Saddam being honored in Libya!

Well i'm sorry but we don't live in a perfect world where everyone can be happy. Hell, I wouldn't want to... i'd die of boredom.

What you think Britian liked it when America rebelled? It only brought more anger over there. You think the native americans liked it when us Americans lied to them, stole there land, and murdered them?

I'm pretty sure Americans were happy when they got there own country. Or Americans were happy when they get more land.

Guess what? Things like this can be found throughout history, everywhere. Every time someone else is made happier, someone else is going to get madder.
 
riomhaire said:
When Saddam came to power in Iraq the literacy rate in Iraq was appalling and girls didn't go to school. By the time America invaded Iraq in 2003 the literacy rate was 95% and approx 50% of Iraq's doctors were women. Iraq was much, much better (for the general population) under Saddam than with this war going on.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying Iraq is better now..
But he deserved to die
 
he invaded Kuwait, Destroyed almost everything, and took Prisoners and killed alot...
Click to expand...

it's funny how everyone always mentions invading kuwait, which didn't even last for a year, but no one talk about the iran-iraq war that lasted for 8 years and thousands were killed...
 
jerkasaur said:
it's funny how everyone always mentions invading kuwait, which didn't even last for a year, but no one talk about the iran-iraq war that lasted for 8 years and thousands were killed...
Click to expand...
He took over the whole country...
Many Kuwaitis were homeless, some of them escaped to another countries with no place to stay, only in their cars.
 
Uhm,
source
wiki said:
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[47] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is one of countries of the world most severely afflicted by weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...
I'd say thats a *bit* worse than briefly occupying Kuwait..

All hail intel wazaaa
 
DigiQ8 said:
He took over the whole country...
Many Kuwaitis were homeless, some of them escaped to another countries with no place to stay, only in their cars.
Click to expand...

not to play down the invasion of kuwait but far more Iraqi civilians died during the war than kuwaitis ..in fact only 200 soldiers were kiled (cant find civilian casualties) compared to 30,000 (might be as high as 100,000) iraqi soldiers and another 30,000 civilians ..kuwait got off relatively easy compared to iraq
 
CptStern said:
not to play down the invasion of kuwait but far more Iraqi civilians died during the war than kuwaitis ..in fact only 200 soldiers were kiled (cant find civilian casualties) compared to 30,000 (might be as high as 100,000) iraqi soldiers and another 30,000 civilians ..kuwait got off relatively easy compared to iraq
Click to expand...


thats why we executed Saddam, he cant properly take over a small country.
 
It was a bad plan, but that's completely besides the point.If you're going to fight a war, fight it properly.
Click to expand...

DOES NOT COMPUTE

Anyways, the real point is that America has supported (and continues to support) tons of dictators.
Saddam, by dictator standards, wasn't as bad as many many others.

So attacking Saddam just because he's a dictator doesn't make sense. Sure he's bad, but compared to which other dictator exactly? Which one was he worse than?
Why does nobody care about all those african genocides, for example? Seeing the news, it's like "what african genocides?"

Of all the things worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives on, Saddam wouldn't have even reached my top ten.
 
I'm in agreence. So when does canada plan to invade?
 
Cole said:
I'm in agreence. So when does canada plan to invade?
Click to expand...

he's your idiot, you deal with him


the US didnt just support saddam ..they made him what he was:

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim (Abd al-Karim Qasim leader of Baath party). According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.


The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.

"It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.
Click to expand...


more:

In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this.

"We were absolutely stunned. We had guys running around asking what the hell had happened," this official said.

But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.

A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business."
Click to expand...


http://www.upi.com/archive/view.php?archive=1&StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
 
This is tragic (according to Wiki):
Source

In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."
Click to expand...

Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signaling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that it had handled everything “by the book” (in accordance with the U.S.’s official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League’s Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam’s expectations may have been influenced by a perception that the US was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of American military response.
Click to expand...

Basically, Saddam and his officials thought the US saying not to be interested and remaining neutral in the border conflict was a "Green light" to invade Kuweit.
Its not so far off for Saddam to think this, since the US in the Iran-IRaq war:

President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[12] President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.
Click to expand...

It could even be so Saddam "accidentally" signaled the invasion, by misjudging the US response to the Iraq-Kuwait issue as a "greenlight".
Once border crossings were made, he couldn't suddenly pull back, that would hurt his dictator image, so he was hoping the US would not have the balls or interest to actually setup a military campaign.
Basically because of a misunderstanding, falling in bad favor of the US, and things escalated from there. Thats one fubar way of loosing a good dictator puppy.
Thats pretty screwed up aye :p
 
Mechagodzilla said:
DOES NOT COMPUTE
Click to expand...

What do you mean "does not compute"? What kind of idiot would engage in warfare with the intention of losing?
You either do it properly or you don't do it at all. You don't stumble into it like some kind of simpering wet blanket. Commit overwhelming force and crush the enemy or you may aswell take no action at all.

Anyways, the real point is that America has supported (and continues to support) tons of dictators.
Saddam, by dictator standards, wasn't as bad as many many others.

So attacking Saddam just because he's a dictator doesn't make sense. Sure he's bad, but compared to which other dictator exactly? Which one was he worse than?
Why does nobody care about all those african genocides, for example? Seeing the news, it's like "what african genocides?"

Of all the things worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives on, Saddam wouldn't have even reached my top ten.
Click to expand...

This is quite true, but it's not the real point. What's happened has happened, trying to justify present injustice by pointing out past injustice really doesn't cut it.
 
DigiQ8 said:
what the hell...
why WHYYY !?, that guy never did a good thing in his life, he keep killing innocent people in disgusting ways, he invaded Kuwait, Destroyed almost everything, and took Prisoners and killed alot...

and that stupid government go and honor him with a statue.
Click to expand...

This is basically why I never understood the execution of captured dictators, it turns the fallen leaders into martyrs and encourages more violence amongst supporters. Apparently nobody saw that terrible Mel Gibson flick Braveheart, or read the new testament. Whichever is more important to modern society :p
 
The first trial of Saddam was originally going to be
"He tried to kill my Daddy!", by prosecuter George W. Bush, but they decided that would be a bit too obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top