Saddam was a Damn Good Dictator.

[thirteen31]

Well, your going to be entertaining! (is my spelling correct?) LOL

Thanks?

 

[Neubarth]

Thanks?

Find out where he is going with that before saying thanks.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Ohhh, that's right, another George Bush blunder ...

no, that one goes to Reagan, Rumsfeld, and Bush's daddy. And which party do they all come from again?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Bush is a far bigger murderer than Saddam if you do not count the Iran Iraq war that we supported.

LOL and if you don't really know what 'murder' actually means...

ROFLMNAO Leftists...

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.

Hussein was the most prolific user of Islamic Terrorism by proxy... he had used Islamic terrorists to murder US citizen many times and was a direct proponent of international Islamic terrorism; any notion that Hussein was ON ANY LEVEL and in ANY WAY a means to combat international terrorism is something well beyond ludicrous and stands as little more than the mythical 'feelings' of an absurd fool... As it stands right now Iran sits between two US armies and has little chance but to sit there and rattle their flaccid little terrorist sword.

Of course if this idiot was able to run the show, Iraq would be sitting in between an Afghanistan which it controled and Iraq which it fought to a TIE after a decade of trying...

 

[Neubarth]

LOL and if you don't really know what 'murder' actually means...

ROFLMNAO Leftists...



Hussein was the most prolific user of Islamic Terrorism by proxy... he had used Islamic terrorists to murder US citizen many times and was a direct proponent of international Islamic terrorism;
..

Please remember, I am the most conservative member of this board. I know of no instance when the above statement has any validity. Would you name several of these instances that you are aware of (that nobody else has ever heard of).

In my international studies, I know of no instances that would validate your statement, and your honesty and moral character are now seriously in question.

Please cite your "examples."

 

[Neubarth]

Baathists are not secular, they are Sunni Muslims.

They are not fundementalists muslims, but they remained muslims.

Their degree of commitment to their faith is usually sorely challenged by the faithful. Most Baathists are in it for the money. Just like the Mafia in the US, they go to church (mosque for the Islamics) to pass themselves off as among the faithful, but their hearts are not in it.

 

[Neubarth]

Considering the volatility of the artificial country that the English created, Saddam would qualify as a benevolent despot, not a tyrant as some have called him.

Dubya, the dumbest clown ever to be a world leader, totally screwed things up in destroying the enforced stability that was the Saddam dictatorship.

Before this insane chapter in American history is written, over a million innocent people will be dead. AND for what purpose??

What has this Bush led war accomplished? Our real enemy Radical Islam has gone untouched when we should have slaughtered them anywhere and everywhere they were found over the past seven years.

 

[editec]

Bullshit. He murdered his way to power.

Isn't that pretty much the way dictators typically get their jobs?

Generally they do what Saddam did.

They murder their bosses and take their jobs.

It's a time honored way of life in some nations.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

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!

Wait, wait... You are being sarcastic, right?

Neubarth, you are a strange character. Unlike other Ultraists you see things clearly, and don't ignore history or pretend that your government is infallible. But you come to some fucked up conclusions. I kinda respect the fact that you're so honest- You're really an Old-School Imperialist, which are rare nowadays. Most neo-imperialists regularly push the same tyranny that you're talking about, except they call it other names.

I'm not sure where it is, but there is a passage by Aristotle that deals with the difference between Monarchy/Tyranny, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, and Polity/Democracy, and your post reminded me of it. Aristotle says Monarchy is the best system of government, because there's expediency, rule of law, things get done and done fast, etc. But he creates the distinction between Monarchy and Tyranny- Monarchy is the rule by an enlightened monarch who rules in the interest of all, while Tyranny is the perversion of Monarchy, where the monarch rules in the interest of himself. They form two sides of the same coin, but Tyranny is, according to him (and I'd agree), the WORST form of government. Similarly, Aristocracy is the rule by the enlightened, wealthy few and it's perversion is Oligarchy, in which the wealthy few rule for their own interest, and that's the second worst form of government. The problem with these two dualities is clear - at what point does the Monarch become a Tyrant, and at what point do the Aristocrats become Oligarchs? It's a very thin and very dangerous line, and it rests on the good faith of the ruler(s), which empirically has ALWAYS been lacking. Even the supposed "enlightened" monarchs of old, Louis XIV or Catherine the Great or whatever... these people where only "enlightened" relative to other even more brutal tyrants of the past.

Polity (which is the 'enlightened' form of democracy), is presented as the worst of the 'good' forms, while democracy is seen as the best of the 'perverted' forms, and that is because the majority, ruling for the general interest, are more intertwined with the majority ruling for their own selfish interest (the interest of the mass is closer to the 'general' interest than the interest of the ruler/elite are). There is more room for self-correction, more dialogue, more compromise that has to be reached. That is what makes the 'democracy' coin superior to the "extremely benign/terribly brutal" coin of Monarchy/Tyranny and the "pretty good/ pretty bad" coin of Aristocracy/Oligarchy. All of this is one of the clear basis of democracy.

I guess the question is WHY do YOU support tyranny in other countries? Would you yourself accept it? Your country was founded on the principles of democracy, and you go at length to say that all methods are ok in defense of that democracy. In other words, I imagine that YOU would not accept to be ruled by a dictator, regardless of how "enlightened" he presents himself to be. Would you accept it if Barak Obama crowned himself Emperor of America? You can't say "Well, Barak Obama isn't enlightened, so I wouldn't accept him as Emperor", because why should you feel you'd suddenly be entitled to choose the credentials of your oppressor? Would anyone here accept this? If not, how can you be such a hypocrite as to expect the rest of us to accept dictatorship? Why do you feel that your country is entitled to impose on others what it itself would never accept? That is what is called IMPERIALISM and TYRANNY, and if you truly believed in your OWN constitution and in the principles in which YOUR country was supposedly founded, then you must be very adept at doublethink to be able to reconcile the position that you can simultaneously uphold brutality to protect freedom. It is a position that is totally unacceptable, and I'll explain why.

What you're saying (that the US supports brutal dictators because it works in favour of American Imperial interests), is exactly the way things are. But you would never know that by reading the speeches of your politicians, or the treaties of your government. No, no, no, there it's all "in defense of freedom" and "democracy" and "human rights". But you and I know that that's a farce and a fantasy. So why don't your politicians simply speak with the frankness that you speak of? Why can't they make it official public policy that you support tyranny when it's good for you?

They don't because it is a completely indefensible position, and today more than ever. It is clear, and the experience of recent history makes clear, that brutality can never be sustainable. People won't take it. People don't accept it. EVEN with the fake purposes of "liberating" Iraq, it's been a friggin' pain in the ass for the unchallenged world hegemon to efficiently subdue that country. And that is EVEN with the empty rhetoric of freedom. I can't imagine how it would be if the official state position was that brutality and dictatorship are good. Nobody would take it. There'd be even more suicide bombings and guerillas, and "terrorists" running around, and I'm sure that even (maybe especially) the people of America would be loathe to be complicit in such disgusting things (I'm saying this IF the politicians were honest and spoke as you are).

Besides, Saddam Hussein's terrorist regime has, if anything, FUELED hatred of the American occupation. Americans don't seem to remember or care most of the time (or simply ignore it, or refuse to believe it), but you're a historian and you know well. I don't think Iraqis forgot. I don't think it has been only a few Iraqis that have been strapping bombs to themselves and taking up arms against Americans with the very lucid memory of how the Americans THEMSELVES funded and supported this disgusting criminal. I don't think a lot of them forgot about the 1991 uprisings in which the US gave Saddam the green light to absolutely crush a rebellion that would've toppled him once and for all. I'm sure you, who really knows and accept your governments role in that dictatorship, must've had quite a laugh when the media kept parroting that Saddam this, Saddam that, "Oh, so you think that Saddam was good right?? You want to defend this dictator from our freedomguns, don't you?!". Yes, Saddam gassed the Kurds, dropped chemicals on Iran, murdered tons of people... but what they just couldn't remember, what they couldn't get right, what they maybe weren't allowed to say is that he did it ALL with total, complete, unconditional support from the US government. He was just a darling of the CIA. The Americans had zero qualms to arm him and let him do as he pleased.

So... if Saddam was just so bad that the US had to bomb the fuck out of Iraq to get him... but simultaneously supported him through his worst atrocities... Then wouldn't it make perfect sense for you guys to finish the whole job? Why just hang Saddam? Why not hang the people who armed and supported him??

Oh, right... Because those people own the world. *Shrugs* Ok.


Furthermore, you claim that dictatorship brings about stability, economic growth, blah blah... All of those claims have been debunked time and time again. If anything countries with historical dictatorship generally do WORSE than democracies in nearly all indicators. The only real "evidence" of this position was by Sam Huntington (which I'm guessing you're a big fan of), but this was very superficial and doesn't hold up to any empirical scrutiny (like most of his work, really). I can post more on this, if you're interested, but the claim that dictatorship offers a better path to development is a flawed theory from the past. I'm just going to offer one regional example: In Central America you guys had your nice little training ground, and set up horrifying regimes in all but 1 country. Well, congratulations. The region is fucked today. Guatemala and Nicaragua are basically fucked, after years of US-backed militarists robbed the countries dry and terrified the population beyond recognition. I'm doubtful they'll ever be able to recover from it. And it's very similar in El Salvador and Honduras. These dictatorships certainly did not foster economic growth, or anything. They just kept a good slave population handy for United Fruit Company to exploit. The only country to save itself was Costa Rica, and even then we barely escaped imperial rule by deferring to the US. Go and compare every social and economic indicator, and you'll see what I mean. Through democracy, high social spending, and peace we were able to at least escape the abject poverty of our neighbors. If it wasn't for this, I wouldn't be here today. If my parents had been born anywhere else in this region, it is more than likely they would be rotting in a mass grave today.

I guess that's the point you forget. "A few malcontents". A few malcontents are real people, with families, who fought for the same things that your founding fathers supposedly fought for. But instead of having monuments, they're rotting in a mass grave. Hurray for dictatorship.

Call me up when you want to install a Somoza Dynasty in the White House.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Please remember, I am the most conservative member of this board. I know of no instance when the above statement has any validity. Would you name several of these instances that you are aware of (that nobody else has ever heard of).

In my international studies, I know of no instances that would validate your statement, and your honesty and moral character are now seriously in question.

Please cite your "examples."

ROFLMNAO.... So you're a conservative? Who told ya that? I think you should know that you've been grossly misinformed.

Look up the Achille Laurel... Abu Nidel... Ramsey Usef... and get back to us.

Hussein was a major proponent of international terrorism and ANYONE that finds that they prefer the world WITH Hussein is a FOOL IN THE EXTREME AND CAN KISS MY ROYAL SOUTHERN ASS; YOU LOW RENT TERRORIST PROMOTING COCK-SUCKER.

 

[Gord]

I see there are a few posters on this thread that disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. I'd like to know what you would have advised president Bush to do if he had not invaded Iraq:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iraq/66348-algore-would-have-invaded-iraq.html#post960420