Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How will History judge Saddam Hussein?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    It credits him in that it makes him a dupe as oppossed to an accomplice, it discredits him in that it implies he couldn't see through the Americans.
    Fratton Fred wrote:
    As soon as they did that, they backed the US into a position that it was never going to step away from.

    The US had decided to invade Iraq early. It was quite clear throughout that others were at best peripheral to considerations.


  • Options
    #33
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Originally Posted by Fratton Fred
    As soon as they did that, they backed the US into a position that it was never going to step away from.
    How should a responsible party act when the threat of an illegal invasion looms?
    If anything, they should have tried harder to prevent it.

    Other countries do not have the right to arbitrarily change the government of another nation. The US and UK have greatly damaged International Law as well as Human Rights charters.

    Iraq will never "recover", it will inevitably splinter into semi-independent or fully independt states along ethnic and religious lines. Just like former Yugoslavia.


  • Options
    #34
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    How should a responsible party act when the threat of an illegal invasion looms?
    If anything, they should have tried harder to prevent it.

    Other countries do not have the right to arbitrarily change the government of another nation. The US and UK have greatly damaged International Law as well as Human Rights charters.

    Iraq will never "recover", it will inevitably splinter into semi-independent or fully independt states along ethnic and religious lines. Just like former Yugoslavia.

    The threat of military action is the ultimate weapon the UN has to force a state to comply with it's resolutions, remove this and people like Saddam will just ignore anything they say or do.

    Have the former Yugoslav countries not recovered then? They look to be at least "getting there".


  • Options
    #35
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Nodin wrote: »
    It credits him in that it makes him a dupe as oppossed to an accomplice, it discredits him in that it implies he couldn't see through the Americans.

    The US had decided to invade Iraq early. It was quite clear throughout that others were at best peripheral to considerations.

    That is pretty much how I saw it originally. The invasion was inevitable, the war wasn't. If Saddam had been forced by the UN to step down the war would have been avoided, but the UN would still have ended up in Iraq doing the same role they are currently.


  • Options
    #36
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Have the former Yugoslav countries not recovered then? They look to be at least "getting there".
    The republics of the former Yugoslavia were a lot better off that Iraqis in terms of economy, health, education and any other measure.
    Also, they automatically benefit by their proximity to the EU.

    Iraq on the other hand, is basically a desert with a single natural resource.
    The people have been crippled by sanctions for 10 years previous.
    Surrounded by either hostile neighbours or other poor countries.
    Jordan alone has taken around 1 million Iraqi refugees.
    It's got a long, long road to recovery.
    So long infact that i'm not even sure if light can pierce the tunnel.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Ping Chow Chi
    Registered Users Posts: 3,779 ✭✭✭Ping Chow Chi


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    That is pretty much how I saw it originally. The invasion was inevitable, the war wasn't. If Saddam had been forced by the UN to step down the war would have been avoided, but the UN would still have ended up in Iraq doing the same role they are currently.

    UN forcing a head of state to step down? which resolution was that? are they even allowed to do that?


  • Options
    #38
    ednwireland
    Registered Users Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    dont forget iraq's boundaries were drawn as straight lines on a map after the first world war protecting britains oil interests, this has more to do with the factional infighting now than anything else, it would have happened sooner or later, the only problem now is the USA trying to protect oil interests.

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • Options
    #39
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    That's it then. After WWI the allies should have left it under the Ottoman empire and everything would be grand.

    This has gone off topic, it is about how Saddam will be remembered, not a US/UK bitchfest.


  • Options
    #40
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Time Magazine wrote: »
    Trading oil in euro makes no difference. It's the oil that's valuable, not the paper you use to trade it with.

    Untrue.

    The fact that you have to convert to dollars in order to purchase oil makes the dollar exchange rate a lot better than it otherwise would be.

    That's primarily what the U.S. Administration objected to.

    Combine that with Daddy Bush's unfinished business, and you end up with the one-tracked warmonger that caused the war.

    Hussein was definitely a thug, but in lots of ways he was no worse than Bush - both did loads of seriously unacceptable things and caused thousands of unnecessary deaths in order to further their own agendas.

    If anything, history will look a little more kindly on Hussein than it probably should, because of the approach that America took.


  • Options
    #41
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Time Magazine wrote: »
    That's not a fact.

    Trading oil in euro makes no difference. It's the oil that's valuable, not the paper you use to trade it with.

    He's an academic in UCC afaik.

    Dumping the dollar for the euro virtually guarantees that Iran will now be attacked by Israel or the U.S. or both, acting on behalf of the banking cartel whose bidding they carry out. That's what Saddam Hussein did and look what happened. You can do almost anything you want, but if you threaten the dollar's status as the global reserve currency you're toast.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    That adds nothing to the debate tbh. How many people are taught that Vietnam was the US and Australia defending the free world? I fully expect the invasion of Iraq to be remembered the same way.
    Wait for oliver stones new film!


  • Options
    #43
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    I think Saddam had to be removed and i'm sure history will always look at it that way but the way it was done was not the best way.

    It always seemed to me that Bush was more interested in finishing his fathers business in iraq rather than actually wanting to help the Iraqis. The Americans did'nt plan well enough for the aftermath and seemed to naively think the Iraqis would welcome them with open arms and embrace democracy with no problems.

    Id say it will be a decade or two before Iraq recovers fully from the invasion.
    How you can say it was right is hilarious.Care to explain why you think that?
    And while your thinking please remember other countries track records.


  • Options
    #44
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    digme wrote: »
    How you can say it was right is hilarious.Care to explain why you think that?
    And while your thinking please remember other countries track records.

    I never said the way they did it was right. I said Saddam needed to be removed and he did need to be removed. The many people who were killed under his regime would pretty much justify his removal. Unless you think he should have been left to carry on as he pleased.


  • Options
    #45
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    I never said the way they did it was right. I said Saddam needed to be removed and he did need to be removed. The many people who were killed under his regime would pretty much justify his removal. Unless you think he should have been left to carry on as he pleased.
    Who should of removed him?
    You say that very lightly, you can't just march into someone else's country and shoot him in the face can you or actually you can if your american,Jaime Roldós Aguilera ring a bell?
    So who gets to remove sadam?


  • Options
    #46
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    digme wrote: »
    Who should of removed him?

    Ideally the Iraqi people themselves with support from the UN. Even if the Americans had planned for the aftermath of the invasion better than they stability may have been restored far sooner.


  • Options
    #47
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Let me ask you this.How does America get other countries to vote for or against a resolution?Who do you think controls the UN?Why is it they had to depart from the UN, and have no other choice but to invade Iraq.Use your head man,it's all corrupt.They have been blowing up presidents for a past time.


  • Options
    #48
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    digme wrote: »
    Let me ask you this.How does America get other countries to vote for or against a resolution?Who do you think controls the UN?Why is it they had to depart from the UN, and have no other choice but to invade Iraq.Use your head man,it's all corrupt.They have been blowing up presidents for a past time.

    So basically you're saying Saddam Hussein should have been left in power. Do you have a better solution to how he could have been removed?

    I'd like you to answer the this question rather than tell me how big bad america controls the world. (And remember i said earlier i didnt agree with how america and their allies ended up removing Saddam)

    He was a despot, he could'nt be left in power. Plain and simple.


  • Options
    #49
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    He was a despot, he could'nt be left in power. Plain and simple.

    But it's not plain and simple. The US is perfectly happy to buddy-up with other despots. General Suharto of Indonesia for example, far more deaths attributed to him, as well as annexing a peaceful neighbour.

    Look at how much hay they make over Hugo Chavez, but compare his rule with Uribe in Colombia.
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3699
    Far, far worse human rights record from his regime.
    Similarly changing the constitution to remain in power.

    It's all a big game of power for the US. Human Rights don't even come into it.


  • Options
    #50
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    So basically you're saying Saddam Hussein should have been left in power. Do you have a better solution to how he could have been removed?

    I'd like you to answer the this question rather than tell me how big bad america controls the world. (And remember i said earlier i didnt agree with how america and their allies ended up removing Saddam)

    He was a despot, he could'nt be left in power. Plain and simple.
    I'm responding to your words,remember?
    So you skipped my questions and now your trying to put questions to me.Alright you say he couldn't be left in power,plain and simple,so why is it certain brutal leaders are allowed and not others?I'm asking you question as i want you to learn what is really going on.What about saudi arabia?Do you know why they are untouchable?Are you aware of opec and how that was founded?Are you aware of how sauid arabia was transformed?

    Read this and do your own research you will be glad you did.The way you understand it now it's all wrong.

    Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia–new cities, new infrastructure–which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had -- His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.


  • Options
    #51
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    But it's not plain and simple. The US is perfectly happy to buddy-up with other despots. General Suharto of Indonesia for example, far more deaths attributed to him, as well as annexing a peaceful neighbour.

    Look at how much hay they make over Hugo Chavez, but compare his rule with Uribe in Colombia.
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3699
    Far, far worse human rights record from his regime.
    Similarly changing the constitution to remain in power.

    It's all a big game of power for the US. Human Rights don't even come into it.

    But Saddam Hussein was a despot and needed to be removed. Americas relations with other dictators does'nt change that.

    I don't support all the US's actions and i never said i did either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    But Saddam Hussein was a despot and needed to be removed. Americas relations with other dictators does'nt change that.

    I don't support all the US's actions and i never said i did either.
    But you appear to view the US as judge, jury and executioner regarding who is in power in whatever country.


  • Options
    #53
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    digme wrote: »
    I'm responding to your words,remember?
    So you skipped my questions and now your trying to put questions to me.Alright you say he couldn't be left in power,plain and simple,so why is it certain brutal leaders are allowed and not others?I'm asking you question as i want you to learn what is really going on.What about saudi arabia?Do you know why they are untouchable?Are you aware of opec and how that was founded?Are you aware of how sauid arabia was transformed?

    Read this and do your own research you will be glad you did.The way you understand it now it's all wrong.

    Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia–new cities, new infrastructure–which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had -- His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.

    I did'nt answer your questions because their irrelevant to the thread and because i never said i supported all of Americas actions. I'm well aware of Americas meddling in other countries. I know they supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, that they supported the Shah in Iran before the revolution and their activities in Latin America.

    But at the end of the day Saddam was still a despot who was responsible for the deaths of thousands in Iraq. Any ruler like this should be removed from power. The method of his removal however was not the most ideal and a better alternative should have been found.


  • Options
    #54
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    But you appear to view the US as judge, jury and executioner regarding who is in power in whatever country.

    Im judging that on my own opinions. You can't honestly believe Saddam was a good ruler for Iraq.


  • Options
    #55
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Anyone remember the Supergun that was being illegally exported to iraq...

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h12um568980156r3/


    You want to know the real tyrants of the world I suggest you read about it.


    I think the west is guilty of creating saddam osama and indeed pol pot as these are of there crimes. Histrory will judge it as interfering by western countries in afairs that dont concern them. A bit like Vietnam and Korea.


  • Options
    #56
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    But at the end of the day Saddam was still a despot who was responsible for the deaths of thousands in Iraq. Any ruler like this should be removed from power. The method of his removal however was not the most ideal and a better alternative should have been found.
    That sounds rather naive.
    Who do you think ought to be the judge and jury in this instance?
    Who has the right to foist it's view of how another soveriegn nation should be governed?

    (hint: the answer is no international body has that right. The only people that can make that decision are the people whom comprise that nation, and no they don't have to hold a bloody referendum nor any democratic vote)


  • Options
    #57
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    I did'nt answer your questions because their irrelevant to the thread and because i never said i supported all of Americas actions. I'm well aware of Americas meddling in other countries. I know they supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, that they supported the Shah in Iran before the revolution and their activities in Latin America.

    But at the end of the day Saddam was still a despot who was responsible for the deaths of thousands in Iraq. Any ruler like this should be removed from power. The method of his removal however was not the most ideal and a better alternative should have been found.
    What revolution are you on about?


  • Options
    #58
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    So what if I killed someone? There is someone out there who is more evil than I am therefore you should not be putting me on trial, Mr judge.

    Has this thread been moved to conspiracy theories by any chance?


  • Options
    #59
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    So what if I killed someone? There is someone out there who is more evil than I am therefore you should not be putting me on trial, Mr judge.

    Has this thread been moved to conspiracy theories by any chance?
    This is in the politics forum,have you a problem with that ?
    We are talking politics here .


  • Options
    #60
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    So what if I killed someone? There is someone out there who is more evil than I am therefore you should not be putting me on trial, Mr judge.

    Has this thread been moved to conspiracy theories by any chance?
    What conspiracy theory is that?
    You mean the WMD one that your side swallowed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    What conspiracy theory is that?
    You mean the WMD one that your side swallowed?
    He wants to derail the thread, don't bother with him.
    Carry on talking politics like we are already.Nice try fred...


Advertisement