Saddam was a Damn Good Dictator.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Neubarth, Dec 20, 2008.

  1. Neubarth
    Offline

    Neubarth At the Ballpark July 30th

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,751
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Ratings:
    +199
    Saddam was a Damn Good Dictator.​


    Dictatorships and the Rule by King are closely related. Most Kings were men who seized control of a government, or the sons or grandsons of men who did. Occasionally a granddaughter gets mixed in there. The Bible says that Kings are in power because God essentially "tolerates" them. The same can be said for Dictators.

    It is time that Americans realize that a motivated Dictator can be a very effective means of government in the rest of the world’s peoples. We do not have the right to depose them or impose them as we see fit. Boy does that make people in other countries hate us. Even though we may think they need a dictator who sees things our way, that does not mean that the majority of the people see it that way

    Most Americans who know their history know that the United States has imposed Dictatorships on Latin America and southern Asia when we felt like it. Dictatorships are stable and if we put the right man in power can be very useful for their economy, long term business contracts, alliances and so on. We have established a precedent of installing dictators when it served our purposes. Those on the right in our country say, "Well, Joe, we had to install that Dictatorship because we had to stop the spread of World Communism. As long as they see World Communism as a threat, they are right (In "their" heads - minds).

    Dictators are not necessarily "Evil" just because they have a few peope killed who need killing. Stalin, Hitler, Ancient Kings and even Saddam had to occasionally do away with people who stood in the way of progress (as the Dictator or King saw it). As long as that progress is beneficial to the net populace, then it is good even if it helps consolidate the rule of the man in power (and/or enriches his family).

    But, Joe, you say, "Killing people is murder." Of course you are right, but a few dead malcontents is not as bad as a third of a million dead like in Iraq when we tried to impose regime change. Very wasteful of human life!

    Let me hear the Congregation say Amen to that proposition!
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Hey, if stability is all you're after from government, then no form of governace invented to date is better than a feudal kingdoms dominated by absolute monarchs.

    Now those societies are generally retarded, their economies weak, their social development non existent, and their advancements in sciences and technologies lame, but they did offer very stable societies.

    Your argument is essantially the argument that your 1930s fascists were making, incidently.

    They could point out every problem associated with respresenational republics and show you how a fascist solution was preferable.

    Then the Reresentational republics got together and bombed them into all into some form of democratic republics.

    Apparently, the fascist axiom that "might makes right" was true, but not true in exactly the way the brownshirts thought it was.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  3. driveby
    Offline

    driveby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    8,836
    Thanks Received:
    2,305
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,325

    Ahhh, Bush is a bigger murderer than Saddam, we get it ..... :cuckoo:
     
  4. Neubarth
    Offline

    Neubarth At the Ballpark July 30th

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,751
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Ratings:
    +199
    In politics, "There are no absolute right positions other than self defense when you are under attack." I said that years ago and I still maintain that it is correct. Saddam was not attacking us, therefore we did not have the right to invade his "Kingdom" and depose him.

    The so called conservatives (They are liberals to me) on this board will flame me for that, and say that he was shooting at our planes in the no fly zone. They are right, of course, because he did order his armed forces to take an opportunistic shot once in a while if they felt that our planes were close enough. That was for Iraqi "national pride," and you have to respect that. We allowed/set off the killing of a third of a million people in Iraq because we disagreed with his attempts to avenge his people and his rule? Shame!

    Before we had out "Puppet government in Iraq" kill Saddam to shut him up, he repeatedly told us that we would need a man like him or he himslf to rule the country. I believe he was 100 percent correct. Once we pull out this puppet democracy we have tried to establish will fold and run to thebanks of Switzerland with whatever money they could steal, and a strong man will evolve. I hope it is not Sadr and his Radical Islamic wing.
     
  5. Neubarth
    Offline

    Neubarth At the Ballpark July 30th

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,751
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Ratings:
    +199
    Bush is a far bigger murderer than Saddam if you do not count the Iran Iraq war that we supported.

    Look, you may be a flaming Conservative, and I respect your attempts to malign me with the icon. That is cool, but the fact remains that Bush made a horrible mistake. He needed to ally Saddam to help remove the Radical Islamic regime in Iran. That would have been a self defensive move for both the US and Saddam. That would be just, according to my political party rules.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  6. driveby
    Offline

    driveby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    8,836
    Thanks Received:
    2,305
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,325
    Ally Saddam huh ? I can maybe appreciate your thinking outside the box on that, but if Saddam had the capabilities, he'd have blown us off the map years ago ......
     
  7. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    Saddam sucked at being a dictator, and all 'stability' means in such states is you don't read or see what goes on in such places.

    Unless you were a baathist Sunni Muslim Iraq was hell on earth under saddam, hardly a sucess.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,414
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,310
    We put him in power.
     
  9. driveby
    Offline

    driveby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    8,836
    Thanks Received:
    2,305
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,325
    Ohhh, that's right, another George Bush blunder ...:rolleyes:
     
  10. thirteen31
    Offline

    thirteen31 thirteen31

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Left of centre
    Ratings:
    +2
    I have to ask, are you from Iraq? If not, you really can't determine what is 'really going on'. I'm not saying that living in Iraq isn't hell-on-earth; but I can't tell you that it wasn't either. Do you even know the definition of 'dictator'? By your response, I don't think you know whether Saddam sucked at it or not. By definition, he made a good dictator.
     

Share This Page