Saddam was a Damn Good Dictator.

[Neubarth]

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!

 

[editec]

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.

 

[driveby]

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!

Ahhh, Bush is a bigger murderer than Saddam, we get it .....

 

[Neubarth]

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.

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.

 

[Neubarth]

Ahhh, Bush is a bigger murderer than Saddam, we get it .....

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.

 

[driveby]

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.

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 ......

 

[Xenophon]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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 ......

We put him in power.

 

[driveby]

We put him in power.

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

 

[thirteen31]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

We put him in power.

Bullshit. He murdered his way to power.

 

[Gunny]

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 ......

Speculation at best. I don't agree with "allying" Saddam. That didn't work when we played the enemy of my enemy is my friend when we tried.

The fact remains, Saddam controlled a secular regime that sat right in between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. Dirtbag or not, he was a stabilizing force in the region. Removing him created the thrust for power by Saudi and Iranian religious proxies, with Turkey itching to get a chunk of the action as well.

Leaving him in place would have been the lesser of the two evils, IMO.

 

[William Joyce]

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.

Actually, when they first arose, monarchies were the progressive alternative to what came before: anarchy, roving bands of marauders and constantly warring tribes. If you were a peasant, you'd prefer giving up a third of your crop to the king to the chance that at any time, you were at risk of having your entire crop STOLEN by thieves (and your wife raped). A little of that is at work in modern societies, too... you pay taxes, taxes pay the cops, and you can rest a little easier at night.

I personally don't think there's been much change over the centuries... we just come up with different names for the same exercises of power. Anybody who thinks America is a 'free democracy' that's somehow more advanced politically than pretty much every other system that's ever been, give or take, is badly deluded. What a fucking crock! You as an American have, practically, zero power over who comes to power... and with Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Kennedy, we have families with more dynastic staying power here than most "backward" monarchies ever had.

Americans are told so often that they're a "free people," they've come to believe it. But I think the most un-free people in the world are the ones who THINK they're free!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We certainly had no right to invade or attack Iraq and remove Saddam, but calling him a "good dictator" is an oxymoron. We should also not be installing dictators, or any form of government, in any countries.

 

[Neubarth]

Bullshit. He murdered his way to power.

Indeed, Gunny is right. Saddam was good at that, as were most of the original founders of royal dynastic families.

 

[Neubarth]

Speculation at best. I don't agree with "allying" Saddam. That didn't work when we played the enemy of my enemy is my friend when we tried.

The fact remains, Saddam controlled a secular regime that sat right in between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. Dirtbag or not, he was a stabilizing force in the region. Removing him created the thrust for power by Saudi and Iranian religious proxies, with Turkey itching to get a chunk of the action as well.

Leaving him in place would have been the lesser of the two evils, IMO.

Again you are right, Gunny. Stability was the key ingredient.

I posted to that long before the American attack on Iraq, hoping that we would stop the buildup to the foolishness before we ended up in a quagmire. I remember when it was reported in Israel that the Israeli government had told Bush that he had no information that justified invading Iraq. That was weeks before the war. They, too were afraid of the instability that a Bush led war could bring to the region.

We could have used Saddam either directly or indirectly to help bring regime change in Iran. Southern and western Iran has a lot of indigenous Arabs who do not see themselves as Iranians. We could have promised Saddam those lands (some of which are oil producing) for his cooperation.

The British proved that the "enemy of our enemy can be a usefull ally" ploy worked quite well. It is not surefire, though, as we all know.

 

[thirteen31]

We certainly had no right to invade or attack Iraq and remove Saddam, but calling him a "good dictator" is an oxymoron.

This is where I have to disagree. Dictator, by definition, is a ruler that has complete control over a country, especially one whose power was gained by force. I think we can at least all agree that he met that criteria.

We should also not be installing dictators, or any form of government, in any countries.

I do agree with this...we should fix the problems in our own backyards before trying to fix the neighbors'. Isn't the best policy when we can be a role-model instead?

 

[Xenophon]

Speculation at best. I don't agree with "allying" Saddam. That didn't work when we played the enemy of my enemy is my friend when we tried.

The fact remains, Saddam controlled a secular regime that sat right in between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. Dirtbag or not, he was a stabilizing force in the region. Removing him created the thrust for power by Saudi and Iranian religious proxies, with Turkey itching to get a chunk of the action as well.

Leaving him in place would have been the lesser of the two evils, IMO.

Baathists are not secular, they are Sunni Muslims.

They are not fundementalists muslims, but they remained muslims.

 

[editec]

Actually, when they first arose, monarchies were the progressive alternative to what came before: anarchy, roving bands of marauders and constantly warring tribes.

Yup.

If you were a peasant, you'd prefer giving up a third of your crop to the king to the chance that at any time, you were at risk of having your entire crop STOLEN by thieves (and your wife raped). A little of that is at work in modern societies, too... you pay taxes, taxes pay the cops, and you can rest a little easier at night.

Couldn't agree more. Anarchy is the least preferable system of governance known to man. That's why it is inevitably a rare event which doesn't last long.

I personally don't think there's been much change over the centuries... we just come up with different names for the same exercises of power.

Yes, rip away the mask of most systems, and you find an elite running things. Either they do so openly, or they do so covertly, but the fact is that most systems are still hierarchical.

Anybody who thinks America is a 'free democracy' that's somehow more advanced politically than pretty much every other system that's ever been, give or take, is badly deluded.

I am of the opinion that the ruling elite vie for power politically, but their battles are internacine. Regardless of which team of elites win, the outcome for the ruled classes is likely to be fairly similar.

The maintain just enough differences ( usually on matters that make no difference to them) to give us the illusion of choice.

What a fucking crock! You as an American have, practically, zero power over who comes to power... and with Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Kennedy, we have families with more dynastic staying power here than most "backward" monarchies ever had.

This is true. Perhaps a tad overstated, but not much, I suspect.

Americans are told so often that they're a "free people," they've come to believe it. But I think the most un-free people in the world are the ones who THINK they're free!

The highest and most effective tyranny is the one where people feel most free from tyrants.

America USED to be the most brilliantly run oligarchy in the world.

Now that they're not even trying anymore, we get nitwits like Bush II in charge.

I sometimes wonder if the ruling elite didn't pick W because he looked most expendable.

 

[Lycurgus]

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.

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