Do you miss Saddam Hussein the former dictator of Iraq?
I never thought I would say this, but there are times when I do.
Sure he was a nasty piece of work. But at least he kept Iraq stable and out of the hands of those barabaric savages, ISIS!.
He was kind to Christians. He never oppressed them in any way, and they did not have to fear expulsion or terrorism like now.
Idk. I just think war is hardly ever justified and Iraq's fate now that the big S is good seems worse than it was before.
Any ideas?
Never got the chance to shoot at him.
War is only justified when god wants new real estate.
(https://i.imgur.com/K5YmGEF.gif)
I forgot to add, but I actually supported our attack on Iraq because Saddam Hussein was in control of a Stargate and the US had to wrestle control of it over from him before he used it to gain global power.
Quote...in the 1980s Saddam started doing restoration to the temple (Containing the Stargate) worrying the world (read: the Illuminati). Oddly the theories don't really mention the first Iraq War but, after years of work, Hussein either was able to get the stargate working or learned something important from it and big-daddy America got concerned.
"The Bush administration recognized that Hussein had some very, very valuable relevant information concerning the ancient history of the planet," said Salla. "Either technology or texts basically confirming this and he was going to release this to the general public."
"I think that was a big part of the reason why the Bush Administration went into Iraq, to stop Hussein from revealing this information and to also get control control themselves."
True story about this is located
here (https://www.vice.com/sv/article/533gxx/there-are-people-who-think-the-west-invaded-iraq-over-a-stargate).
On a chilly, dry night when the wind is blowing softly, yes I do. It reminds me of the good times we had dining together in one of his palaces. Sometimes we enjoyed the breeze for what it was. Other nights we would have the table moved onto a balcony so we could watch the moonlight shimmering on the desert sands.... I can't help it. I'm tearing up...
Bruno, could you pass me a tissue? The memories coming back are just too much for me.
Of course I miss Saddam Hussein! He was my very favourite dictator. :love:
Sure he persecuted the Kurds, but hey, no one's perfect are they?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 05, 2017, 11:39:28 PM
Of course I miss Saddam Hussein! He was my very favourite dictator. :love:
Sure he persecuted the Kurds, but hey, no one's perfect are they?
And the Marsh Arabs, and plenty of other citizens of Iraq. Still, the US government was happy to sell him WMDs (https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/12/08/rumsfeld-s-handshake-deal-with-saddam/) until they weren't.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnsarchive2.gwu.edu%2FNSAEBB%2FNSAEBB82%2Fhandshake300.jpg&hash=eb57e345f9183e91b3a19150ed3c78ae9a4f6a2d)
The invasion of Iraq was a stupid, imperialistic, ultimately counterproductive, and just plain wrong in my opinion, but the question in the OP puts me in mind of goat munching.
[Edited to correct "Swamp Arabs" to "Marsh Arabs." Hat tip to Dave.]
Sure he persecuted the Kurds and some of the the others too. He was a murderous despot who countenanced no bullshit from dissenters. Funny thing though.....There were no ISIS, Taliban, or other kooks who dared oppose him. Iraq was a functional place...maybe not a Utopian place but it was livable for its citizens.
We made a colossal mistake when we figured to liberate and democritize a bunch of Arabs who had not the least desire to become a copy of American culture and politics. 20/20 hindsight............ Afghanistan? That is whole 'nother ball game and it has a set of cultural mindsets that do not even remotely comport with our own.
One question I have is what would it be like if he were still around?
He likely would be a perennial threat/nuisance a la North Korea.
I know he did not do 9/11, but I sort of remember him firing his gun in celebration the day after.
And while there is no link to Al-Qaeda I think he may have turned to them eventually. He had pretty much no friends as I recall and hated the same people as Al Qaeda did (Saudi arabia, USA and Israel.)
Given that whoever is left of his government is now with and leading ISIS, the more deranged Al-Qaeda variant, I think my hypothesis is likely
Quote from: SisterAgatha on October 06, 2017, 03:32:11 PM
One question I have is what would it be like if he were still around?
He likely would be a perennial threat/nuisance a la North Korea.
I know he did not do 9/11, but I sort of remember him firing his gun in celebration the day after.
And while there is no link to Al-Qaeda I think he may have turned to them eventually. He had pretty much no friends as I recall and hated the same people as Al Qaeda did (Saudi arabia, USA and Israel.)
Given that whoever is left of his government is now with and leading ISIS, the more deranged Al-Qaeda variant, I think my hypothesis is likely
It's unsurprising that you haven't bothered to educate yourself on this topic; the OP is evidence of that.
It goes far beyond the Hussein regime not having links to al-Qa'ida. They were enemies and Saddam Hussein had outlawed Wahabism in Iraq. This has been known for over a decade, and the public was informed of it in the Phase II report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (https://fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf) on the U.S. intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq, yet here you are putting out counterfactual what-ifs.
"Report: Saddam and Al Qaeda Enemies, Not Collaborators" |
ThinkProgress (https://thinkprogress.org/report-saddam-and-al-qaeda-enemies-not-collaborators-474669f4f9da/)
Quote- [Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65) According to debriefs of multiple detainees — including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz — and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa'ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)
- Aziz underscored Saddam's distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, "the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution." (p. 67)
- Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an "unbeliever." (p.73)
- Conclusion 1: ... Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa'ida in particular... Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)
- Conclusion 5:... Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)
[Emphases in original.]
As always, your posts are very informative, Recusant.
SisterAgatha, where do you get your information? :eyebrow:
Why do I bother asking...she/he is not gonna answer...is she/he? :fingertap:
I get my info from wikipedia.
I just wonder though I honestly do.
Saddam did not have a great track record for world peace. He was definitly in the league of Pol Pot in terms of Human rights abuses.
What would he have done if he was left to continue? Just be a big meanie as always?
Quote from: jumbojak on October 05, 2017, 10:16:06 PM
On a chilly, dry night when the wind is blowing softly, yes I do. It reminds me of the good times we had dining together in one of his palaces. Sometimes we enjoyed the breeze for what it was. Other nights we would have the table moved onto a balcony so we could watch the moonlight shimmering on the desert sands.... I can't help it. I'm tearing up...
Bruno, could you pass me a tissue? The memories coming back are just too much for me.
You got it buddy...
(https://i.imgur.com/wx9M8k3.gif)
Quote from: Icarus on October 06, 2017, 01:01:19 AM
Sure he persecuted the Kurds and some of the the others too. He was a murderous despot who countenanced no bullshit from dissenters. Funny thing though.....There were no ISIS, Taliban, or other kooks who dared oppose him. Iraq was a functional place...maybe not a Utopian place but it was livable for its citizens.
We made a colossal mistake when we figured to liberate and democritize a bunch of Arabs who had not the least desire to become a copy of American culture and politics. 20/20 hindsight............ Afghanistan? That is whole 'nother ball game and it has a set of cultural mindsets that do not even remotely comport with our own.
I think life was not so good for non-Sunni/baathist groups - ask the "Marsh Arabs". But he did have a modern liberal attitude towards women (ofvthe right denomination or bank account size).
Sykes and Picot had a thankless job of trying to forge one country out of a mess of tribal warlords, the West tried the same thing in Afghanistan and most Asian and African countries with, historically, somewhat less than 100% success. Saudi Arabia had a natuve sttong and cgarismatuc over-lord who united the country. Having achieved a DIY job there it worked better.
Much of today's violence in thought and action against us from the Near/Middle East and Africa is due to the (European) West's imperial policies. Then the US added in their pennyworth and made all kinds of enemies for themselves. None of them seemed to be able to recognise and really utilise the local mindset and tried to force centuries of deeply instilled tradition and thought into a modern democratic mindset. They are still making the same mistakes IMHO.
Sorry, just realise I ranted on and reiterated much of what you said, Icarus! :redface:
Quote from: Dave on October 06, 2017, 06:39:26 PMI think life was not so good for non-Sunni/baathist groups - ask the "Marsh Arabs". But he did have a modern liberal attitude towards women (ofvthe right denomination or bank account size).
Sykes and Picot had a thankless job of trying to forge one country out of a mess of tribal warlords, the West tried the same thing in Afghanistan and most Asian and African countries with, historically, somewhat less than 100% success. Saudi Arabia had a natuve sttong and cgarismatuc over-lord who united the country. Having achieved a DIY job there it worked better.
Much of today's violence in thought and action against us from the Near/Middle East and Africa is due to the (European) West's imperial policies. Then the US added in their pennyworth and made all kinds of enemies for themselves. None of them seemed to be able to recognise and really utilise the local mindset and tried to force centuries of deeply instilled tradition and thought into a modern democratic mindset. They are still making the same mistakes IMHO.
Sorry, just realise I ranted on and reiterated much of what you said, Icarus! :redface:
Thank you for the subtle correction,
Dave. I've been making the mistake of referring to the Marsh Arabs as "Swamp Arabs" for years, and haven't yet managed to always use the correct term, even after reading about them and watching a couple of documentaries about them. :sadshake:
Quote from: SisterAgatha on October 06, 2017, 06:22:36 PM
I get my info from wikipedia.
I just wonder though I honestly do.
Saddam did not have a great track record for world peace. He was definitly in the league of Pol Pot in terms of Human rights abuses.
What would he have done if he was left to continue? Just be a big meanie as always?
Are you serious?
Recusant just gave you a 151 page report. That should keep you busy for a while. :headscratch:
~I think you're just trolling.
Quote from: Recusant on October 06, 2017, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: Dave on October 06, 2017, 06:39:26 PMI think life was not so good for non-Sunni/baathist groups - ask the "Marsh Arabs". But he did have a modern liberal attitude towards women (ofvthe right denomination or bank account size).
Sykes and Picot had a thankless job of trying to forge one country out of a mess of tribal warlords, the West tried the same thing in Afghanistan and most Asian and African countries with, historically, somewhat less than 100% success. Saudi Arabia had a natuve sttong and cgarismatuc over-lord who united the country. Having achieved a DIY job there it worked better.
Much of today's violence in thought and action against us from the Near/Middle East and Africa is due to the (European) West's imperial policies. Then the US added in their pennyworth and made all kinds of enemies for themselves. None of them seemed to be able to recognise and really utilise the local mindset and tried to force centuries of deeply instilled tradition and thought into a modern democratic mindset. They are still making the same mistakes IMHO.
Sorry, just realise I ranted on and reiterated much of what you said, Icarus! :redface:
Thank you for the subtle correction, Dave. I've been making the mistake of referring to the Marsh Arabs as "Swamp Arabs" for years, and haven't yet managed to always use the correct term, even after reading about them and watching a couple of documentaries about them. :sadshake:
I think I first "met" a mention of the Marsh Arabs in Gavin Maxwell's "Ring of Bright Water". One day I will read his , "A reed shaken by the wind". Very strange man in some ways, Maxwell.
PS: just bought the Kindle version of, "A reed shaken by the wind"
He kept Iran at bay. When we removed him, it allowed Iran to grow in power. An argument can be made that the world (not Iraq, but the rest of us) were better off with him. He was a nasty guy, but apparently that's valuable in the ME.
Based on what I have read (including from your fellow atheist Chris Hitchens) I will try to give the "pro-war" side of the story.
Saddam did not do 9/11 but he showed an unrepentant hostility for the west ever since the Gulf war truce happened (the Gulf war technically never ended until Saddam crawled away to his spider hole.)
He tried to murder Bush senior (GWB's daddy true, but still a former president of the US of A!),was a big sponsor of the second intifadah (Palestinaiins blowing themselves up at Jews) and repeatedly tried to shoot down American and British planes in the no fly zones. Coincidentally those no fly zones were the only thing stopping him from committing a massive genocide against Kurds or shiiites. Read sometime about how he repressed the 1991 revolts abasing him!
To those who say WMD were bunk that is only partially true. He apparently had a massive WMD stockpile and program through the 80s and up until the Gulf war including some nasty stuff! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_program
The main reason he did not have the weapons Bush said he did was because of the massive UN sanctions (unreplicated today) and the devastation following the first Gulf War. From what I understand, Hussein wanted to restart the program after the sanctions were lifted, and already had the scientists and blue prints ready to make them again.
To those who say Saddam had no connection to terrorism, you are sadly mistaken. Saddam played host to several major terrorists (including one of the original bombers of WTC in '93.) Look up Abu Nidal. He was the FBI's most wanted terrorist before Bin Laden came on the scene.
Saddam had extensive ties to terror groups, but Al-Qaeda was not one of them. It was mostly Shia extremists he disliked, and Sunni ones he was fine using and financing so long as they carried out his aims.
The whole "Secular Saddam" thing is a bit overplayed. Some say ISIS is just a natural outgrowth of his regime https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/how-saddam-hussein-gave-us-isis.html
Quote from: SisterAgatha on October 07, 2017, 05:19:32 AMTo those who say Saddam had no connection to terrorism, you are sadly mistaken.
I don't recall anybody here saying that,
SisterAgatha.
It's just so difficult to impinge him still being alive and in control.
I find it unlikely he'd be "tamed" and become like Muammar Qadaffi.
I think he finally would be assassinated and the whole country would go to Hell anyway.
By the standard of bad leaders he was defiantly a problem child.
Its my big "what if" of history. What would have happened if he hadn't been deposed almost 12 years after being kicked out of Kuwait?
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Quote from: SisterAgatha on October 09, 2017, 02:14:15 AM
It's just so difficult to impinge him still being alive and in control.
...
"Impinge" :query:
Gadafi "tame" :query:
Your crap gets crappier by the day Sister Troll.
Quote from: No one on October 09, 2017, 02:16:17 AM
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Or in a circus.