It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Saddam Died Brave

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 08:48 AM

originally posted by: SPECULUM
If Bush had left Saddam alone, Isis in Iraq wouldn't exist. And for sure all the Murdering Lying Sunnies would have remained on a real short leash.

Bush and his greedy cronies have opened a Pandora's box that can never be closed

Instead of wasting taxpayers money on Iraq they should have finished up in Afghanistan with Binladen first, and none of this would be happening now and innocent lives would have been saved

If the first Bush had left Saddam alone, he'd still be in Kuwait and maybe have invaded other countries as well.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 09:37 AM
You're praising the life of a murdering dictator? What's next, an Ode To Hitler?

I'll bet all the money in the world you wouldn't be his fan if you had to 'live' under his rule, assuming you were able to live at all.


edit on 6/19/2015 by Blaine91555 because: Insult removed

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 11:31 AM
I wonder if Saddam was brave in life? In a perverse way he probably thought it was brave to order the Halabja gassings, or the any number of other crimes and atrocities.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:10 PM
a reply to: paraphi

When shtf in his capitol city he ran and hid.

Imo someone who is brave stands and fights for what is theirs. This guy did not even try to fight. He lead from the rear telling his troops to fight while he was running for his life. And we see what that got him. I would atleast give him credit if he tried to hold out in his palace against the odds but he ran and hid like a coward and thus my conclusion on his "bravery".

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 01:02 PM
a reply to: alphastrike101

So what do you think the under ground bunker at the white house is for ?

(post by DiggerDogg removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 01:26 PM
a reply to: tom.farnhill

Staying in the capitol to direct operations in the face of overwhelming odds is not at all what saddam did. Or even a tactical retreat to organize and plan a counter offensive is not even close to what saddam did. A strategic command and control bunker is not even close to where saddam was.

I fail to see how your post is anything but a non sequitur.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 02:28 PM
Sickening OP.

This man is guilty of subjugating his own people for his and his families gain.

More importantly, the article posted is hateful, calling Shias "monkeys".

The OP is a racist with an agenda.
edit on 19-6-2015 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 02:51 PM
a reply to: DiggerDogg

The US did not lack power to control Iraq. The new Iraqi government did that.

The pull out of US troops gave isis the chance to take a weak Iraqi government. After the surge there was the most peace Iraq had seen in years. Then the pull out caused a power vaccum the new government could not fill.

It does not take a brave person to be a ruthless dictator. It does however take bravery to fight and I did not see saddam staying to fight. I seen him run and hide like cowards do. He did not stay to fight for his capitol.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 02:59 PM
As soon as the Iraqi's get up off their asses, pick up some rifles, and start fighting for their own country for a change, MAYBE things will get better for them. Or can ONLY American's die for your beloved land?

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 03:47 PM
whoever wrote this article has a sick fetish for saddam. he gassed his own people and is nothing short of a coward that is rotting in hell at this very moment.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 04:07 PM

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
whoever wrote this article has a sick fetish for saddam. he gassed his own people and is nothing short of a coward that is rotting in hell at this very moment.

It was the Kurds he gassed. Which, presumably to the OP is quite acceptable.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 04:09 PM
a reply to: nightbringr

You presume way too much.

Where has the OP said any such thing?

The OP has a differing take on the execution of Saddam...nothing more.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 04:28 PM
Saddam may have indeed been a brutal dictator (the Kurds, anyone?) BUT you cannot deny that the country was significantly better off -- stable & safe -- before we decided to usurp that balance while claiming it was for "freedom".

Both the Saddam era government & American government have blood on their hands, there is no use trying to say otherwise for either. The difference is, we have more of it on ours than his did. He certainly did gas the Kurds & held executions, but we've been killing the citizens off directly & indirectly since the first utterance of Shock & Awe on TV.

The last defining difference is his method was a measure of control for a stable country. Our method shattered it with even less remorse, leaving it a war-torn ruined shell of it's former self. It seems pretty clear to me today who of the two is the bigger menace. Hindsight, it's 20/20.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 05:14 PM
People are letting their emotions run wild in this thread. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted this. All I'm seeing here is knee-jerk after knee-jerk.

I am a racist now, who wants to see Kurds killed? For record, I'm strongly pro-Kurdistan. They've been through enough, it's long past time that they have a country for themselves. That is, if ISIS doesn't swallow them up.

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 05:23 PM
Wait, so my entire post got removed for a "manners violation" while the other guy's just got snipped? He ended his post with "moron" and I did the same in a sarcastic way. But my entire post gets removed, and his doesn't, when we both used the same "insult"?

There is some serious bias here, apparently among moderators too.
edit on 19-6-2015 by DiggerDogg because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 05:56 PM
Saddam Hussein & stability in the region...
Saddam Hussein was a true dictator, no one muscles in on his turf, and if they tried he would exterminate them immediately. His ruthless acts kept a certain amount of stability in that region, since his death a mad max syndrome is the game of the day! a reply to: DiggerDogg

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 06:36 PM
a reply to: TownCryer

It's a bit ironic isn't it , when they were fighting the invading US army you called them insurgents ,

now they are being invaded again by forces that have been armed by the US and you take them to task for not fighting enough . don't forget the invaders the first time round killed most of the men that would be fighting back now .

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 01:46 AM
No he didn't and he wasn't!

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 03:52 AM

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: introvert


Don't buy it. Will never buy it.

His crimes, and those of his sons, and his political party go beyond ruthless by a fair margin.

ETA: (phone rang) hit the send button before I was done...

The end (order) doesn't excuse the means used. It can't. Because that leads down a dark road.

You obviously don't understand the Middle East. The Christian notion of means justify the ends plays little to no role there. The end result matters much more from a practical standpoint. Saddam was ruthless, but he wasn't out killing Christians (ironic) just for being Christian like the filth running roughshod over Iraq and Syria are doing now.

That video I looked up was beautiful in a strange way. The man laughed at his killers. It doesn't get much more OG than that.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in