It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Saddam vs. Dubya: Who's the Better Dictator?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I tell ya, things in this world just get crazier and crazier. Since the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam, Dubya has proven yet again, he should be nowhere near any kind of leadership role! (He's got the anti-Midas touch when it comes to bidness)

As it turns out, Saddam Hussein was actually much better at ruling Iraq. Dubya just blows the mind in his ineptitude.


The GAO just put out this report stating that things are definitely worse now than they were under Rummy's old buddy, the Baghdad Beast. What in the hell is this world coming to?


GAO Report - Iraq Worse Off
Now Than Before War
By Seth Borenstein,
Knight-Ridder
7-1-4


WASHINGTON - In a few key areas -- electricity, the judicial system and overall security -- the Iraq that America handed back to its residents Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday:

www.gao.gov...

The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings:

* In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.

* Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.

* The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.

* The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.

* The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.

Full Knight-Ridder article:
www.rense.com...




posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
What on earth has this to do with the war on terror?

This is mudpit material.

If you wanna talk about recent Iraq developments.

Lets talk about Yemen and Jordan sending troops.

How much do you think that has to do with the turnover of power. Things are turning around in Iraq ECK no matter how much you would rather see them fail.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Why don't you discuss what the thread presents? (Facts) Or does that hurt you too much?


Facts are a bitch, aren't they? Bush has made a complete mess of Iraq. If he had any sense, he'd fire the NeoCons morons who got him into this mess. But that ain't gonna happen.

An old Iraqi man once said this: "Saddam is a hard man. Iraqis are a hard people. In order for Saddam to control Iraq, he had to be hard; otherwise, he would be dead tomorrow."

Perhaps if this administration had the slightest knowledge of Iraq and it's people, we wouldn't be in this current mess.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Move it to The Pit. No new information here........



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Move it to The Pit. No new information here........



Thats exactly why I wont debate your facts ECK.

And if were going to play the tit for tat game then Id ask you to write off Yemen and Joran's troop commitment.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
No, this deserves to be here. After all we did go into Iraq to "Fight Terror", correct?

Aye, Bush has f**ked up the lives of Iraqi citizens. Those who fail to see it are simply fascist towards Bush.

[edit on 2-7-2004 by iceofspades]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades

Aye, Bush has f**ked up the lives of Iraqi citizens. Those who fail to see it are simply fascist towards Bush.


Go here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There you go kiddo.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47


There you go kiddo.


Hey there's no reason to be demeaning here.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
*heavy sigh*

Another gleeful Bush hating thread with the same wornout rhetoric.




posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades
Hey there's no reason to be demeaning here.


Yes there isn't I throw around kiddo a lot, I didnt mean to demean you with it.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
It seems to me that Iraq was much more stable under Saddam than it is at the moment. It is true that Saddam was a tyrant but that does not make him a bad leader. Look at Stalin, he was a tyrant and was one of the best rulers Russia (USSR at the time) ever had. He massively industrialised the country and brought it into the modern world, whilst at the same time fighting and defeating the Nazis.

What I am trying to say is that when you are a ruler it is better to be cruel than weak.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
This does belong in the pit....this is just another bashing contest, there are many Iraqis that are saying they are better off without Saddam, the loyalists are the ones making hell for everyone, and btw lets stop the insults....



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eddie999
What I am trying to say is that when you are a ruler it is better to be cruel than weak.


Thats why the occupation is having such a rough time. If they took a Stalinist or the older Roman example of occupation then things would be nice and quite.

If a roadside bomb goes off you demolish a city block. Its clumsy, its cruel, but well even ECK labeled them "a hard people".



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades
No, this deserves to be here. After all we did go into Iraq to "Fight Terror", correct?

Aye, Bush has f**ked up the lives of Iraqi citizens. Those who fail to see it are simply fascist towards Bush.

[edit on 2-7-2004 by iceofspades]


Thank you.

Check this out: IRAQ ON THE RECORD: The Bush Administraton's Public Statements on Iraq. No disputing this.

IraqTerrorIraqTerrorIraqTerror...

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” One year later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration’s assertions about the threat posed by Iraq.

Prepared at the direction of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the Iraq on the Record Database is a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice.The Iraq on the Record Report is a comprehensive examination of these statements.

Here's the report:

www.house.gov... pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Bush is the better Dictator, because Saddam got hauled to Court before W.
Sanc'.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Hey Eddie,
are you actually defending terror tactics on apopulation by itd rulers?



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eddie999
It seems to me that Iraq was much more stable under Saddam than it is at the moment. It is true that Saddam was a tyrant but that does not make him a bad leader. Look at Stalin, he was a tyrant and was one of the best rulers Russia (USSR at the time) ever had. He massively industrialised the country and brought it into the modern world, whilst at the same time fighting and defeating the Nazis.

What I am trying to say is that when you are a ruler it is better to be cruel than weak.


yeah...if we follow your line of reasoning it would have been better if Hitler was still in power, many Germans flourished under his rule, the same for Stalin as you stated, and every other dictator that ever existed.... That kind of reasoning is absurd, to allow a dictator because in some parts their countries were doing better... All those people that keep bashing the US and the administration have no idea what a dictator is and are taking for granted their own freedoms, including bashing the US government and blabbering their mouths any way they want to...including to say the most absurd statements their minds can come up with....



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Anyone who would like to discuss this reasonably is most welcome. Those of you who would rather bicker should remove themselves to the mud-pit.

As for the comment regarding the people who are glad he's gone, I would add, there are also people who miss Saddam's rule. They miss the security they had. Women also actually had it better under his rule, strange as that may sound.

Saddam was a real hard-a$$, for sure; but I agree, he was an effective hard-a$$. And the mid-east was actually more stable with him contained.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” One year later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration’s assertions about the threat posed by Iraq.


No WMDs?

story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20040701/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_rumsfeld_weapons_040701212424&e=3


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Polish troops recently discovered more than a dozen warheads containing mustard or sarin gas in Iraq (news - web sites), US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a radio interview released.


I guess we're being unilateral with the help of Poland, right?

[edit on 7/2/2004 by Spectator]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


yeah...if we follow your line of reasoning it would have been better if Hitler was still in power, many Germans flourished under his rule, the same for Stalin as you stated, and every other dictator that ever existed.... That kind of reasoning is absurd, to allow a dictator because in some parts their countries were doing better... All those people that keep bashing the US and the administration have no idea what a dictator is and are taking for granted their own freedoms, including bashing the US government and blabbering their mouths any way they want to...including to say the most absurd statements their minds can come up with....


Absurd statement? Thats the first time I've ever heard the work of Machiavelli called absurd. The statement, 'When you a ruler, it is better to be cruel than weak' was originally concieved by Machiavelli in his most famous work, 'The Prince' a book was is mandatory reading if you do any form of economic/business/political degree.

It is indeed a true statement. It is cruel leaders who most often do the best for the country. Look at the early Roman Empire (as Agent47 rightly mentioned) also look at most kings of old, as well as Lenin, Stalin etc..

Although you may not like it is a true statement. A ruler can not be seen to be weak by his own people as they will not trust him, loose faith in him and overthrow him. A ruler must not be seen as weak by his enemies as they will invade and conquer him.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join