Saddam Hussein

I'm beginning to believe that Saddam may have been a cool guy. He did emancipate the women and forced different religions to live peacefully side by side after all. Also everything you hear about him sounds like the typical imperialist propaganda bullshit along the lines of human rights, personality cult, corruption, etc., and since that really doesn't sound credible at all, I'd just like to hear some opinions and facts on what the man did and what you think of what he did, since this place is a very much better place to learn about history than Wikipedia.

Read the latest RedCommisar's post about the rights of women in Saddam's Iraq.
Also,do you know that he killed communists? I mean,he was an anti-communist reactionary even if Iraq under his rule was doing better than today.
It's kinda stupid to try to "rehabilitate" Pol Pot,Saddam and other degenerates.

Stalin killed communists too. So, does this mean that he was a reactionary? Certainly not. The liberation of women and the almost complete abolishment of Shari'a law sound pretty progressive to me.

Also, stop categorizing people into "heroes" and "degenerates". Every historical person has good and bad sides, and nobody is perfect or entirely bad. Even the Taliban's struggle has some validity, and even Marx and Lenin were wrong on some things. It's good to have a nuanced view on everything instead of fanatical rejection or applause.

Saddam and crew were simple demagogic degenerates who weren't ennobled by rubbing up raw against Uncle Sam. Remember, Saddam was for years one of America's best friends. His war against Iran was funded by the US, as was a significant portion of his whole career. He simply overstepped his bounds at the exact wrong time, and wasn't sufficiently cringing in his apology. If not for that, he'd be in power as we speak.

Quote:

Stalin killed communists too. So, does this mean that he was a reactionary? Certainly not.

Stalin's cases for killing the Communists was different than Saddam's. Stalin was paranoid about purity and implementation of socialism- Saddam on the other hand just plain did not approve of Communism. When Ba'ath first came to power they brought ICP, Kurds, and other repressed elements of Iraq into government. When Saddam secured power he first got rid of the Kurds, then turned against the ICP in a brutal manner- it is suspected by some that Saddam was encouraged by the CIA to get rid of particularly troublesome Communists who were in the country at the time.

For what it's worth the Syrian Ba'ath party at least tried to keep the Syrian Communist Party into their government- Saddam Hussein purged them out of existence in Iraq and many of them went into exile in Syria and Europe.

Simply put- he killed Communists because he did not like Communism. Saddam Hussein was pretty adamant against Communism in the region and to that end tried to emulate Egypt's path of getting support from both the Soviet Union and the United States. His racial views were less than admirable too- he republished a tract from a family member in the 1980s that summed up his social stance well enough- "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies", which was part of his justification alongside with paying off clerics in his war against Iran and his genocides against Kurdish people. And of course we don't need to get into the part about Jews.

I mean Stalin has no influence on how we should view Saddam. I certainly am not weighting him against Saddam as I would against any other person. I'm looking at Saddam by his own merits, what little he had that is.

The only place where Saddam was truly "radical" was giving the state control of Iraq's oil resources for the first time in its history. The rest of the economy remained the same. Unfortunately he squandered that opportunity by building palaces everywhere and building up an army hoping to be the bulwark of a pan-Arab state. Not a workers' state. A Pan-Arab state. AFAIK Stalin wasn't a pan-Slavist.

Quote:

The liberation of women and the almost complete abolishment of Shari'a law sound pretty progressive to me.

All these things were on paper but were they carried out in practice? The Communists in Afghanistan at least tried to help women get into university- it was a different case in Saddam's Iraq where it was largely limited to those who had money or party connections. Family life did not look much different beyond no more forced clothing on the women. Shari'a law wasn't really a problem in Iraq to begin with either, to be honest.

I mean these things are good and all but the thing is you can find them in other Muslim nations too- Turkey did much of the same thing and the monarchy of Iran was also known for this. Does that mean they are good states and we should applaud them for that, while ignoring their own abuses?

If this is what Saddam Hussein's alternative to Shari'a law was in Iraq, then I'm not sure what is there to applaud:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JMMHMRSO
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JYXY6EYA
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VQ5STYY6
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SJNJTIJR

Quote:

Also, stop categorizing people into "heroes" and "degenerates". Every historical person has good and bad sides, and nobody is perfect or entirely bad. Even the Taliban's struggle has some validity, and even Marx and Lenin were wrong on some things. It's good to have a nuanced view on everything instead of fanatical rejection or applause.

This is a man whose main legacy for Iraq will be divisive nationalism. I don't really think he's going to be judged too favorably beyond being able to keep Islamists out of the country. Would you have cared much for him had he not been the target of American imperialism?

There are positive things and negative things about Saddam. He did lead a socialist and secular Iraq but he also had a giant personality cult and his son Uday was basically allowed to do what evere he wanted including driving around shooting ak's, torturing people (including the Iraqi football team), ect. But Iraq was alot better under Saddam then it is now and his war with Iran can be justified it helped him keep a secular Iraq. If you like Saddam you might like Syria it's a socialist state ruled by the Ba'ath party and it's alot less aggressive then the Iraqi Ba'ath party they even work with the Syrian communist party.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National ... sive_Front

Quote:

His war against Iran was funded by the US

So the USSR and Yugoslavia supported Iraq too during the war and North Korea supported Iran.

Quote:

war with Iran can be justified it helped him keep a secular Iraq.

What? Saddam started the Iran-Iraq war over territorial concessions in the Persian Gulf he had made to the Iranian Monarchy, which he declared null and void with the change in government.

How did Saddam open the war? By referring to the Islamic conquest of Iran by Arabs, playing up the nationalist angle once again.

Quote:

In your name, brothers, and on behalf of the Iraqis and Arabs everywhere we tell those Persian cowards and dwarfs who try to avenge Al-Qadisiyah that the spirit of Al-Qadisiyah as well as the blood and honor of the people of Al-Qadisiyah who carried the message on their spearheads are greater than their attempts.

Certainly he is preaching the solidarity of workers, yes?

Iraq was interested in further cementing itself as a Middle-Eastern power, and the way to do that was to take down Iran. The government felt that if they attacked Iran while it was going through civil strife, they could knock it down easily and possibly make good on irredentist claims on the Abadan province in Iran- which also happens to be oil rich.

Iraq was in no way "socialist" under Ba'ath rule. Iraq's economic program only enacted radical changes to the oil industry- no where else. It did not go the lengths that Syria did- most other industries were kept in line and simply had to be put onto footing with the state.

And I like how you ignored the executions of Communist activists and the Anfal Campaign (another reference to the religious history by the secular leader ). I suppose these never happened.

Quote:

So the USSR and Yugoslavia supported Iraq too during the war and North Korea supported Iran.

USSR provided a lot of material aid- but that doesn't make his action any more "socialist". The US's support of Iraq can not be understated though- they helped secure credit for Iraq for loans, made sure the other Arab gulf states would back his bill, and did the bear spares programs. Much of his biochemical weapons programs had a lot to owe to state department aid that was marked under "medical" research.

But on the flip side, Syria also helped provide rocket technologies to Iran. There was no ideological consistency on this battle- it was regional imperialism by Iraq. What ever bullshit the regime needed to claim to justify it-be it to their people or foreign supporters- they were not afraid to it.

Iraq would have been a lot better off not doing that disastrous war. If anything Iran-Iraq led to the chain of events that led to Iraq where it is now.

Quote:

Stalin killed communists too. So, does this mean that he was a reactionary? Certainly not

Stalin's was a communist,and Saddam wasn't.Stalin initiated bloody and horrible purges of his own party(often eliminating innocent and honest members) but Saddam was trying to destroy the Communist party itself and baffle the revolution,while Stalin's goal was the development of socialism.

Quote:

There are positive things and negative things about Hitler

Fix'd.

Quote:

He did lead a socialist

Did you read Red Commisar's post?
How was Saddam's Iraq socialist?
(I hope that your definition of "socialism" doesn't include Hitler's Germany)

Quote:

So the USSR and Yugoslavia supported Iraq too during the war and North Korea supported Iran.

No one "supported" any of the warring parties.This was simply a war many countries saw as a great opportunity to make profit from selling weapons.Ideology didn't play a role,just money.
Both Iraq and Iran often bought weapons from same countries.
The "support" you're talking about is just disgusting war-profiteering.

Quote:

Also, stop categorizing people into "heroes" and "degenerates". Every historical person has good and bad sides, and nobody is perfect or entirely bad

Yeah,so? Reinventing the wheel now?
I assume Mussolini had "good sides" too,but i'll never hesitate to call him degenerate scum.

Order227 wrote:

Saddam was for years one of America's best friends. His war against Iran was funded by the US, as was a significant portion of his whole career.

I love how when he fought Iran the US said that they would help him and that they were friends. Then a few years later The US went to war with Iraq. It's basically how the US will support dictators as long as it benefits them in some way. Anyways I don't think Saddam was a spectacular leader but Iraq was certainly better under him than it is today. Also in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq I kinda wanted Saddam to win just because I hated Bush and thought the whole invasion of Iraq was completely pointless and unjust. I still do.

There's no question that W acted against decades of tried-and-true Yankee policy when he went on his vendetta to bring down Saddam and show Daddy he was Presidential material as well. Saddam was an essential linchpin in keeping Iran at bay, and the bulk of America's Middle Eastern policy intact. For years, Saddam obligingly executed Islamists and other random elements with Uncle Sam's tacit approval, and was seen as a stabilizing influence in the region. From the perspective of bourgeois geopolitics, disabling and removing Saddam was a serious tactical error, for which the Western World is now paying a serious price.

Order227 wrote:

the Western World is now paying a serious price

Well serves them right the US had no business in Iraq. Also anyone remember those Iraqi most wanted cards?

Yeah I knew that and I remember Aziz, I had kinda forgotten about him. I also remember Chemical Ali and he was the King of spades. I don't know why but I was interested in him for a while.

What is now "Iraq" has had a long history of being screwed over by foreign interests, from British Mandate to puppet Kingdom, to the days of Kassem, and through Ba'ath and the imperialist occupation.

It's a shame considering that Iraq's oil wealth is very high, it has been squandered by each successive regime.

That being said Saddam's image is still strong among Sunni Arabs, particularly those in Mosul now. A hot item among them are various things with Saddam's image on them, including watches. He still receives respect from his tribe in the Tikrit area too.

As far as his image ways, Saddam Hussein tried to put himself in the shoes of the next helmsman of the Arab Nationalist movement, in the vein of Nasser. Same case for Hafez Al-Assad in Syria and for awhile Qadaffi in Libya. Of the three Saddam probably had the most going militarily for that end but nothing much beyond that.

His shoddy attempts at trying to make it seem he was practising peaceful ethnic coexistence as opposed to the Arab Nationalism was amusing too. There was a propaganda picture of Saddam decked out in Kurdish clothing trying to say that they meant to harm to their culture or something.

Quote:

What? Saddam started the Iran-Iraq war over territorial concessions in the Persian Gulf he had made to the Iranian Monarchy, which he declared null and void with the change in government.

Saddam started the war to stop the spreading of radical Islamic thought to Iraq. Also because of the war he got to build the Hands of Victory.

Saddam was a fascist dictator and a butcher. The positive reforms in Iraq, such as gender equality and nationalization, were not brought by Saddam, but by the revolution. The Iranian revolution too brought nationalization and the women's right to vote, but I don't think anyone would describe the Iranian regime as a socialist one.

Quote:

Saddam started the war to stop the spreading of radical Islamic thought to Iraq

Well financed by the United States...

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had the most advanced social programs in the Middle East but his progressive policies don't excuse his actions in Iran during the 1980s and his cult of personality. The US were more or less happy to fund his adventures in Iran but when he annexed Kuwait in 1990, the US discarded him, hunted him down 13 years later and executed him through a show trial. That's what the US does to puppets and Saddam was too delusional to realise and he paid the ultimate price for his disobedience.

Gaddafi sure got the message though, and "cleaned" up his act accordingly. The only major new player who has emerged has been Bin Laden, but even he had to be torn free of all moorings (officially anathematized by his own country) to stake his claim as Uncle Sam's "Public Enemy No. 1".

Quote:

Saddam started the war to stop the spreading of radical Islamic thought to Iraq. Also because of the war he got to build the Hands of Victory.

If he was concerned about that Saddam would have intervened to help the royalists of the Iranian monarch in the midst of the revolution- or better yet the communists and socialist who would lose their lives in the following months, that is if he is the good socialist you claim him to be.

Except he didn't.

Saddam's chief reason for invading Iran was his eye on power, for himself and for his agenda in the Middle-East. He was wanting to solidify his position as the helmsman of Arab Nationalism, a title that was contested between him and Al-Assad over who would be the next Nasser. The way to do that was knock out Iran and possibly annex the oil-rich fields in Abadan along the border.

By the way, what are you trying to show me with the war memorial? How does that show what he was fighting for or make one socialist?

Quote:

The US were more or less happy to fund his adventures in Iran but when he annexed Kuwait in 1990, the US discarded him, hunted him down 13 years later and executed him through a show trial.

This is true, they were hoping to use Saddam to prevent a change in the balance of power in the Middle-East that Iran was presenting. Of course the US had not declared war after Iraq's occupation of Kuweit- they were hoping maybe he would stop after that. George HW Bush declared during the crisis that they would not intervene in local and regional disputes- referring to the actions Saddam was doing in the North and South against rebellions there and in Kuweit. I guess maybe they hoped his appetite would be pleased with Kuweit and a better position on the Persian Gulf that he failed to secure with Iran, and reach an agreement with Saddam and the Gulf States over the debt payments.

The problem was over the debts Saddam racked up in the Iran-Iraq War. The credit the United States arranged for Iraq was now wanting to be paid back, and this meant for Saddam his oil revenues would be in danger. He also owed debts to Kuweit, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf States over this issue, and I guess he was frustrated with this lack of Arab solidarity when they called him up to pay back debts.

More over I suppose he was eyeing a possibility to fix the black eye he received from the war. By securing the Peninsula and succeeding where Nasser had failed, he would without a doubt become the chief power in the Middle-East and Arab Nationalists would follow him. One of the arguments he used in the invasion of Saudi Arabia was that the Gulf States were puppets of America and were filled with foreigners- south Asians- who were leeching off the oil industries. So naturally his argument to knock down these corrupt states and declaring the coming pan-Arab state was appealing. Though this interfered with regional power balance, and indeed with the oil reserves in question would have had international ramifications- so the US began to get ready.

It was only when his tanks began to turn towards Saudi Arabia did the United States leap into action and launch Desert Shield. Once that was over this was followed up with Desert Shield on Kuweit.

Saddam Hussein was a capitalist dictator, who most of the time cooperated with the USA.
His persecution and annihilation of Kurds, Shia's and leftists is unacceptable indeed.
Nevertheless, it is without doubt that Iraq was better of under Saddam than it is now, and that the American invasion of the nations was a completely and utterly unjustified and criminal act.