NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, we all know that at least half of the people on this board disagree with the war in Iraq, but I would like to know what you guys think of the guy who provoked this war: Saddam Hussein.

Saddam was a man who gassed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) his own people, invaded his peaceful neighbor, and who gassed other people as well. He was a man who tortured thouands of his own people, buried them alive in mass graves, and almost destroyed a way of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs). He made his country fall into huge debt, and then, while his people suffered under sanctions, lived his life in his private mansions.

Of course, Saddam did good things as well. Such as...uh...

um...

(I need a little help here).

Oh yeah! The people of Iraq didn't need to fear terrorist bombings, gas hikes, or rebellious shi'ite clerics. Of course, they did need to fear having their bank accounts taken by the state, being murdered on the street, being assasinated, or having their villages attacked by Iraqi army unit.


Yes, this may sound biased, but it's hard not to be biased when talking about Saddam. Yes, there have been worse men then him, but he's in the top 10. Or 25.

(Here is more information on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein))

He looked better with a beard and those people deserved to be gassed.

He is a great dancer.

:O

I really hope the guys who said he was the best are joking. Seriously, how can a man that ruined his country and slaughtered his own people be the best leader ever?

I wouldn't say he's #3 of all time, thats just bias speaking. He could, however, be in the top ten for the 80's and 90's.

Saddam was a monster. It's a tragedy that he remained in power as long as he did, or that he came into power at all.

He looked better with a beard and those people deserved to be gassed.


You really are such a great Muslim, Jew, Indian, Irish, former Army Ranger, aren't you?

He can't be that bad, he was friends with Reagan and Rumsfeld in the 80s...

:O

I really hope the guys who said he was the best are joking. Seriously, how can a man that ruined his country and slaughtered his own people be the best leader ever?

With the sort of competition history provides? Think about it.

I put a bad leader but not the worst category because, while his crimes against humanity are horrible by the standards of the first world, the biggies of history make him look like a teletubby.

With the sort of competition history provides? Think about it.

I put a bad leader but not the worst category because, while his crimes against humanity are horrible by the standards of the first world, the biggies of history make him look like a teletubby.

I agree

Yes, there have been worse men then him, but in the top 3 worst men of history, Saddam is #3(After Stalin and Hitler, of course).

(Here is more information on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein))
Idi Amin...Pol Pot...not as bad as Hussein?

gassed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) his own people
The Reagan administration gave Iraq the chemical weapons used to do that, by the way, if Iraq was even responsible. As the Wiki says, "Most accounts of the incident regard Iraq as the party responsible", not all. Most people would've said 20 years ago, that Christopher Columbus discovered America. It doesn't make it true.

invaded his peaceful neighbor
Hahaha. Oh, Iran is peaceful now? OK.

Yeah, I guess that whole "hostage crisis" thing was just... well.. nevermind.

He was a man who tortured thouands of his own people
Only for opposing the government. No different than the Shah of Iran, whom the U.S. supported.

buried them alive in mass graves
Where's the proof that he buried them alive?

and almost destroyed a way of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs).
Not "a way of life." Hussein's political opponents. People who wanted political freedom, no different than the Iranians who overthrew the Shah.

He made his country fall into huge debt
As a result of U.S. embargos.

and then, while his people suffered under sanctions
placed upon him by the U.S.

lived his life in his private mansions
He's a dictator. What do you expect? Washington D.C. is full of crackheads and homeless people, but Bush still lives in the White House. You don't see me bitching.

Of course, Saddam did good things as well. Such as...uh...

Keeping the country relatively stable
Not building WMDs
Not costing us $100 billion dollars
Not killing 1,500 U.S. soldiers
Not calling Iraqi separatists "Al-Qaeda"


Oh yeah! The people of Iraq didn't need to fear terrorist bombings, gas hikes, or rebellious shi'ite clerics.
They certainly didn't need to fear U.S. troops or suicide bombings, that's for sure.

Of course, they did need to fear having their bank accounts taken by the state
For opposing the government

being murdered on the street
For opposing the government

being assasinated
For opposing the government

or having their villages attacked by Iraqi army unit.
For opposing the GOVERNMENT!

Hey, this wasn't random. Hussein didn't do it for fun. He wanted to stay in power, just like Kim Jong-Il, Castro, or the Shah of Iran. We were buddies with the Shah before he was overthrown, and you don't see us going to war with the first two. And they both imprison and torture their people no differently than Hussein would.

Yes, this may sound biased, but it's hard not to be biased when talking about Saddam. Yes, there have been worse men then him, but in the top 3 worst men of history, Saddam is #3(After Stalin and Hitler, of course).
Actually, Napoleon would outrank Hussein.

But personally, you know, it's funny how gassing Iraqis is a "tragedy", but dropping a nuke on the Japanese..er..well.. uh.. Oh.. That was necessary. It saved lives. ;)

I lied on the pole...but i think war was not the answer...i think they should have sent some special ops people in to do the job :mp5:

<snip>

Here Here (or how ever you spell that vers)

Íts good to see a varying opinion. It amazing how any country that the US opposes suddenly has waves of propaganda spread about them.

Altho Hussein was a terrible person, I put bad leader because he is an amateur compared to some leaders who killed Iraqs population twice or more over (lenin and stalin come to mind).

We all seem to be forgetting that it was because of the fucking west always having to think its has to try and dictate other peopls lives, that we've ended up with the problems that there are in the middle east today. im not saying that Saddam wasnt a nut case who shouldnt have been trusted with a pair of safety scissors, but we must ask who is the true monster. Saddam for using his weapons of mass destruction on the Irainians/Kurds/ anyone else who happened to piss him off, or the governments in the west and former Soviet Union that supplied him with these weapons. So the point that im trying to convey is that we shouldnt be so bloody high and mighty all the time about how we live in our Utopian society with our squeky clean governments, and how any other form of society is wrong and needs to be controlled. Because in the end we're all as bad as each other.

Mao, Pol Pat, Mussolini, Enver Hohxa- I wouldn't say Saddam was was three, there are worse people....

The Reagan administration gave Iraq the chemical weapons used to do that, by the way, if Iraq was even responsible. As the Wiki says, "Most accounts of the incident regard Iraq as the party responsible", not all. Most people would've said 20 years ago, that Christopher Columbus discovered America. It doesn't make it true.

Wrong and right. The Reagan administration gave Saddam the means to make the weapons. The U.S. hasn't made chemical weapons since the '50s.


Hahaha. Oh, Iran is peaceful now? OK.

Yeah, I guess that whole "hostage crisis" thing was just... well.. nevermind.

Kuwait.


Only for opposing the government. No different than the Shah of Iran, whom the U.S. supported.

I never said that Iran was better. Focus on Saddam here, people! This isn't "Which Muslim leader was worse!"


Where's the proof that he buried them alive?

Eye-witness accounts, offical reports, family accounts...


Not "a way of life." Hussein's political opponents. People who wanted political freedom, no different than the Iranians who overthrew the Shah.

Did you see the link? The Marsh Arabs were nearly wiped out!


As a result of U.S. embargos.

U.N. Embargos.

Also, he stole what little relief money there was for himself(See: Oil-for-food scandal)


placed upon him by the U.S.

See above.

He's a dictator. What do you expect? Washington D.C. is full of crackheads and homeless people, but Bush still lives in the White House. You don't see me bitching.
Has bushed used WMD's on his own people?



Keeping the country relatively stable
Not building WMDs
Not costing us $100 billion dollars
Not killing 1,500 U.S. soldiers
Not calling Iraqi separatists "Al-Qaeda"


Okay, he did keep his country stable.
He DID build(or at least tried to build) Nuclear weapons, and he did build Chemical Weapons(according to the U.N. and multiple other sources).
Oh, just because he didn't cause the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars it make him "good"?
Oh, and killing thousands of civilians is better?
I never called Iraqi separatists Al-qaeda.

They certainly didn't need to fear U.S. troops or suicide bombings, that's for sure.

Yes, it's much better to fear your own leaders.

For opposing the government(x3)
Genocide, public murders, and stealing money from people because they say words that give a slight hint of being mad and the government is just?

For opposing the GOVERNMENT!

Hey, this wasn't random. Hussein didn't do it for fun. He wanted to stay in power, just like Kim Jong-Il, Castro, or the Shah of Iran. We were buddies with the Shah before he was overthrown, and you don't see us going to war with the first two. And they both imprison and torture their people no differently than Hussein would.

I KNOW!

Listen, this isn't about the U.S. and it's foreign relations. It's about Saddam Hussein as a person.


Actually, Napoleon would outrank Hussein.

But personally, you know, it's funny how gassing Iraqis is a "tragedy", but dropping a nuke on the Japanese..er..well.. uh.. Oh.. That was necessary. It saved lives. ;)

Hey, would you rather that we invade Japan, thus leading to the death of millions of Japanese and Americans? Killing 300,000 people isn't as bad as having over 1,000,000 die.

We all seem to be forgetting that it was because of the fucking west always having to think its has to try and dictate other peopls lives, that we've ended up with the problems that there are in the middle east today. im not saying that Saddam wasnt a nut case who shouldnt have been trusted with a pair of safety scissors, but we must ask who is the true monster. Saddam for using his weapons of mass destruction on the Irainians/Kurds/ anyone else who happened to piss him off, or the governments in the west and former Soviet Union that supplied him with these weapons. So the point that im trying to convey is that we shouldnt be so bloody high and mighty all the time about how we live in our Utopian society with our squeky clean governments, and how any other form of society is wrong and needs to be controlled. Because in the end we're all as bad as each other.

That has to be the smarrtest thing I have heard all day. Incidentally, ever read any Noam Chomsky? I recommend "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" and "Pirates and Emperors"

The Reagan administration gave Iraq the chemical weapons used to do that, by the way, if Iraq was even responsible. As the Wiki says, "Most accounts of the incident regard Iraq as the party responsible", not all. Most people would've said 20 years ago, that Christopher Columbus discovered America. It doesn't make it true.


Hahaha. Oh, Iran is peaceful now? OK.

Yeah, I guess that whole "hostage crisis" thing was just... well.. nevermind.


Only for opposing the government. No different than the Shah of Iran, whom the U.S. supported.


Where's the proof that he buried them alive?


Not "a way of life." Hussein's political opponents. People who wanted political freedom, no different than the Iranians who overthrew the Shah.


As a result of U.S. embargos.


placed upon him by the U.S.


He's a dictator. What do you expect? Washington D.C. is full of crackheads and homeless people, but Bush still lives in the White House. You don't see me bitching.



Keeping the country relatively stable
Not building WMDs
Not costing us $100 billion dollars
Not killing 1,500 U.S. soldiers
Not calling Iraqi separatists "Al-Qaeda"



They certainly didn't need to fear U.S. troops or suicide bombings, that's for sure.


For opposing the government


For opposing the government


For opposing the government


For opposing the GOVERNMENT!

Hey, this wasn't random. Hussein didn't do it for fun. He wanted to stay in power, just like Kim Jong-Il, Castro, or the Shah of Iran. We were buddies with the Shah before he was overthrown, and you don't see us going to war with the first two. And they both imprison and torture their people no differently than Hussein would.


Actually, Napoleon would outrank Hussein.

But personally, you know, it's funny how gassing Iraqis is a "tragedy", but dropping a nuke on the Japanese..er..well.. uh.. Oh.. That was necessary. It saved lives. ;)


This guy is great- I propose we put him on sadaam's "dream team" legal defense. Maybe if he gets sadaam off, sadaam can appoint him as his next food taster.

Hussein provoked this war?
*snort giggle guffaw*

You really are such a great Muslim, Jew, Indian, Irish, former Army Ranger, aren't you?

Best one you'll ever meet.

Have you read his Hegomy and Survival?

No I haven't, but I have been meaning to.

No I haven't, but I have been meaning to.
I'll start a thread about Chomsky so as not to hijack this one.

Well, according to my new Iraqi freind, who lived through both invasions, and has lived in Canada and Iraq throgh out her life.
Anyway, according to her Saddam was much better to Iraq then ithe leaders of its neighbors were to their respective countries.
In fact, I think if you don't include Turkey, Iraq was the most secular nation in the area.
She has also told me that before and between the wars, Iraqq was quite well off, but every time the Us comes in, they ruin everything. Her father was apparently killed by a US bomb in a grocery store (Bomb was dropped by a plane, and I assume she is calling a market a grocery store) while he was buying food. The only excuse she said they gave her was that "They were targeting possible weapons of mass destruction".

Now, I don't want to drag out into a long debate with people over Saddam, simply because I did not live there durring his reign. Wat I will do is say that unless you lived there, or have personally talked to people who lived there for a long time under his reign, then what right do you have to judge? I'm sure the US and other opponants of Saddam didn't make up things, or bribe people into saying what they want.

Well, according to my new Iraqi freind, who lived through both invasions, and has lived in Canada and Iraq throgh out her life.
Anyway, according to her Saddam was much better to Iraq then ithe leaders of its neighbors were to their respective countries.
In fact, I think if you don't include Turkey, Iraq was the most secular nation in the area.
She has also told me that before and between the wars, Iraqq was quite well off, but every time the Us comes in, they ruin everything. Her father was apparently killed by a US bomb in a grocery store (Bomb was dropped by a plane, and I assume she is calling a market a grocery store) while he was buying food. The only excuse she said they gave her was that "They were targeting possible weapons of mass destruction".

Now, I don't want to drag out into a long debate with people over Saddam, simply because I did not live there durring his reign. Wat I will do is say that unless you lived there, or have personally talked to people who lived there for a long time under his reign, then what right do you have to judge? I'm sure the US and other opponants of Saddam didn't make up things, or bribe people into saying what they want.


Any chance your friend is Sunni?

Ok, we all know that at least half of the people on this board disagree with the war in Iraq, but I would like to know what you guys think of the guy who provoked this war: Saddam Hussein.*did not read posts*

If you really want to know what we think of the guy who provoked this war:

you got the wrong Guy, try GWBush.

*did not read posts*

If you really want to know what we think of the guy who provoked this war:

you got the wrong Guy, try GWBush.

So expelling the U.N. inspectors, gassing his own people, stealing money from the poor, and commiting genocide isn't provoking a war?

By golly, what is then?

Any chance your friend is Sunni?

Oddly, no.

Technicly, she consideres herself to not be a muslim, even though she was raised as such. So i think that would remove her from the Shi'ite/Sunni thing.

So expelling the U.N. inspectorsl, gassing his own people, stealing money form the poor, and commiting genocide isn't provoking a war?

By golly, what is then?

its "expelling the U.N. inspectorsl, gassing his own people, stealing money form the poor, and commiting genocide"

just as advertised.

nothing more nothing else.

and BTW pushing Blinx into the Shark infested tank...is "pushing Blinx into the Shark infested tank"

its "expelling the U.N. inspectorsl, gassing his own people, stealing money form the poor, and commiting genocide"

just as advertised.

nothing more nothing else.

So I made two tiny spelling mistakes, so what.

That doesn't mean that Saddam was a peaceful little angel who did nothing to provoke the war.

Nah if he was friends with reagon, then I don't like him.

So I made two tiny spelling mistakes, so what.

That doesn't mean that Saddam was a peaceful little angel who did nothing to provoke the war.Saddam is not a peaceful little angel. (period)

Wrong and right. The Reagan administration gave Saddam the means to make the weapons. The U.S. hasn't made chemical weapons since the '50s.
And also weapons. Because, at the time, we thought it would be a good idea to help Iraq, but later, we sided with Iran. Man, we're two-faced, aren't we?

Eye-witness accounts, offical reports, family accounts...
I want sources, though.

I don't dispute that he was an evil dictator, but if it's the United States' job to invade every country ruled by oppressive governments, then we've got a few dozen more countries to attack.

Hey, would you rather that we invade Japan, thus leading to the death of millions of Japanese and Americans?
Watch Dr. Strangelove. The general proposes that they just wipe out the Soviets and the President says, "I will not be remembered as the largest mass-murderer in HISTORY!"

The same idea applies. In Dr. Strangelove (assuming the doomsday machine didn't exist), that action would've saved lives. But it would've made us the worst murderers in history. Hiroshima did that as well and even if it may have saved lives, it was an act of terrorism to knowingly and willingly slaughter that many innocents.

No matter what one thought of the war, no one can deny the incredible evil of Saddam Hussein.
The Ba'ath Revolution was meant to emulate Nasir's Egypt in that it promoted an Arab version of nationalistic socialism. Hussein used that as an excuse to gain power. He killed millions of Iranians, soldiers and civilians alike. Their helmets were, until recently, stacked in Martyr's Square. It is even thought that a few POWs were kept in his prisons until the liberation of Iraq.
He gassed his own people. He systematically surpressed Shi'ites throughout his reign of terror. He "Arabisized" Kurdish regions by force, and drained marshes in the south simply to punish Shi'ites. He was an evil man that doesn't deserve a trial, but a public execution. Let's put him in a meat grinder, as it is just like what he loved to do to prisoners.

Wrong and right. The Reagan administration gave Saddam the means to make the weapons. The U.S. hasn't made chemical weapons since the '50s.
Who is better, the person who pulled the trigger? Or the person who handed him the loaded gun? In my mind they are equally as bad


Kuwait.
Is it really that much worse to invade Kuwait for oil than it is to invade Iraq for Oil?
I never said that Iran was better. Focus on Saddam here, people! This isn't "Which Muslim leader was worse!"
You were the only who initially included other leaders by putting him in the 3 worst leaders. And you cant have good without bad. You need some means of comparison to categorise someone like that.

Eye-witness accounts, offical reports, family accounts... Eye witness and family accounts cant be trusted. He had many politcal and religous enimies that would happily make up lies to incriminate him. And what official reports? Im sure Hussein wouldntve kept reports about that kind of thing that would incriminate him. Come back when you have links that prove it.



Did you see the link? The Marsh Arabs were nearly wiped out!
Exactly, he wiped out his political and religous opponents. Look back in history, its not all that uncommon for a dictator to kill those who oppose him. "Its not power that Corrupts, its fear of loosing it"



U.N. Embargos.
So we are innocent because we didnt directly kill his people with guns, we killed them indirectly with sanctions

Also, he stole what little relief money there was for himself(See: Oil-for-food scandal)
He wasnt the only one to do that, I think you should read a bit more into it, And the UN was supposed to police it and it didnt do its job, therefore the UN is equally to blame.

has bushed used WMD's on his own people?
No, but is it worse to kill people with chemical weapons than it is to just bomb them and shoot them. And it doesnt really matter if he used them on his own people or people from other countries, everyones life is equally worthless.



He DID build(or at least tried to build) Nuclear weapons,
Proof??
and he did build Chemical Weapons(according to the U.N. and multiple other sources).
And Iraq is the first country to do that? How many of their own people did the soviets kill in testing to develop chemical weapons?

Genocide, public murders, and stealing money from people because they say words that give a slight hint of being mad and the government is just?
Again, read about any dictator to see that he is not all that different


Hey, would you rather that we invade Japan, thus leading to the death of millions of Japanese and Americans? Killing 300,000 people isn't as bad as having over 1,000,000 die.
But killing 300,000 people for the reason, oh, we thought they mightve had some nuclear weapons, and that they mightve talked to Usama Bin Laden at some stage, Our Bad still isnt good

And also weapons. Because, at the time, we thought it would be a good idea to help Iraq, but later, we sided with Iran. Man, we're two-faced, aren't we?
We gave him conventional weapons, not WMD's.

And yes, we are two-faced. Stupid Reagan administration...


I want sources, though.

I don't dispute that he was an evil dictator, but if it's the United States' job to invade every country ruled by oppressive governments, then we've got a few dozen more countries to attack.

Then we should get cracking.


Watch Dr. Strangelove. The general proposes that they just wipe out the Soviets and the President says, "I will not be remembered as the largest mass-murderer in HISTORY!"

The same idea applies. In Dr. Strangelove (assuming the doomsday machine didn't exist), that action would've saved lives. But it would've made us the worst murderers in history. Hiroshima did that as well and even if it may have saved lives, it was an act of terrorism to knowingly and willingly slaughter that many innocents.

It would have been a larger act of terrorism to knowingly and willingly kill many times more.

Who is better, the person who pulled the trigger? Or the person who handed him the loaded gun? In my mind they are equally as bad

Then that's what you think.


Is it really that much worse to invade Kuwait for oil than it is to invade Iraq for Oil?

No, it is not.

Except for we didn't Invade Iraq for th oil.

You were the only who initially included other leaders by putting him in the 3 worst leaders. And you cant have good without bad. You need some means of comparison to categorise someone like that.

I took back that comment.

Eye witness and family accounts cant be trusted. He had many politcal and religous enimies that would happily make up lies to incriminate him. And what official reports? Im sure Hussein wouldntve kept reports about that kind of thing that would incriminate him. Come back when you have links that prove it.

I will.

Also, you can't deny the mass graves. You seriously, really can't deny the mass graves.




Exactly, he wiped out his political and religous opponents. Look back in history, its not all that uncommon for a dictator to kill those who oppose him. "Its not power that Corrupts, its fear of loosing it"

But the Marsh Arabs did nothing to Saddam! NOTHING!




So we are innocent because we didnt directly kill his people with guns, we killed them indirectly with sanctions

No, we are guilty of letting Saddam steal the aid money that would have saved his people.


He wasnt the only one to do that, I think you should read a bit more into it, And the UN was supposed to police it and it didnt do its job, therefore the UN is equally to blame.

I know. But Saddam was a central figure.


[qupte]No, but is it worse to kill people with chemical weapons than it is to just bomb them and shoot them. And it doesnt really matter if he used them on his own people or people from other countries, everyones life is equally worthless.[/quote]

Can you make this make sense, please?


Proof??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

[quote]And Iraq is the first country to do that? How many of their own people did the soviets kill in testing to develop chemical weapons?

I never said he was the only one! This is about SAddam, dammit! Not the Soviets!


Again, read about any dictator to see that he is not all that different

I know! But this isn't about other dictators. It's about SADDAM!

But killing 300,000 people for the reason, oh, we thought they mightve had some nuclear weapons, and that they mightve talked to Usama Bin Laden at some stage, Our Bad still isnt good

We didn't kill 300,000 Iraqis. Check your sources.

So expelling the U.N. inspectors, gassing his own people, stealing money from the poor, and commiting genocide isn't provoking a war?

By golly, what is then?


You have to understand the true underlying dislike these kids have of President Bush...its his smirk. Somehow, sadaam is more charismatic, they'd rather see him in charge. I can only imagine how they gushed when slick willie smiled all red faced and aw shucksin'...throwing their panties at the TV

You have to understand the true underlying dislike these kids have of President Bush...its his smirk. Somehow, sadaam is more charismatic, they'd rather see him in charge. I can only imagine how they gushed when slick willie smiled all red faced and aw shucksin'...throwing their panties at the TV

Uh...

I think I understand what you said. But I'm not sure.

You have to understand the true underlying dislike these kids have of President Bush...its his smirk. Somehow, sadaam is more charismatic, they'd rather see him in charge. I can only imagine how they gushed when slick willie smiled all red faced and aw shucksin'...throwing their panties at the TV


That's right, attack people who think differently then you.
Call them names, make assumptions, and do it all in a way to look good.
Real thoughtful of you. You're certianly a superior debater.


The Lightning Star, I'm just trying to get you to realise that you can't completely trust documents, they can be falsified easily.
Personally talk to people who have lived through Saddams government before you pass any judgement, otherwise you're just ignorant. And I know you're not that low.

That's right, attack people who think differently then you.
Call them names, make assumptions, and do it all in a way to look good.
Real thoughtful of you. You're certianly a superior debater.


The Lightning Star, I'm just trying to get you to realise that you can't completely trust documents, they can be falsified easily.
Personally talk to people who have lived through Saddams government before you pass any judgement, otherwise you're just ignorant. And I know you're not that low.

That was hardly an attack, but is certainly struck a nerve with you.

You have to understand the true underlying dislike these kids have of President Bush...its his smirk. Somehow, sadaam is more charismatic, they'd rather see him in charge. I can only imagine how they gushed when slick willie smiled all red faced and aw shucksin'...throwing their panties at the TV


Sounds like an attack to me.
The rest being of course, more mild and supporting of the attacks.

Unless you suddenly have proof that you're only talking about a certian person.. which is still an attack.
Or that everyone you refer to fits the criteria you listed?

It's an attack, no matter how you word it.

He looked better with a beard and those people deserved to be gassed.


over the line with that comment.

http://www.rockpapersaddam.com/

:) All I have to say about him nowdays as this is another dead horse.

He looked better with a beard and those people deserved to be gassed.

Are you saying the Iranians fighting for their nation because of his agression deserve gassing? How about the innocent Kurdish men, women, and children.
I mean, do you hate Iranians for some odd reason? Saddam was a brutal man, even more so than Khomeini and the Mullahs ruling my homeland. I say they are all evil, but Saddam is the worst.

Are you saying the Iranians fighting for their nation because of his agression deserve gassing? How about the innocent Kurdish men, women, and children.
I mean, do you hate Iranians for some odd reason? Saddam was a brutal man, even more so than Khomeini and the Mullahs ruling my homeland. I say they are all evil, but Saddam is the worst.

Anyone who's seen even a few of Keruvalia's posts knows he's being sarcastic.

So far from the news, television programs, and people's opinions, I have never seen anyone argue the good side of Sadam Hussein. In the land of the free and home of propaganda, how can we make opinions by only seeing one side?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ has an unscientific count of civilians killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war. 17316-19696 civilians were reported killed.

At least 300000 people were discovered in mass graves. Human Rights officials believe the number of people he killed was closer to 500000. And another 500000 Iraqis were reported dead from the Iraq-Iran War.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773
That number still pales in comparison to Stalin, who killed 20 million of his own people, estimated by historians. But stays almost proportionate to the number of people in Iraq. He was born and raised by a murderous clan, and was beaten as a child, he's in a country that still acts like it's the dark ages. I think his leadership was determined to be a bloody one. And I highly doubt any of his political "contenders" at the time he seized rulership, or afterwards, would be much better.

Anyone who's seen even a few of Keruvalia's posts knows he's being sarcastic.

Meh ... most people don't really pay that much attention, BK. :)

I consider him a good ruler actually. He managed to secularize a highly religious state, he created many hospitals and schools (sure there's an AA gun right next to it, but hey, no need for a bus when doing field trips) and actually gave quite a few religious freedoms to his people (moreso than Iran).

I believe he does not deserve his bad rep. Few people realize that the CIA paid Iran to close it's borders to the Kurds, otherwise the Kurds could have ran. Blame the CIA, not Saddam. What would you do if Mexicans in the south began to destroy infrastructure and rebel against the government? You might not gas them, but I highly doubt there'd be many Mexicans living in America anymore (recall the backlash to Muslims after 9/11 or Japanese in WW2, we as a people are quite susceptible to racism I believe). So he used bio-weapons, so what? He may have built them but where did he get the parts? He bought them from countries like France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the US, the countries that actually had the means and funds to produce the technology. He didn't drive his country to ruin either, it was the US oil embargo that did that (what else could he sell tho? pretty sand?) much like it is doing to Cuba (Cuban trade embargo is a relic of the Cold War and should be abandoned, but that's another issue). Saddam also managed to decieve the world and make them believe he was capable of defending his country with WMDs, but yet when we decided to invade all we met where Soviet antiques operated by low morale troops who surrendered easily... 'elite' tank regiments my foot, methinks more along the lines of propoganda. His bluff kept Iran and other threats from invading the country in the poor shape it was in militarily. Saddam also managed to keep his country from ripping itself to peices at it is doing now. What many Americans don't realize is that not every country with multiple cultures such as Iraq and Russia are melting pots, many countries need to be ruled with an iron fist.

All in all I see one bad (killing the Kurds with.. did I mention Schwarzkopf allowed them to keep their helicopters they used to kill the Kurds with since many of the roads were destroyed?) and several good. I voted that he was actually a fairly good ruler.