How will History judge Saddam Hussein?

pablomakaveli

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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 ?

I gave that criteria in that post you quoted. He was responsible for the killings of thousands of people.

You obviously did'nt bother to read my earlier posts where i said i did'nt support the way America removed him.

I really can't understand why some people on this thread would support leaving a despot in power if he opposes America. The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

Overheal

As of yet I've found little in this thread to indicate anything Good that Hussein could be remembered for. Changing off Petro-Dollars? Seriously? That in itself is not a Good or a Bad thing: its just a thing that he did. At least Castro can say he has built a decent example of Universal Healthcare despite the country's other looming problems like Human Rights Abuses and Political Dictatorship. But what did Hussein do exactly?

Liam Byrne

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I really can't understand why some people on this thread would support leaving a despot in power if he opposes America. The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

If that's directed at me, then you're wrong.

I never supported leaving a violent scumbag despot in power - on either side of the world.

Mr.Micro

All he proved good for in the end is an excuse for Bush and Blair to invade Iraq to get the oil, destroy the country and give the yanks the contracts to rebuild what they had criminally destroyed and get thousand upon thousand more Iraqis killed, just like he had done himself, only this time the two amigos did his dirty work Bliar and Bush.

97i9y3941

i think for his own people,yes it was good he was removed,but it left a vacant slot for another madman to fill the spot,instance looking at the iran revolution in 1979,america took its eye off the ball and left someone who has inspired bin laden etc to terroise and bring hatred to the western world,now if anyone wants to read frightening but good books on this madman i suggest get
Saddam: The Secret Life*make sure its the 2007 editon* and the harrowing book devils double which was written about by his sons unfortante body double.

Now i think the invasion of iraq was nothing but an exercise to secure the oil fields,since theres no point kicking out robert mugabe in zimbabwe since theres nothing there worth taking,bush junior was finishing off his dads job,he was a dangerous man,although he was a mediator for the middle east talks...

Time Magazine

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

digme wrote: »

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.

Untrue. Economics professors call your arguments a "font of considerable kookiness" and "based on faulty economics."

But feel free to be conspiratorial and blame it on shady cartels.

hinault

Like all dictators and opportunists, Saddam's end came about because of his expediency.

Lets look at his career : he was America/Britains man when he waged war with Iran from 1980 to 1988.
He then became a pyrriah when he tried to reclaim the 14th province of Iraq by invading Kuwait in 1990.

He then tried to bluff his regional rivals in to thinking he had WMD - and then he succumbed to that bluff when his original paymasters (Yanks/Brits) called time.

He murdered thousands of Iraqi Shia and Iraq Kurd's.
He sent hundreds of thousands of his own people in to a war with Iran.

Did he deserve to be removed?
No.
Certainly not by the hypocrits Bush/Bliar.

But like all opportunists Saddam ran out of space to manoevre.

Is Iraq a better country than it was at 16th March 2003?
Probably not.

Liam Byrne

Time Magazine wrote: »

Untrue. Economics professors call your arguments a "font of considerable kookiness" and "based on faulty economics."

But feel free to be conspiratorial and blame it on shady cartels.

So you're suggesting that if countries didn't need to buy dollars in order to buy oil, that there would be just as much of a demand for dollars ?

I genuinely can't see how.

Time Magazine

Jim Hamilton, from the link above wrote:

And even if the oil were purchased with dollars drawn on a U.S. bank, there is no reason at all that the seller needs to retain the proceeds in that form. Those selling oil could convert those dollars back to euros or Japanese yen or whatever their hearts desired, and likewise could convert euros obtained through sales on an Iranian bourse back into dollars, if they wished. What ultimately determines the demand for dollars is not the unit of account for the transaction, but rather the desired asset holdings of those who are accumulating the wealth.

.

Nick_oliveri

History will not compare Saddam to the Bush regime - unfortunately. History is not very good at comparisons. It is the person who should make the comparisons. He will be remembered as a dictator who gassed Kurds and ruled with an iron fist. And the guy who got hung on live TV. And a few Americans (hell even europeans or Aussies) will remember him as the "WMD guy", "yellowcake uranium dude" and that bastard who harbors them Al Queda.

Although I do think that GWB will be remembered more leniently. And that sickens me, but history will favor the "righteous".

Time Magazine

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Although I do think that GWB will be remembered more leniently. And that sickens me, but history will favor the "righteous".

You genuinely believe that GWB was a worse man than Saddam, to the extent that it "sickens" you that he will be remembered differently?

Nick_oliveri

Time Magazine wrote: »

You genuinely believe that GWB was a worse man than Saddam, to the extent that it "sickens" you that he will be remembered differently?

Well done putting words into my mouth, I never said he was worse. Although I will admit that he is comparable IMO.

Time Magazine

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Well done putting words into my mouth.

Asking for a clarification is not the same thing as putting words in your mouth.

It's a fair question. You said:

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Although I do think that GWB will be remembered more leniently. And that sickens me

GWB will be remembered more leniently. Agreed. But that does not sicken me, since I think Saddam was worse. Why does it sicken you?

digme

Time Magazine wrote: »

Untrue. Economics professors call your arguments a "font of considerable kookiness" and "based on faulty economics."

But feel free to be conspiratorial and blame it on shady cartels.

I don't accept a link to a URL for a reply,I've read it and the guy is a moron.
Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who together hold an estimated $2.1 trillion in dollar reserves.
Could you hazzard a guess at how easily it is for America to interfere in the international financial system?Soon we will be wiping our asses with stuff.

Buffy the bitch

west101 wrote: »

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.

Let's be honest people in Iraq had a great lives until sanctions which were brought in after Kuwait. There's heavy evidence that the only people who suffered from this was the normal people that's why they were starving then they brought out oil for food program.

digme

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Let's be honest people in Iraq had a great lives until sanctions which were brought in after Kuwait. There's heavy evidence that the only people who suffered from this was the normal people that's why they were starving then they brought out oil for food program.

Yes and that's the sad truth of the situation,the poor ordinary people suffered greatly.Iraq didn't want to play ball with the imf world bank or any of the big corporations and it got what any other country gets when you do that,it got ruined.The amount of people who died under both Saddam and the countless wars is disgusting, and it needed not of happened at all.

Shea O'Meara

In a nutshell; Dictator/Scapegoat, although no worse than some of the Western backed more popular dictators.

My fondest memory is the story of how Liam Lawlor met with him bearing documents signed by 'His excellency' Charles Haughey;)

Time Magazine

digme wrote: »

I don't accept a link to a URL for a reply,I've read it and the guy is a moron.

Lol.

Firstly, there are two authors cited, not one. Do you think they're both morons?

Secondly, I don't really care if you "don't accept" a link for a reply. How about you address the argument and not the medium.

Thirdly, why do you call "the guy" a moron? How about you address the argument and not the person.

Fourthly, "the morons" are both professors of economics. One of them is considered one of the best econometricians alive and specialises in two areas: monetary policy and oil prices. That makes him just about the most qualified person in the world to comment on the effects of trading oil in different currencies, no? Tell me: are you always so quick to ignore academics?

The Corinthian

I believe that the premise of this thread is flawed, in that Saddam Hussein, just as with any historical figure, will be judged over and over again. He'll be political fodder for those who wish to demonize or nostalgize him for decades - just as Napoleon I used to be and Hitler or Stalin still are, before he becomes sufficiently forgotten to become an academic pursuit.

Eventually, enough time may pass that he may be judged dispassionately in the same way we judge Ramesses II or Ivan IV (the Terrible), at which point history will be unlikely to be revised too radically thereafter.

But that won't be for a very long time.

Manic Moran

Let's be honest people in Iraq had a great lives until sanctions which were brought in after Kuwait. There's heavy evidence that the only people who suffered from this was the normal people that's why they were starving then they brought out oil for food program

I agree with your second bit. Sanctions always seem to affect the citizenry before the leadership, it's nice to be able to divert what little assets are available to yourself first.

I sortof agree with your first bit. As long as you weren't on the Iraqi national football team, when you'd get tortured for losing. Or a kurd, when you might get gassed. Or maybe Shia and get forcibly resettled. True, women were not forced to wear anything covering their faces or heads, but that could also be a bad thing when one of Saddam's family decided that you looked appealing, got abducted from the street, 'used', then killed. As long as you lived in Baghdad, when you had 24 hours of electricity and good roads, and not in other parts of the country when you got none, and the road was a dirt trail. (When I drove Basra to Baghdad, there were several hours of Hwy 1 being a dirt road). Other than small items like that, they had a grand life.

You can excuse the war with Iran as just being a proxy of the US. The war he had against Iraqis, on the other hand, is nothing to do with US policy.

NTM

Nick_oliveri

Time Magazine wrote: »

Asking for a clarification is not the same thing as putting words in your mouth.

Fair enough I apologise for being a bit aggressive in my response.

GWB will be remembered more leniently. Agreed. But that does not sicken me, since I think Saddam was worse. Why does it sicken you?

Well what are we going by here? Who killed more people by proxy/directly?
How many wars each started? The transparent propaganda and buzz words? The extraordinary renditions? Torture? They are the same.. And I suppose that's why it sickens me.