How will History judge Saddam Hussein?

Fratton Fred

This thread is about how Saddam will be remembered, noy unsubstantiated theories on a US invasion of Iraq (or Iran for that matter) because oil might be traded in Euros rather than USD.

Talking about that is derailing the thread.

Scofflaw

Handbags down, please, ladies.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Fratton Fred

Scofflaw wrote: »

Handbags down, please, ladies.

moderately,
Scofflaw

You know I only use a Handbag at weekends!

digme

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This thread is about how Saddam will be remembered, noy unsubstantiated theories on a US invasion of Iraq (or Iran for that matter) because oil might be traded in Euros rather than USD.

Talking about that is derailing the thread.

I think he will be remembered for not bowing to the corporate elites and for being a dictator,just like so many us backed dictators.He will also be remembered for changing to the euro, and then getting invaded,Iran will be doing the same, so I feel that is very,relevant to the current discussion and it is not a theory at all,it certainly is better than the wmd "theory" you like.Waiting for Venezuela to switch to euro's, and then a few us bases in Colombia to be built.Oh there building them already aren't they?

Fratton Fred

digme wrote: »

I think he will be remembered for not bowing to the corporate elites and for being a dictator,just like so many us backed dictators.

Is that good or bad? Is it right that he is no longer in power. Ignoring for a moment the million and one other injustices in the world, or the method by which he was removed?

speedboatchase

Haha people defending and admiring Saddam, this board never fails to expose the worst in liberalism

Whatever your opinion of the Iraq War, surely it's a good thing that he's not in power? He'll be remembered for gassing the kurds and not much else

digme

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You know I only use a Handbag at weekends!

digme

speedboatchase wrote: »

Haha people defending and admiring Saddam, this board never fails to expose the worst in liberalism

No body is defending or admiring Saddam.But thanks for the "1" liner.

digme

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is that good or bad? Is it right that he is no longer in power. Ignoring for a moment the million and one other injustices in the world, or the method by which he was removed?

I don't know you tell me fred.Is it good over 1 million are dead now and many more injured,lives ruined,psychological trauma dished out,national treasures stolen,you tell me.

digme

speedboatchase wrote: »

Haha people defending and admiring Saddam, this board never fails to expose the worst in liberalism

Whatever your opinion of the Iraq War, surely it's a good thing that he's not in power? He'll be remembered for gassing the kurds and not much else

To sky news zombies maybe yes,that's all.
To more educated aware people a lot more.

Fratton Fred

digme wrote: »

I don't know you tell me fred.Is it good over 1 million are dead now and many more injured,lives ruined,psychological trauma dished out,national treasures stolen,you tell me.

Are you talking about the million killed during his war with Iran, or the one where he invaded Kuwait, or maybe you are referring to the bit where he gassed entire Kurdish villages?

Oh no, you are blinded by the war to remove him, because no matter what anyone does, in your eyes they are never worse than the nasty old Americans (who have protected european freedom for the last 60 years)

ei.sdraob

history is written by victors

so it will look like this

RedPlanet

He could be remembered for making the ancient city of Hatra a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Later, damaged and looted after the US invasion.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh no, you are blinded by the war to remove him, because no matter what anyone does, in your eyes they are never worse than the nasty old Americans (who have protected european freedom for the last 60 years)

You might want a new thread to start the flag waving in.....

speedboatchase

digme wrote: »

To sky news zombies maybe yes,that's all.
To more educated aware people a lot more.

And I suppose that would be you then? Oh dear . Smug much?



And gassing the kurds is all he'll be remembered for in the grand scheme of things, no skin off my nose tbh

meditraitor

History will judge Saddam Hussian for what he was...

A psychopathic despot who's actions resulted in over a million deaths

Fratton Fred

He could be remembered for putting his son in charge of the national football team, who tortured them when they lost, maybe for firing missiles at a civilians in a neutral country

speedboatchase

meditraitor wrote: »

History will judge Saddam Hussian for what he was...

A psychopathic despot who's actions resulted in over a million deaths

How can you say that maaaan, like America is responsible for like more deaths umm than Saddam probably idunno, even if it's IEDS or suicide bombers in civilian areas maaan, he stood up to America u frickin rawk saddaam!

digme

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you talking about the million killed during his war with Iran, or the one where he invaded Kuwait, or maybe you are referring to the bit where he gassed entire Kurdish villages?

Oh no, you are blinded by the war to remove him, because no matter what anyone does, in your eyes they are never worse than the nasty old Americans (who have protected european freedom for the last 60 years)

Oh really,yes i know all about the British history in Iraq, but I don't know about recent events.....Very logical.
I guess the Americans are boys scouts compared to Saddam.I guess you don't know much about the world you live in.

pablomakaveli

digme wrote: »

What revolution are you on about?

The Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran where the Shah was deposed.

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

west101

From this source http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/rosett.aspx it claims that Saddam embezzled more than 4.4 billion dollars from ilegal oil smuggling. He personally will be remebered as a thieving mudering scumbag who lived the highlife when his "people" were dying of starvation and by his hand.

Amalgam

Comparing him to the 'solution' that has taken place for the last few years, a saint.

Fratton Fred

digme wrote: »

Oh really,yes i know all about the British history in Iraq, but I don't know about recent events.....Very logical.
I guess the Americans are boys scouts compared to Saddam.I guess you don't know much about the world you live in.

You probably "think" you know about British history in Iraq, I have no doubt about that.

The Americans aren't perfect, in fact they can be decidedly dodgy at times, but I would rather live in a world policed by them than by Saddam, Osama or Ahmadinajad.

A Primal Nut

legal-eagle wrote: »

I've been thinking about this for awhile now and I feel he was clearly a brutal Dictator but can't escape the fact Iraq will be in chaos for a thousand years because he's gone.

His iron fist control now looks like it was I dare say needed there. More have died since his removal than when he was leader. The facts of the invasion are that the USA and UK invaded over WMD that were never there which we all know, the civil wars, secterianism and bloodshed since have been appalling.

What about the genocide against the Marsh Arabs undertaken by Saddam to give one example.

So I ask you was Iraq better off with or without Saddam? Is the middle East better off?

Say what you will but he had virtues he was a strong and brave Arab defender who didn't back down to the bully boys, and his invasion of Kuwait while somewhat hasty and rash was in actual fact alot more worthy than the 2003 conflict.

Firstly Iraq was deep in debt after the Iraq-Iran war (80-88) and he made a request to the Kuwaitis for money mainly because if Iraq lost the Islamic Iran would also take Kuwait, secondly the Rumallah oilfields although Kuwaiti were right on the border given him further cause for some oil revenue to rebuild. Thirdly the Kuwaitis knowing the had the backing of USA actually over-produced oil in '91 to spite Saddam by driving the price of oil down thus lowering his existing oil revenues. Lastly the Crown Prince of Kuwait actually said that Iraqis should send their Mothers and Daugthers on the street as prostitutes if they need money which was provacative in the extreme.

It was Saddam who invaded Iran in the first place which is why he then needed even more money. And Kuwait, as you say, had the backing of the USA, so it is not definite Islamic Iran would have taken Kuwait. Are you suggesting its ok for Iraq to invade Kuwait because otherwise Iran would have. And because Saddam was angry Kuwait didn't give him money to help him invade Iran?

The cost of oil going down is a good thing and not justification for war. And even if it was kept the same price none of the money would have went to the ordinary Iraqi people anyway. As for the Crown Princes comments, it is nowhere in the same league as something which might justify a war.

So lets here your views on him, also this interview is short but interesting in the pretext to 2003 invasion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y64XR36zsIM&feature=related

I was expecting him to defend himself but instead he just went on and on about having a debate with Bush. Not so interesting as I hoped.

Liam Byrne

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.

So should someone have invaded America and removed Bush ?

Or should someone have invaded Ireland and removed Ahern ?

What is your criteria for "needed to be removed", and what is your criteria to choose who should do the removing ?

Liam Byrne

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Americans aren't perfect, in fact they can be decidedly dodgy at times, but I would rather live in a world policed by them than by Saddam, Osama or Ahmadinajad.

.....as long as you're within their juristiction and not being invaded by them to exploit your area's natural resources, I assume ?

I'd love to be remembering him as the guy who stopped oil being sold in dollars, but that's not going to happen.

fontinalis

Amalgam wrote: »

Comparing him to the 'solution' that has taken place for the last few years, a saint.

Really? Astounding people wiill try to defend him in order to criticise the US!

fontinalis

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.....as long as you're within their juristiction and not being invaded by them to exploit your area's natural resources, I assume ?

I'd love to be remembering him as the guy who stopped oil being sold in dollars, but that's not going to happen.

Because the trading of oil in a way that would be adverse to the US means more than innocent lives? It's because of people with opinions lke this I'd never be seen dead at an anit war march.
Back to the Op, Saddam was a psychotic street thug who remianed in power due to nepotism, corruption and cruelty. I'd like to think Britain and the US would learn lessons from their support for him in the 80's but it's unlikely.

Liam Byrne

fontinalis wrote: »

Because the trading of oil in a way that would be adverse to the US means more than innocent lives?

I never said that, and you know it.

It's a case of kettle, pot on that, because the Americans thought feck-all of innocent lives when they invaded.

Would you be saying the same thing in a thread about Bush ?

Anyway, for the record I said that that's what I'd like to be remembering him for, because that was one of the few things that he would have done that was right.

But I also said that that wasn't the case. In fact, if you bothered to read, I pointed this out earlier : that he will not be judged as harshly as he should be because others have done worse than he did.

fontinalis wrote: »

Really? Astounding people wiill try to defend him in order to criticise the US!

He killed less people. That's a fact. If it looks like a criticism or a defence of Hussein, then that's not Amalgam's fault. Again, as I said, he unfortunately will not be judged as harshly as he should be.

So it's by no means "astounding" or a "defence"; it's purely a fact that you don't seem to like and you're trying to present it as something other than what it is.

fontinalis

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I never said that, and you know it.

It's a case of kettle, pot on that, because the Americans thought feck-all of innocent lives when they invaded.

Would you be saying the same thing in a thread about Bush ?

Anyway, for the record I said that that's what I'd like to be remembering him for, because that was one of the few things that he would have done that was right.

But I also said that that wasn't the case. In fact, if you bothered to read, I pointed this out earlier : that he will not be judged as harshly as he should be because others have done worse than he did.




He killed less people. That's a fact. If it looks like a criticism or a defence of Hussein, then that's not Amalgam's fault. Again, as I said, he unfortunately will not be judged as harshly as he should be.

So it's by no means "astounding" or a "defence"; it's purely a fact that you don't seem to like and you're trying to present it as something other than what it is.

Most of the killing over the last few years in Iraq has been by Iraqis themselves or Al Qaeda type groups.
I didn't/don't support the invasion but this defense of the psycho really doesn't do much for a serious anti war movement.
Anyway according to your numbers how does the deaths breakdown number wise since the invasion: allies v iraqis themselves/extremist groups