddam in the last 15 years.

Steph has encapsulated in very few words the exact reasoning behind the dissent against the war in Iraq; what we face now is a question of what truly is the lesser of two evils: Saddam Hussein in power or America's occupation of Iraq?

I think the problem in Iraq now is this:
Before the US moved in, yes, many innocents were tourtured and killed, and it was horrible for them, but this generally didn't happen unless you did something to piss off those in charge. Most of the general population lived in relative peace.
However, now that the US is there and so many foreign anti-US fighters have gotten into the country, the general population is much less secure. When Saddam was in power, there weren't any gunfights in the streets, suicide bombings, kidnappings and videotaped beheadings, etc. (OK, maybe the kidnappings and beheadings was a bad example, since it's only foreigners that are being kidnapped and beheaded, not Iraqis). IMHO, most Iraqis now feel more free to do what they want to without fear from being oppressed by the government, but they are much more worried about getting killed in a random explosion or getting caught in a crossfire on their way to the market, so their day-to-day lives are being disrupted more.

Hope that made sense, it does in my head :)

US of America murders it's own citizens aswell (death penalty),

There is a difference between innocent victims and guilty criminals, in case you were not aware.

There is a difference between innocent victims and guilty criminals, in case you were not aware.
No, there can be a difference between the two, but there is not necessarily one. A criminal is someone who has commited an act (or acts) that contravene the relevent law (ie any law that applies), or who have been found guilty of having done so and have not recieved a pardon or been retried. The law in Iraq was such that opposing Saddam in most instances constituted an illegal act, so whatever those who fell afoul of Saddam may have been innocent of, many of them (despite having commited no moral or ethical wrong) were technically criminals. The law is not always right or fair, and criminality is based not on innocence, but on legal protocols. According to Saddam's regime those that Saddam victimised mostly fell into the category of being criminals, for no other reason than the fact that criminal was defined according to Saddam's convinience.

Evidenly not everyone sentenced to death in the US actually commited the crimes they are accused of. So indeed the US does and has murdered people, despite this not being the intention. My understanding is that Bush as governor of Texas was notorious for ignoring the probable innocence of deathrow inmates.

There is a difference between innocent victims and guilty criminals, in case you were not aware.
US of A are criminals. They violated International Law. Thus, killing of US of A soldiers is totally legitimate. How about that? The US of A kill innocents in Iraq and elsewhere each day. What makes these "criminals"? Does being a child in Iraq or a woman or a man, who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, make a criminal act? Do the random bombings of buildings by US military forces spare the innocent? I think not. The blatant arrogance and carelessness the US show each day in their process of "liberating" Iraq, is shockingly brutal. If you would be doing this in Germany, I'd fight back with everything I have aswell.

Zooke is right, he was a fun guy, he murdered and gassed
his own nations people, he murdered his own family.

Has anyone yet defended Saddam? The thing about this thread is that the author seems to defend the invasion of Iraq. Saying the US invaded Iraq to help the Iraqian people by slaying the evil Saddam (I hate the word evil) while it is sooooooo obvious one invaded Iraq for other reasons. Read my former post for more info.

No, there can be a difference between the two, but there is not necessarily one. A criminal is someone who has commited an act (or acts) that contravene the relevent law (ie any law that applies), or who have been found guilty of having done so and have not recieved a pardon or been retried. The law in Iraq was such that opposing Saddam in most instances constituted an illegal act, so whatever those who fell afoul of Saddam may have been innocent of, many of them (despite having commited no moral or ethical wrong) were technically criminals. The law is not always right or fair, and criminality is based not on innocence, but on legal protocols. According to Saddam's regime those that Saddam victimised mostly fell into the category of being criminals, for no other reason than the fact that criminal was defined according to Saddam's convinience.

Evidenly not everyone sentenced to death in the US actually commited the crimes they are accused of. So indeed the US does and has murdered people, despite this not being the intention. My understanding is that Bush as governor of Texas was notorious for ignoring the probable innocence of deathrow inmates.

Is still 80% on death row black? I know for certain blacks don't commit more crime than white people. Makes you think, doesn't it. I think there is a slight flaw in that capital punishment thingy.

You've got to see the big picture. If you've got to torture, repress, and torment a *minority* of your people in order to hold your nation together, then that's what you've got to do, that's if it's done by someone who is of your nation. When it's done by "Amerika", then that's a different thing.

The real war criminals in this case are in the Bush administration. Saddam imposed a secular, socialist system in his country that held it together. Bush is destroying Iraq and turning it into anarchy and spending billions of dollars and wasting American lives for what? To keep the neocon Jews in his administration happy. Anything to make the middle-east, i.e. Israel, safer.

You know, one can steal oil much easier if there is anarchy... The first thing the invaders did was securing all the oil wells, I'm pretty sure they allready pumped millions of gallons of oil somewhere they can't find it, during the confusion of the invasion.