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.


Saddam Thinks U.S. Will Beg for His Help!!!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:34 PM
yes it looks like saddam has the U.S. over a barrel ( in his own mind ) the question is why would saddam think such a thing ??? does he know something that we dont??

Saddam Hussein believes the United States will have to seek his help to quell the bloody insurgency in Iraq and open the way for U.S. forces to withdraw, his chief lawyer said Sunday.

He's their last resort. They're going to knock at his door eventually," the lawyer said. Saddam is "the only person who can stop the resistance against the U.S. troops."

www.baltimoresun.c... om/news

this is getting stupid for the U.S.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by the_sentinal]

[Mod edit - link shrink ]

[edit on 26/6/2006 by Umbrax]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:40 PM
I think it is a great idea if they reinstate Saddam. He is the only one who can solve these many problems, such as Iran trying to take over Iraq, the possible civil war, etc. With US military backing of course. The US is not going to leave even if Saddam gets into power all together. A huge embassy was built there and permanent military bases as well. They will withdraw troops to satisfy the American public though.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:48 PM
I hate to say it, and it will never actually happen, but he's almost got a point. The US supported him in teh first place because he could control iraq and because he was a good counterweight to Iran.

While hussein clearly isn't going to be brought back (but maybe the US is pressing for the trial to be slowed down, to have the 'fear' that he might come back?), I hope that the US doesn't prop up some other favourable dictator.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:03 PM
while the thought of bringing saddam back sounds like a complete and total joke a part of my logic thinks that only this type of dictator could possibly keep the people in line so I guess I agree with you nygdan, but on the other hand the continued presence of saddam could inflame the Shiite Muslim majority repressed by his regime as the article stated

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:18 PM
Saddam is right but the chances are we will only do it when he is dead. If he thinks its now then he obviously over estimates the intelligence of people leading the U.S. Reasons for doing this? Well I had heard we had denied all news information (it was going in at least the beginning of his detainment). Maybe he never read that article about how (when he was young) George Bush’s parents had surgeons perform a brain transplant from a rat on the front part of the brain? I'm making it up but you get my point.
Speaking of which why did the U.S make up stories about Saddam’s alleged human rights abuses? No doubt they continue to exaggerate it (numbers probably) but there’s one article that really gets my attention. Did you ever hear about Saddam allegedly having opponents thrown into a shredding machine? Well turns out it was bull…

At the very least this is a demonstration of extreme stupidity; in fact he’s an analogy…Say everyday you went to school a bully punched you, would you then go to a teacher and say so and so stabbed me? The teacher asks where, and you say in the stomach!! The teacher asks you to lift up your vest and of course there’s nothing there because you never were stabbed; only punched.

This is exactly the same thing the U.S has been doing, accept like WMD’s rather than sell people the truth they have lied big time; to get us involved in a useless war (which if left to its own devises) democracy would have prevented us from entering (let alone supporting). I ask again “if Saddam was so bad then why did they make so much stuff up?” And in my view it’s probably for the same reason they got rid of him i.e. because they are stupid as well devious.

Before 1991 Iraq had (with 92% literacy) a good education system and free first world health. Only fraction of the counties money went into Saddam’s many palaces and as leader Saddam spent more of his countries money on his own people than any other Arab leader. In fact of coming to power one of the first things Saddam did was nationalise the countries oil wealth which as colonial legacy had been in British and American hands. This act probably saved Iraqis more money than all the money Saddam spent on his palaces and himself put together.

Saddam is probably a natural leader. There are many demonstrations of this but apparently whilst on the run he visited his son’s grave to pay his last respects in spite of it being surrounded by surveillance people.
Saddam is also a secular leader, what this means is that whilst he holds religion he does not believe in imposing it on others, or more to the point taking every holy word literally. This is in contrast to 60% of Iraq’s populate who are Shiite Muslim fundamentalists. Saddam did kill many because they hated him for being secular (him tolerating Arab woman wearing western clothing being among their many objections). And it is my understanding that virtually non of their demands had much to do with democracy; this western concept was never high on their almost totally religious agenda.
When we leave Iraq these people will destroy our democracy probably a bit like a how dog destroys a pair of new slippers. And they will almost certainly side with Iran as culturally and ethnically they are virtually one. And being more like the older generation in power there it looks like Iraq government will finish up being a system modelled on them.
Saddam and his following of secular Sunnis (who make up about 25% of Iraq’s population) could and would avert this. And just like he hated Osma Bin Laden he hated the Iranians for being fundamentalists.
One day maybe a year from now (or perhaps even ten) America must decide how it wants to leave Iraq. Right now it reminds me of a toddler trying to force a piece of jig sill puzzle to make a picture, only the bits don’t fit. It might take a few years but when they realise they will realise they needed that Saddam piece. Only then he will have been (like 3 of his lawyers) executed for a stupid show trial which many Iraqis apparently see as more of a symbol of their foreign military occupation, than laying the past to rest. The Sunnis shout “farce!!” And the Shiite say “we aren’t interested in a trial we just want him dead” and hence one way or another it is a symbol of our occupation; not least in the way that regardless of its conclusion it will have failed; not just in performing justice but especially when Saddam is executed.
And doesn’t it send a great message to the North Korean leader or indeed would be Iotallah Nuclear that this is what happens when you do what we say and get rid of your weapons of mass destruction?

We can trust Saddam to unilaterally disarm in spite of impending invasion (only 3 weeks before they were getting rid of long range missiles which breached the U.N rules as they could fly further than permitted if kept partially unloaded). Saddam only withdrew inspectors after they had been in his country about 6 years; it was us who did it the last time.
We can trust Saddam to keep control of his population; and spend his oil money wisely.
We can trust Saddam not to unite with Iran; deliberately harbour Muslim fundamentalists or blow the world to bits.
And if we said “here are the forces what help do you need?” I bet he wouldn’t commit any actions against human rights that we wouldn’t support. It was our secret service that led Saddam to think he could unite Kuwait with Iraq after only about 70 years apart. And it was the acceptance of Iranian bribes by the Kurds which caused the Iran Iraq war in which over a million died (mostly because we sold weapons to both sides in order to prevent ether conquering the other).

I like Saddam because of his credentials (not least bringing the security Iraq needs).
Maybe your different maybe believe more government or right wing media reports than I do; but everything I know did I would have done if I were in his situation (including getting rid of the WMD’s; a big mistake in hindsight).

If you brought Saddam back the governments friends in the media would have a lot of explaining to do. So chances are they will try to find someone just like him (which can hardly be knowingly done). The polls (working class) would be pissed but ironically if things like Murdoch’s daily papers didn't lie and mislead so much it’s they who for the sake of a better world (or just less trouble) who would welcome him most.

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Saddam is right but the chances are we will only do it when he is dead.

Actually, that might not be a bad idea. Execute saddam in secret, have one of his doubles take his place, in stall him into the command, and then have the double take control of the baathist elements of the insurgency and use them to attack the rest of the insurgency. Meanwhile, keep the democratic government as a sort of administirial governmnet, taking care of the day to day stuff.

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:08 AM
Very good replies.
Nygdan, that idea occurred to me, too.
I know Bill O'Reilly volunteered to go over there; maybe a little make-up...hmmm. Someone like General Pinochet would be nice.
A despot in another country can be good for business and maybe a vicarious dream for an elected leader who craves more power.
We broke Iraq wide open and are having a devil of a time putting it back together.

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 12:35 PM
Actually Nygdan I think the solution is to hire a double of Saddam and say "now today you've got to pretend your Saddam in court" the double thinks this is a great idea. But when he turns up it turns out the judges are passing judgment "I'm not Saddam he screams" yeah, yeah pull the other one says everyone else "the Gallows are this way..."

Although a bit tight on the double I'm sure it could be justified if you got the double to agree that the reason for pretending to be Saddam would be to unfairly pervert the course of justice by sabotaging his case (kind of ironic I know).

I think this is the better solution because believe me Saddam would be at war with the other elements of the insurgency anyway. You have to remember he is a secular leader; all this stuff about him being pro Al Qaeda is widely acknowledged to be propaganda. Yes Al-Zarie was in Iraq but it was in the northern Kurdish region of Iraq (where a bit like the U.S and the Pakistan border) Saddam had very little control. Virtually everyone who went into Saddam mass graves were Muslim fundamentalists, exactly the same sort who (if things don't change) will align Iraq with Iran. I sympathise with Saddam because although I am liberal towards those who believe in liberalism, I also believe in authoritarianism to those who force their will on others. I.e just like Saddam I have very little time for religious fundamentalists of any description who do that; and therefore end up wanting to hold Iraq (or just about anywhere they go in this world) backwards in time.

Unlike a double, or a puppet leader we actually know what would make Saddam turn on his puppet master. And comparison with the interests of the West this isn't much. We know he is secular, arguably a natural leader, and certainly a practical thinker. We know he cared enough about his own people (those who weren’t in the Stone Age that is) for him to spend so much money on his own country (like the good education and healthcare system before 1991).
That is why there is such a good argument for keeping Saddam; and that is why even if we do get a puppet there is a good chance history will cry on Saddam's grave when ether that puppet is overthrown or turns on his masters.

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:47 AM
Saddam should be released and put back in charge of Iraq . Of course, America should compensate him for the deaths of his sons and his suffering during the last few years. Saddam ruled Iraq with the requsite iron fist needed to keep the terrorists at bay. Saddam understands how to win a war against insurgents. Although, he may be evil, only evil can prevail against evil. Good has no chance.
Just compare tactics... Saddam would send the remains of his enemies to their families in garbage bags. While the ever politically correct America sacrifices its troops to the alter of poltical correctness. In my view, Saddam's way is much wiser.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by irontyrant]


posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:55 PM
saddam rules thats for sure

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:28 AM
Saddam wasn’t evil though he was practical. Evil things have certainly been said about him like the human paper shredder story that has since been proven false, along with many other similar things. In fact if he was so evil why did our government make so much stuff up? For Kuwait they claimed Iraqi forces had ripped babies out of incubators; again it’s been proven false by the person who originally spread it.
The Secular Sunnis still long for when they used to control Iraq, when their woman could where just about any clothing they liked, drive, be educated or be a bread winner (without the certain fear of being beaten up or killed). Saddam's rule had accomplished this in an environment which if left to itself would be as extreme if not more extreme than Iran. Today it is reverting back to that, mass killings are still taking place but by no centralised government with a good objective; instead only the objectives of fundamentalists and those in my view who rightfully resist them. If you are a woman in Iraq I think there can be little doubt that the coalitions actions have imprisoned you. Because under Saddam there was more freedom, and of course if you were a fundamentalist Shiite you could still follow your faith; only it wasn’t so much at the point of gun ether.

In order to advance human liberty there is nothing evil about killing people who by faith or indoctrination have chosen to become enemies of human liberty. That after all is what the so called Coalition of the Willing pretends to do ("brining democracy ect justifies it"). The trouble is that in spite of the democracy (that apparently most people would like to see more "holy") we have actually reduced and not advanced human liberty in Iraq. Are Iraqis free to speak their mind? Dress as they would have in the 1980's and 1990's? Are they secure or is the local parliament really the local militia with the most guns ready for you?
Many of the militias that strike fear into the Iraqis are generally quite passive to the coalition; that is unless they receive instructions from their holy men. Meanwhile the coalition has enough trouble dealing with the groups that aren’t passive to it as the 2,500 plus American deaths indicates.
The truth is that if we are really there to bring peace and freedom to the Iraqis than Saddam and the coalition are on the same side. Admittedly Saddam did not tolerate covert political criticism but so what? At least you could get along with your own life. Furthermore there were good reasons for this as the Middle East is far more volatile than most places in the West. And perhaps that is why virtually no political criticism is tolerated in the Middle East as it can always lead to one group trying to rise above the current “brother”. Our foreign policy should not be concerned about what dictatorship is in power in the middle east (as if the people are prepared to choose one there is little hope of avoiding one) instead we should be merely concerned with what type of dictatorship they have. And the more one penetrates our own war propaganda the more you realise that Saddam was quite a good leader.

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:58 PM
There’s something about this thread which has an eerie similarity to a scene in the Matrix. It kind of looks like this…

5689476768 PROPAGANDA089607643
268468422769 FAILURE276954664758

I wonder what the machines will do if more people start to think we should regret loosing Saddam (even before his execution). This type of thinking is decades ahead of its time and should not be tolerated. There is of course always the Foxtrix to return to where your mind may be replenished with half truths and other things that aren’t real. Then again what is real? If it’s something you can see, feel and touch then that could merely be your TV screen.
But ATS is outside the mainstream. Only visitors paid to distribute illusions and propaganda cause its direct contact-infection with The System. Then again some people are so embedded with the system that they will happily defend it; even if it means harming the consciousness of others.

Of course ATS is exactly the sort of place where people would come together and concentrate enough effort in revealing enough information to undermine the System. This is probably the only reason why intelligent people would support some aspects of Saddam; and it’s the only reason why I support most. Information, information is the key to having a mind that escapes the Mainstream. But what would happen if it caught on? Obviously most people aren’t interested in a lot of political discussion so it has no hope of doing so; but wouldn’t it be great if more people started to wake? How would the government deal with it if the public needed proof before trust? How do you fix that sort of system failure? (Computer experts anyone

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

top topics


log in