Your feeling on Saddam Hussein?

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Here's mine;

 

Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.

At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.

Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised, and roughly two-thirds were peasants. But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as the country invested much of its oil profits into industrial expansion.

Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers.The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agricultural development in 1974-1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.

Saddam became personally associated with Ba'athist welfare and economic development programs in the eyes of many Iraqis, widening his appeal both within his traditional base and among new sectors of the population. These programs were part of a combination of "carrot and stick" tactics to enhance support in the working class, the peasantry, and within the party and the government bureaucracy.

Saddam's organizational prowess was credited with Iraq's rapid pace of development in the 1970s; development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million persons from other Arab countries and even Yugoslavia worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for

labor.

 

For you all who probably didn't read it or tl;dr Summary;

Saddam made Iraq economically better with more social and healthcare.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Francisco Franco Bah

[fistofdoom]

also, superman

[Franz Von Dietrich]

While we're glorifying genocidal dictators, what are your thoughts on Hitler, Stalin, Qaddafi, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and Mussolini? 

Mussolini never targeted race, like Hitler. Saddam didn't actually genocide, he only attacked the Kurds due to them believing "OH! LETS HAVE INDEPEDENCE!"

[Franz Von Dietrich]

With chemical weapons.... twice....

THE FUNNY THING IS; Who help Saddam create them? THAT'S RIGHT, America. And read my entire Forum post I made for this topic, it'll give you a change of heart instead of what the British call "Banter".

Edited April 8, 2015 by Francisco Franco Bah

[Franz Von Dietrich]

And that justifies the use of them against civilian populations? If you truly believe that, then you really need to go see someone. Because your morals are severealy lacking.

If they wanted to live, should've done their Indepedence movements more peacefully, because if I recall, the Kurdistan Area is very violent with their uprisings. Saddam>ISIS. It's going to be worst for the Kurds, if the Iraqis lose the war against ISIS.

[elsuper]

Pros:

-Order +5

-Social Services +5

-Education +5

 

Cons:

-Brutality, esp. chemical weapons -10

-Poor foreign policy decisions that sparked the ire of great powers (especially invading Kuwait, and later kicking out weapons inspectors, what did he think would happen? Also, launching missiles against nations not attacking him during Desert Storm) -10

 

Overall -5/10 would not recommend.

[Dwemyrn]

And that justifies the use of them against civilian populations? If you truly believe that, then you really need to go see someone. Because your morals are severely lacking.

He doesn't need help. The weapon issue over there is America's fault because we supplied it, in true justified fact, our stupidy was the cause of the problem, not necessarily their usage of what we hand them willingly although it does contribute to the issue as well.

[MRBOOTY]

Saddam killed 300000 innocent Kurds with gas.

That is undoubtably a genocide, and pressure from abroad is the only reason why to the end it did not last.

[fistofdoom]

The person who pulls the trigger is vastly more fault than the person who sold the gun.

[Dan77]

Well they're not exactly your own thoughts on Saddam Hussein are they.  It's just selective copy-pasting from Wikipedia.  You didn't even bother to change the wording.

 

Also, wtf is it with the evil dictator loving on these forums?  Genocide is not cool kids.

[Oskar]

Honestly, all in all, Hussein could have been worse. It is true that the economy has broken since he has fallen. Iraq is now pretty much a helpless broken nation. If Saddam Hussein hadn't fallen, it is possible ISIS would not have risen. Since Hussein has fallen, Iraqis have not even had food or running water. They at least had these under the dictatorship.

 

However, he has done horrible things as well. He used chemical weapons on the Kurds, just because they wanted independence. This is not acceptable. It is absolutely despicable. He is therefore comparable to the likes of Kim-Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, and perhaps Mussolini, but he shouldn't be compared to Hitler, Mao or Stalin. 

[Desertfalcon]

Yes, Saddam did murder innocent civilians with chemical weapons.

However, America supplied the weapons several years before.

However, George Washington and the founding fathers created America several centuries prior.

However, the British Monarch King George incited the colonists to revolt

However, the British Monarch Queen Elizabeth was the one who started to attempt colonization

However, Queen Elizabeth was motivated to colonize America due to the Spanish

However, the Spanish were motivated by Christopher Columbus and other explorers.

However, Columbus received funding because the Spanish wanted a sea route to Asia

However, the Europeans only needed a sea route because the Turks captured Constantinople

However, Constantinople wouldn't have fallen had the Roman Empire never declined

However, the Roman Empire never would've declined had they not angered Zeus (A friend of Dio)

However, the Romans Empire never would've angered Zeus had it not been for Jesus taking over

However, the true religion has, and will always be Dioism.

However, the Kurds were not Dioists.

 

Therefore the Kurds are responsible for Hussein's systematic killing of innocent Kurds because they rejected the God Emperor.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Desertfalcon

[Director]

Lets not all forget Saddam's attempts to anchluss his neighbors. He tried to annex some Iranian land, ended up driving the country into an 8 year long quagmire that drove the Iraqi economy into the ground. He then went on to try and grab Kuwait, only to have the Iraqi army get trashed by western airpower. So no, Saddam was not a wonderful dictator, he doesn't even make it to half decent. I can understand arguments supporting autocrats like Lee Kuan Yew, who actually did useful things for their nations, but Hussein did little more than screw his nation over, almost as badly as Western management of Iraq did, even.

[Oskar]

Lets not all forget Saddam's attempts to anchluss his neighbors. He tried to annex some Iranian land, ended up driving the country into an 8 year long quagmire that drove the Iraqi economy into the ground. He then went on to try and grab Kuwait, only to have the Iraqi army get trashed by western airpower. So no, Saddam was not a wonderful dictator, he doesn't even make it to half decent. I can understand arguments supporting autocrats like Lee Kuan Yew, who actually did useful things for their nations, but Hussein did little more than screw his nation over, almost as badly as Western management of Iraq did, even.

I completely agree. My point, however, was that the U.S. overthrowing him did not help. They should have been more careful and slowly progressed. When Hussein fell, Iraq was helpless. The U.S. should have put more effort into restabilizing. With the rise of ISIS, Iraq barely exists as a nation. Were Saddam Hussein there, Iraq would have a massive army ready to defend Iraq. Now, that army wouldn't have been meant for use against terrorists, rather against other nations, but it would have done the job. Saddam Hussein was still a malevolent dictator who ruined the world's opinion of Iraq.

[Director]

I completely agree. My point, however, was that the U.S. overthrowing him did not help. They should have been more careful and slowly progressed. When Hussein fell, Iraq was helpless. The U.S. should have put more effort into restabilizing. With the rise of ISIS, Iraq barely exists as a nation. Were Saddam Hussein there, Iraq would have a massive army ready to defend Iraq. Now, that army wouldn't have been meant for use against terrorists, rather against other nations, but it would have done the job. Saddam Hussein was still a malevolent dictator who ruined the world's opinion of Iraq.

 

Would Saddam have stopped ISIS? Possibly. I mean, the Iraqi army was quite badly crushed after the Kuwait invasion, but I dunno the exact statistics there. Would Iraq have been more peaceful under Saddam? Not quite. I imagine that the Syrian civil war would have been seen as another perfect little oppertunity to expand by Hussein. If not that, then he would have found some other people to kill off.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Director

[Red Huxley]

He invaded Kuwait. He dead.

[Fox Fire]

Would Saddam have stopped ISIS? Possibly. I mean, the Iraqi army was quite badly crushed after the Kuwait invasion, but I dunno the exact statistics there. Would Iraq have been more peaceful under Saddam? Not quite. I imagine that the Syrian civil war would have been seen as another perfect little oppertunity to expand by Hussein. If not that, then he would have found some other people to kill off.

ISIS wouldn't even exist if we didn't invade. The explosion of Al-Queda allied groups in Iraq was the public reaction to our invasion.

[Director]

ISIS wouldn't even exist if we didn't invade. The explosion of Al-Queda allied groups in Iraq was the public reaction to our invasion.

 

Eh, had Saddam stayed in power, I'd expect that even though there wouldn't be an IS, there would still be similar levels of bloodshed for the sole reason that Saddam had a penchant for slaughter. If Saddam had clung onto power, I imagine that there would be a few more Kurdish genocides, for sure. The marsh Arabs wouldn't be doing so well either, assuming that any would be left.

[Fox Fire]

Eh, had Saddam stayed in power, I'd expect that even though there wouldn't be an IS, there would still be similar levels of bloodshed for the sole reason that Saddam had a penchant for slaughter. If Saddam had clung onto power, I imagine that there would be a few more Kurdish genocides, for sure. The marsh Arabs wouldn't be doing so well either, assuming that any would be left.

Yeah, I can totally see how absolute anarchy and ISIS executions are somehow a better alternative....

[Director]

Yeah, I can totally see how absolute anarchy and ISIS executions are somehow a better alternative....

 

Either its Saddam mass gassing people, while brutally putting down(rather anarchic) uprisings, or its ISIS executing people. I'll agree, its not the prettiest options, but sadly, saying that keeping Saddam around is the better choice doesn't quite match with the amount of damage he could have done compared to what ISIS is currently doing.

 

Honestly, I'd say that the US should have overthrown Saddam, but not fully disbanded the Ba'ath party. Purged it, yes, but kept the Iraqi government in power for administrative purposes, and the Ba'athist military(the bit that won't go about genociding people) ought to have been kept around, but disarmed. Things went wrong partly because the US disbanded all existing Iraqi institutions, rendering the country ungovernable.

 

Of course, that's all just in retrospect.

[Fox Fire]

Either its Saddam mass gassing people, while brutally putting down(rather anarchic) uprisings, or its ISIS executing people. I'll agree, its not the prettiest options, but sadly, saying that keeping Saddam around is the better choice doesn't quite match with the amount of damage he could have done compared to what ISIS is currently doing.

 

Honestly, I'd say that the US should have overthrown Saddam, but not fully disbanded the Ba'ath party. Purged it, yes, but kept the Iraqi government in power for administrative purposes, and the Ba'athist military(the bit that won't go about genociding people) ought to have been kept around, but disarmed. Things went wrong partly because the US disbanded all existing Iraqi institutions, rendering the country ungovernable.

 

Of course, that's all just in retrospect.

Prove it.

 

I say we should have never gone in to begin with. Our entire justification for the war was proven false, and even the WMD's we did find were created via supply of none other than good 'ol USA!

Things went wrong the moment we invaded and millions of Muslims realized how unjust and !@#$ed up it all was. It was a lost war from day 0.

[fistofdoom]

Prove it.

 

I say we should have never gone in to begin with. Our entire justification for the war was proven false, and even the WMD's we did find were created via supply of none other than good 'ol USA!

Things went wrong the moment we invaded and millions of Muslims realized how unjust and !@#$ed up it all was. It was a lost war from day 0.

 

then, i guess sitting around with a thumb up our butt is always the best decision when we at least have the capacity, if not the so-successful resume, to stop crazy f---s from killing hundreds of thousands of their own citizens. since however-many decades later there might be some regime or group of crazies that will use intervention as a means to start crap up again. never mind trying to help, since we might

i dont care to have the argument, never mind 

[Director]

Prove it.

 

I say we should have never gone in to begin with. Our entire justification for the war was proven false, and even the WMD's we did find were created via supply of none other than good 'ol USA!

Things went wrong the moment we invaded and millions of Muslims realized how unjust and !@#$ed up it all was. It was a lost war from day 0.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

 

Idiotic war launched by Saddam that killed far more people than ISIS has(at least I think so, there seems to be some debate over how much exactly ISIS has killed). Also crushed Iraq economically.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

 

Over 80K people killed, in an uprising against a guy who supposedly is able to keep stability and is a bastion of justice.

 

These two incidents alone suggest that yes, Saddam was an insane dick with the ability and the willingness to kill hundreds of thousands more than ISIS could.

 

And oh, yes the USA did help him get WMDs alright, I'll not be championing the west in that regard, but I'll certainly not be supporting Saddam in how he used them. Nor do I support the way the US handled the war against Iraq, or the way it handled the country's governance. But the results of keeping Saddam around would be far from pretty. At best, he invades his neighbors again, at worst, he gasses his own people, again.

[Fox Fire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

 

Idiotic war launched by Saddam that killed far more people than ISIS has(at least I think so, there seems to be some debate over how much exactly ISIS has killed). Also crushed Iraq economically.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

 

Over 80K people killed, in an uprising against a guy who supposedly is able to keep stability and is a bastion of justice.

 

These two incidents alone suggest that yes, Saddam was an insane !@#$ with the ability and the willingness to kill hundreds of thousands more than ISIS could.

 

And oh, yes the USA did help him get WMDs alright, I'll not be championing the west in that regard, but I'll certainly not be supporting Saddam in how he used them. Nor do I support the way the US handled the war against Iraq, or the way it handled the country's governance. But the results of keeping Saddam around would be far from pretty. At best, he invades his neighbors again, at worst, he gasses his own people, again.

Yeah, getting beat down by America does tend to leave some damage....

And do you think he would have used chemical weapons? Fact is, we sold him weapons to kill his own people and then turned around and used that to justify our war against him. Corruption at it's finest. American weapons companies aren't hurting though.

 

Again, I can see how perpetual anarchy and war is so much better than Saddam.

Here's the fact: Saddam was stable. ISIS is the exact opposite, spreading accross the middle east. So I'll just slow clap for you or something. Your home boy Quadaffi should have also remained untouched. But....

 

[Director]

Yeah, getting beat down by America does tend to leave some damage....

And do you think he would have used chemical weapons? Fact is, we sold him weapons to kill his own people and then turned around and used that to justify our war against him. Corruption at it's finest. American weapons companies aren't hurting though.

 

Again, I can see how perpetual anarchy and war is so much better than Saddam.

Here's the fact: Saddam was stable. ISIS is the exact opposite, spreading accross the middle east. So I'll just slow clap for you or something. Your home boy Quadaffi should have also remained untouched. But....

 

I don't just think that he would have used chemical weapons, he did use chemical weapons, numerous times. And war was kinda Saddam's thing. Again, he trapped Iraq in an 8 year long quagmire with Iran, then waited a few years before going to war again in Kuwait. After that, he took a break from the international stage to bomb his own people. Characterizing Saddam's regime as stable and peaceful just doesn't work when you have an uprising where some 80,000 people are killed against the guy. Saddam wanted to spread across the mid east too, as can be seen by his constant failed attempts to anchluss his neighbors.