posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:03 PM
Saddam by our estimates killed 350,000 people through oppression over a 30 year period, arguably its more when you take into account his decisions as
leader but I support virtually all those decisions for separate reasons (usually for the ones they were taken). But you asked me to stick to the point
so I will.
So how do I support this big bad man who by my own admission killed all these people?
Simple: He brought political stability to Iraq. The "insurgency" is not knew. It was there way before Saddam was anywhere near power, you can back
in time hundreds of years and it was still there.
The reasons for this tend also not to have changed for hundreds and even thousands of years. Iraq is made up of many different ethnic and cultural
tribal groups. A minority are secular Muslims, a majority are fundamentalist. They have ideological beliefs that are opposed to each other in many
In part because of Iraq’s tribal society these groups have thought each more or less constantly.
The only thing that changes in time is the size of the OPEN fighting. Under Saddam the fighting appeared to be small, but when you look at why so many
of the people he killed ended up getting killed the reasons usually dates back to these cultural differences.
So in a way the fighting has never stopped, just that sometimes it has been more by the state against the insurgency, or more against the state by
insurgency (as is today’s case).
A fundamentalist leader will mostly torture and kill secular people; a secular leader like Saddam will mostly torture and kill fundamentalists.
What does change is that if the state does takes control of the country it becomes "stable". Investors are attracted, and many people will live
ordinary lives. Only the true nutcases will get themselves in the mass graves, and yes if you receive Iranian bribes to sture up trouble in Iraq that
includes you Kurds.
The means are brutal but stability is achieved. Arguably you need to watch your back and deploy brutal means if you want to hold onto power in a
country such as Iraq.
And for the vast majority of people who just want to live their lives this is a good thing. Such a good thing that Iraqi living standards where far
higher under Saddam before the sanctions, and still higher after the sanctions than they are today.
It is arguable that Saddam saved more lives by bringing to stability to Iraq than he killed through the oppression that brought the stability in the
first place. Therefore my eyes he is certainly justified. Simple.
Now with that answered I will move onto his decisions which in human terms he falls down on most. The Iran Iraq war happened because a section of the
river Tiqruis (can't spell it) was handed to the Iranians on the understanding that they would stop bribing the Kurds. Unfortunately they didn’t so
Saddam invaded Iran at the cost of well over a million lives in total.
As for Kuwait he simply tried to re-unite the territory with Iraq, after they flooded the oil market which made brought into recession due debts built
up from the Iran Iraq war. Kuwait’s earliest history goes back to 1710, and was only made truly independant and made to include as much of Iraq’s
oil wealth as possible within its boarders under colonial British rule in the early 1920's. This was deliberately and openly done to "divide and
rule" over Iraq’s oil wealth encase Iraq became too powerful in the future. Before that Kuwait had been part of Iraq for over 5200 years.
Given that Saddam warned Kuwait to cut its oil production at a time Iraq owed much debt i think he was totally justified.
But yes unfortunate not have found himself a way out that would have been acceptable to the Iraqi people once we warned and told him to get out. But
he had a reason. He knew with the economy been in the state it was, and with the military so strong, that he almost certainly overthrown had he openly
done what we were telling him to do, because we told him to do it. Its a disgrace in the Arab world.
As for this war the guy unilaterally disarmed on the understanding sanctions would end. What more could he have done. We knew he had disarmed and
would have had the bulls to invade a country with WMD's unless it was totally urgent.
That is why i support Saddam. For bringing stability (despite the blood cost), and for bringing 1st world living standards before the sanctions to
over 90% of the population. And like him because his military decisions were just, although I do not disagree that they were highly regrettable, so
therefore (with high sight) should certainly have been smarter.
Throwback: I think he over reacted with the Iran Iraq war and should have ignored our support for this war, and if he had done that Kuwait may never
But my opinion that although saddam was brutal, but he was so in the right region.
P.S. Some of my other posts explain my support too but I hope I’ve answered your question directly.
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]