Of course the US will never allow this to happen but after many years of thought and careful consideration, I can’t help but conclude that he is the guy for the job.
Education: Under Hussein, education in Iraq was nearly unsurpassed in the middle east.
Womens rights: Again, unheard of advances in womens rights in Iraq under Hussein.
Western Legal system: The only Persian gulf state not ruled by Islamic religious law, all done by Hussein.
Social reforms: More ground breaking territory in the region. Human services initiated under Hussein unheard of in the Persian Gulf. Hospitalization for everyone.
Infrastructure: Electricity, water and sewer facilities that rivaled any other nation in the region, all by Hussein.
Expropriation of oil holdings: Broke the foreign monopoly on oil resulting in a financial windfall for his country.
Defense: Defended Iraqi and the entire region from the threat of radical Islamic, fundamental rule, a cause and sentiment shared by Many others.
Saddam Hussein without question was a great leader and an asset to the nation of Iraq. I have come to believe that much of the animosity towards him is a result of the western prooganda machine. The general complaints:
Invaded Kuwait: Iraq had long held claim to Kuwait after the British mandates. In addition, Kuwait continually defied OPEC production costing Iraq and other countries billions of dollars. Finally, Kuwait was stealing billions of barrels of oil from Iraq by angel drilling into Iraqi oil reserves. Hussein pleaded with the US State Department for assistance with these problems to no avail. After talks with the US, Hussein was told that the US would take no position on the Kuwait dispute. Hussein met for a final time with Kuwait in hopes of resolution but the talks failed, resulting in the invasion of Kuwait.
“He gassed his own people”: This is one of the most disgusting lies ever dumped on the American people. The Kurds, to whom this statement refers, had never been willing citizens of Iraq. They had conspired with Iran during the Iran / Iraq war and were a constant source of rebellion and attacks on the government of Iraq. They are not Arabs. Consider if a very large group of armed people supported by a foreign state (Iran) were actively engaged in military action against the US within the US.
WMDs: We all know now that after '91 there were no WMDs in Iraq. The only WMDs ever used by Iraq (chemical) were against Iran and Kurdish insurgents. He never used them against Kuwait, a country which he openly announced his intentions on invasion. Weapons inspectors prior to the Iraq invasion supported the fact that the weapons had not been found and that most likely there were none. From day one of the war propoganda I found it hard to believe that anyone could believe Hussein posed any threat what-so-ever to the US considering that we had been bombing his country on a nearly daily basis for over ten years with no military, terrorist or other response from Hussein. Don’t you think that after ten years of bombing if he had anything he would have used it ? Always seemed pretty damn obvious to me.
I know the guy was no saint. In fact, by western satndards, he was a harsh dictator. However, when compared to any of many, many other leaders in the middle east and elsewhere, he was progressive. The means by which he maintained power in Iraq are difficult to swallow but if you consider the level of force used by the US in attempting to stabilize Iraq you’ve got to give the guy credit for the ability to maintain order in a region where chaos is the order of the day everyday.
In summary, Hussein did some pretty extreme things but I have come to believe that in his part of the world, the only way to establish order is with an Iron fist in a velvet glove. I think he did a hell of a job.
Yes. Totally. Few others will agree, but I’m in agreement with your entire post. This war was about owning the oil, not about Iraq or the people of Iraq. Who killed more innocents in Iraq in the last 20 years? Saddam, or someone named Bush?
Eh. Saddams lust for power and indifference to the well being of the people of Iraq led to the dissolution of the healthcare system and most of the infrastructure. THe judicial system was highly corrupted and there are several middle eastern countries which are not knee-jerk sharia systems.
I do not know enough about a few of your points like the infrastructure building.
Hussein was not a progressive, he was a callous opportunist. When radical Islam became vogue he changed the Iraqi flag to say ‘god is great’ in Arabic. And his human rights and political rights given were less than those in Iran. I think in Iran the internet is free, not so in Iraq. And the political system is less oppressive in Iran than it was in Iraq. So calling him a progressive doesn’t make any sense. Saddam had the opportunity to be a progressive and turn Iraq into a diamond in the rough, but he was a callous opportunist who abandoned all the improvements of Iraq in order to try to spread his rule and look good to the Arab world.
he initiated a war with Iran. True he held off radical islam and his neighbors appreciated it but he still started the war.
There are several moderately respectable governments in the middle east. Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait to name a few. They have problems but all are trying to institute reforms and representative government.
If Hussein wanted to avoid war with Kuwait he would’ve taken one of the offers by the UN to pull out peacefully. He had about 4 months to pull out peacefully and he did not.
A $200 billion war to save 10 cents on a gallon of gasoline. And gasoline prices are going up right now. And the US only gets about 5% of its oil supply from Iraq.
Saddam killed roughly 300,000. The war(s) he initiated killed about 1.2 million. His abuse of the oil for food program led to the deaths of over 500,000. Bush killed maybe 15,000.
Services primarily for his base. Minority groups treated shoddily, with appropriation of Kurdish and other minority property to Arabize strategic regions. If those groups should express any hint of autonomy they were treated rather harshly - collective punishment of ethnic groups was Saddam’s normal response.
Laws enabling “Night and Fog” type measures can hardly be considered socially advanced. (Unfortunately I am unable to locate my copy of the book that was the original (english language/american) expose on Hussein, written and published back when he was still officially our bestest bud.
How much infrastructure does Saddam/Sadr city have? His infrastructure was to support his base and the oil industry.
I am not sure that leading Iraq into a conflict that wasted a generation of Iraqi and Iranian men, sending Iraq massively into debt, and nearly losing the war were it not for the assistance of outside powers can be considered “Strong on defense”. Rolling back communism was a “popular” idea in the thirties and forties. This does not make the leaders of Romania, Hungary, Slovakia (let alone Italy and Germany) particularly inspired or admirable for their parts in second world war, nor particularly qualified to run a country.
He also was a poor judge of the strength and motivations of his opponents. In addition to the bungled Iran war he described his nuclear aspirations in terms that forced Israel to destroy his infrastructure. Even if he can be forgiven for mistaking the US willingness to tolerate his adventurism in Kuwait (a misunderstanding between Hussein and our ambassador, perchance) he certainly pushed his luck once the US had both large forces in the area and an absurdly broad coalition backing us.
Irridentist claims are your stongest case for the Kuwaiti invasion? If OPEC had problems with Kuwaiti voluntary compliance with the cartel they could have kicked them out (except of course that that wouldn’t help the situation). I don’t think unfair trade (or rather, insufficient restraint of trade) is exactly a legitimate casus belli. Hussein pleading with the US is irrelevent. The casus belli for the Kuwaiti war was that Iraq was in debt over it’s head as a result of the Iran war. Though the gulf states had egged Iraq on and provided some support they didn’t owe Iraq anything for its attempt to grab territory from Iran, however nobly described. The slant drilling (and, IIRC, a plea for aid from rebels within Kuwait) were just the figleaf for the war. Iraq certainly had other options than invasion when talks broke down - blockade or fora such as the world court, UN, OPEC.
Then why are they within Iraq? If Kuwait is naturally within Iraq than Kurdistan is naturally without. A progressively more disenfranchised minority (with no licit means of ameliorating their condition) takes up arms when the opportunity presents itself? wonders never cease. Even if factions within the Kurdish populace (and marsh Arab and Shiite populations) did take up arms against teh central government it most absolutely positively certainly does not justify collective punishment of a population. You may recall that we had a civil war here in the states a while back, which were not followed by massacres of combatants or non-combatants on the losing side.
(So now you concede the massacre of civilians using chemical weapons?)
We know no such thing. We know that progressively he was stripped of his weapons over the course of the early nineties as portions of his stocks and programs were discovered/revealed/confessed to belatedly. (Poor documentation on some weapon cache destruction and a number of less than forthright final disclosures contributed to a lack of confidence in further statements by the Iraqi government). And that he only used chemical weapons, and only on his own people is hardly a point in his favor, given that they were the only non conventional munitions he had. Certainly twice he made significant efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and was only stopped from acquiring them by outside means.
If you want to say that after 1998 he possessed neither (NBC) weapons, nor infrastructure, nor even WMD programs then fine, that seems to be the case. If you want to argue that it was, by the time the war started (rather than the time force was authorized) there was no longer any credible reason to believe that he had any WMD’s (especially nukes) then again, you can make a case. If you want to argue that nukes are in a whole 'nother league from chemical or even bioweapns then hey, have at it. However, while all of the above statements might legitimately call into question US motives for the current Iraq war, none of them contribute to the slightest the idea that Hussein is a “good leader” or that he has earned the right to be president.
Hey, a lot of dictators advance their countries, mixing modernization with brutality.
Perhaps only he could “unite” Iraq within one border. Good for him. That doesn’t mean that my government, the United States should countenance restoring an aggressive, brutal mass murderer to high office, especially given that there is no reason to believe that he would not immediately slaughter everyone who had any connection to the coalition or the foreign fighters. One of the reasons’s given by some Iraqi’s prior to the invasion why keeping him would be better than a new dictator was that he had already killed everyone who needed killing to establish and maintain his power. That is no longer true. He is gone now, and should have the rare experience for a man in his (former) position of facing the music. Put him back in power and now I am complicit in his future murderings.
There was no velvet on the glove. His skills as totalitarian despot have no (positive) relevance in a discussion of his suitability to be president of a (perhaps slightly) more democratic Iraq.
I don’t think his personal lust for power had so much to do with the dissolution of the infrastructure as the huge debt incurred during the Iran war, which his “greatful neighbors” were unwilling to share the expense, and the loss of revenue due to Kuwaits prolonged violation of OPEC production. I think maybe his lust for power is confused with his nationalism and desire to build a respected state in Iraq.
Other countries seem to have caught up with Iraq but you must remember that he began these efforts 30 years ago. Jordan has made great leaps but this was well after the progress of Iraq. In fact, Iraq set a moderate example in that time. If not under attack by US bombs for the last 14 years who knows where they might be today. Wars tend to impede the progress of domestic reform. If left to themselves the internet might well be free in Iraq today. We’ll never know. In short, comparing the relative progressiveness of current Persian Gulf states isn’t a valid comparison. The growth of Iraq has been severely retarded by factors other than the domestic aspiratrions of Hussein.
Khomeini had been expelled from Iraq after inciting Shites there and openly advocated the overthrow of Saddam. Skirmishes over disputed rights to a waterway on the Iran / Iraq border were a precursor to the war, although Iraq did launch the first conventional attacks at the behest of the US, the Soviets and most all of his Arab neighbors. What you characterize as a lust for power and desire to look good to the rest of the Arab world were actions encouraged by most who feared the spread of radical Islamic political ideals.
Yes, and they were all following the lead of Iraq since 1973.
Hussein respected the UN about as much as Bush and any other leader in the world. He is not guilty of anything more than the US in ignoring the UN. He stayed on the beleif that what the US had told him previous to the invasion would ultimately be true, that the US would not interfere.
You guys are pathetic… after all this trouble to get another tough guy in power in Iraq… why use the old puppet again ? Saddam is yesterday’s dictator. The new ones are coming.
The US and the Security council condemned the invasion the day after it happened. The world, under the UN, then amassed troops on the border of Saudi Arabia. Saddam would have to have been insane to not think there was going to be a major war.
Iraq under Saddam was not a diamond in the rough or an enviable state, although the potential to become one was there if Saddam had stuck to promoting education, healthcare, secularism and things like that. Saddam even had a “1000 PhDs” program, where he wanted to train a thousand people in doctorates of science. Hell I think Khidhir Hamza had his entire education in the US paid for by the Iraqi government (Saddam was only the vice president then though) and Saddam was recognized by a UN body, most likely UNESCO, for promoting literacy. Buuuuuuuut what does all that matter when he was at the core a war-leader? What good is infrastructure if all you do is go to war to promote the glory of the leader?
Saddam took power in 1979 and started a war in 1980. In 1988 the war ended and he started another war in 1990. Basically his rule has led to 3 wars in 24 years, international condemnation and isolation, and extremely oppressive sanctions.
And even if Iraq did reform, what would it matter, they would still be one of the 5 most brutal, oppressive nations on earth. Do you think people would rather have a 10% higher literacy rate and paved roads or the ability to not be tortured to death over nothing?
The argument that reform wouldn’t exist in the middle east had it not been for Iraq is just opinion. I don’t see any evidence that what you are saying is true.
That is patently untrue. Hussein himself negotiated autonomy for the Kurdish all the way back in 1970.
Not much. US and coalition bombs have targeted virtually all of the infrastructure for so many years now that most of what was in place is now dust.
So how do you feel about G.W. Bush leading the US into a conflict with Iraq that is wasting young Americans, sending the US into debt and having quite a poor effect on the domestic economy ? Would you consider this “strong on defense”?
This is certainly true.
I can think of at least two other wars with less justification. Iraq and Afgahnistan.
You may recall the slaughter of the Native Americans. Civilians within our borders. Took up arms against us and we damn near killed them all, men, women and children.
Never denied it.
That is an opinion. Mine differs.
Gone where? Qatar? I think there is more than a slight chance that the Iraqi courts are mild in his judgement and a possibility of a return to power before his death. I don’t think we (the US) should do that or could or would but I firmly believe in the possibility at some later date.
When a US leader accomplishes hospitalization for all I’ll consider this.
I have not exactly been a vociferous admirer of President Bush in his engagement in Iraq (nor of many of his policies). I don’t consider him to be particularly strong on defense. Feel free to explain why Afghanistan was unjustified in another thread if you wish. 'T’will be a hard sell though.
And we find such conduct repugnant and unacceptable. Write an OP praising to high heavens Andrew Jacksons commitment to the union, even to the point of threatening to use force in South Carolina and especially driving the Cherokee out of NC and Georgia and you will be in for a storm of responses opposing your viewpoint. It’s been done. Times change. My general admiration for Washington, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry does not mean I would accept a modern president who owned a slave (even were it legal).
He is no longer the president of Iraq, nor in a position of leadership or direct political influence in Iraq. Thus “gone.” Whether the US should abide by a free, fair election which Saddam Hussein enters and wins, and subsequently more or less behaves according to the rules which his now high profile requires is another question. Being elected would not mean he is either qualified or a good leader.
The chance of Hussein being elected in Iraq in free, fair elections is just about nil though. Regardless of whether Hussein was “justified” for his actions against (the ungrateful, coddled and rebellious) Kurds and Shiites i would imagine that those actions make him electoral poison with the majority of the Iraqi populace. So if he can’t be elected president, then we’d have to appoint him. Which is unacceptable to me.
One can laud Franco, Salazar, Stalin, Lenin, Peter the Great, Ivan the terrible, the Shah of Iran and many other tyrants for their progressive features but the bloody handed tyrant is still there, too. Mussolini not only got the railroads to run on time, he effectively got the railroads into existence., which is far better record than any American president over my lifetime (stringing along Amtrak and not completely screwing over mass transit is the closest they come). That doesn’t mean I think that his (or any) style of facism is a solution to this problem. If universal health care required a dictatorship to become enacted in the US then I’ll pass.
The population of Iraq in 1994 was 25,374,691. (According to the CIA.) If the 300,000 estimate is correct, that makes for a tiny percentage of the population that was murdered.
Don’t get me wrong: these atrocities were horrible, and Saddam is an evil son-of-a-bitch, but I think that it might be that horror has been exaggerated. I don’t think your average Iraqi who kept his head down and just went about his daily life was living in complete terror. It appears that most of Saddam’s victims were dissidents, rebels, or political opponants, not just guys they grabbed off the street for no reason whatsoever. Kids went to school, dads went to work, and women shopped in the marketplace. “Normal” is relative.
Now, the streets are in chaos. At any moment, a bomb might destroy everyone on a crowded street. Gunshots may spray across a street, or a missle slam into a building. You never know where the insurgents may strike next, or who might get hit in the crossfire.
As nasty as Saddam was, the country was stable under his rule. Now, various factions are vying for power, and God only knows who will get the upper hand. Sooner or later, the US will have to cede power to the people to chose their own leaders, and the way things have been going, I really wouldn’t be surprised if they chose a hard-line anti-US leader who will cause all kinds of problems.
It’s no longer a question of whether we were “right” or “wrong” to go into Iraq. To the person in Baghdad, all that matters is that their child had his legs blown off by a bomb, or their relatives were killed. All that matters is that they have no peace of mind, no security-- they live in fear and confusion without the material comforts they had before. When a leader steps forward to declare he’ll force the US to leave and be hostile to our interests, the Iraqis might flock to him.
I don’t think that Iraqis really feel better off than they were under Saddam. Instead of a small percentage being persecuted, they all now suffer.
I just thought we might consider the reasons for Iraqs invasion of Kuwait against our reasons for invading Afgahnistan, considering that the overwhelming majority of the 9/11 guys were Saudi and also considering that they trained to fly in the US. (Maybe we should have bombed the US training camps too) I can surely see more clearly the justifications for invading a country to which you have historic claim, has undermined economic stability and stolen billions in assets.
Would never have mentioned it except that you drudged up the civil war. That was along the same time line, even before the American genocide. Just matching your arguments.
This is true. Election alone would not provide this. The alternative for a true democratic election in Iraq would certainly lead to a Shite leader who would eventually turn to an Islamic form of government. A step backwards for Iraq from the western styles of judicary installed by Hussein. Can you give an example of any candidate in Iraq, other than a Shite clergyman, that would have a chance in a free and open election?
Lets not call an election before it happens. Imagination is not a good tool for predicting elections. If he were on a ticket short of a Shite cleric he would have decent chance.
In a perfect world all of the factions in Iraq would lay down their arms tomorrow and give due consideration to all of the candidates qualities and consider who would lead them into a bright tomorrow <insert sunshine up backside>. We don’t live there. I am considering a real solution to lead Iraq away from the path of a very lengthy and bloody civil war that will almost with certainty lead to a fundamental Islamic state that will generate the kind of terrorist that didn’t have a chance under Hussein. I do not believe democracy to be viable in Iraq now. I suspect any democratically elected leader, absent the same intolerance for dissent as Hussein, will face repeated and inevitably successful assasination attempts until such a leader with the will to crack the whip falls into place, and he will be the embodiment of terrorism.
Well, Saddam has some pretty high negatives (and we like to say in the West) among the Iraqi people.
I said before the invasion began that the best case scenario I could imagine 5-10 years down the road was a for benevolent strongman to take over and hold the country together. Maybe someone along the lines of Musharraf of Pakistan. But to nominate Hussein is almost too silly to even comment on. There are, I’m sure, hundreds of better candidates for “strongman” than he-- especially if we focus on the benevolent part. Besides, it just ain’t gonna happen. You might as well nominate the Tooth Fairy.
From 1979 to 2003 Husseins regime killed between 200,000 and 300,000 civilians according to estimates. We don’t know the truth of the number so let’s say 250,000. This number includes the Kurdish who arguable were insurgent and militarily engaged against the government. Of that 250,000 it is estimated 100.000 were the Kurds. That leaves 150,000 others in 25 years of Husseins rule. That is 6,000 a year. Anyone care to guess the number of “justifiable” homicides committed by police and civilians in th US in the same time period ? Should we add death row ? How about unjustified homicides at 20,000 a year ? Governments and agents of governments kill people all around the world. Some more, some less and for all kinds of different reasons.
Unfortunately, it is not about who “we” focus on, right ? We can install who ever “we” want but unless we are going to make a very, very long term commitment to stay there and insure his very life, it isn’t going to last. The idea of a benevolent strongman sounds nice and I wish for the same but like grandma said, “wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first”. Most people dismiss the idea of Hussein rising to power again in the future as sumarrily as most dismissed the idea of him not possesing WMDs. Heck, I couldn’t even convince the most staunch anti war folks that he didn’t have them. Propoganda is strong medicine but it fades in the face of time. After his trial I expect a sentence of some sort but I entertain the idea of a rise to power that would pardon him and in time another rise to power of his own. Never count out the Tooth Fairy, my good man.
Cite that this number is 20,000 or even anywhere near that? You can’t just make up a number and run with it. And don’t forget the population of the US is 10x that of Iraq.
Of course the other thing you seem to be missing, Niceguy, is that what you call “unjstified homicides” by police are rarely, if ever, deliberate. The police don’t go out hunting for political enemies of the government and then execute them. Hussein’s victims include untold numbers of people who were simply on the wrong side of the political situation.
Attempting to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of US policemen and the actions of S.H. is revolting.
No, it’s the murder rate and has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. I would expect, though, that accidental killings by police would be a tad lower than the overall murder rate, wouldn’t you? Just a tad… :rolleyes:
