Thoughts on Saddam Hussein?

Saddam went to war with Iran which he lost and cost the lives of thousands for nothing. He was dictator placed by the US as means to control the region during the golf war but was no longer needed once 9/11 happened. used it as a perfect excuse to invade Irak as a means to "bring order to the middle east and spread democracy" but in reality, it was just to take all of Saddams gold and oil.
A few corrections:
- Saddam wasn't placed by the US. He was fairly unfriendly from the start.
- The US was outright hostile towards Saddam since the Gulf War. 9/11 was a convenient event to add another grievance to the list.
- The Iraq war had nothing to do with democracy, gold, or oil. The reasons for the 03 invasion can be summed up as "clusterfuck," but the clusterfuck of reasoning was a mixture of warhawks who wanted to "finish the fight" and a genuine belief that Iraq had the capability to re-produce chemical weapons (not helped by Saddam refusing UN inspectors and very shoddy intelligence work)

I like the history of the region so I joke about Saddam being my favorite dictator, but in reality he was a regular bastard and a really poor leader at that. Shit like the Halabja chemical weapons attacks and the Dujail massacre are inexcusable. He started a war with Iran and ran it entirely on debt, creating an economic crisis which he tried to resolve by invading Kuwait. He started the war with Iran ostensibly to "liberate" the Arabs living in southwestern Iran, only to mistreat them to the point where they'd rather fight for Iran. He interfered with the army to the point where it had a marked effect on their ability to effectively prosecute the war.

My opinions on the Iraq war and his overthrow are mixed, but I think it was possible to bump him off while not having the region descend into sectarian violence (we just handled the occupation very, very poorly). He wasn't the supposed lynchpin that held an unstable Iraq together.


I'll also add that he was an A&N level-insane jewsperg. He vehemently believed that the ayatollah Khomeini was a jewish asset. He also thought Pokemon was jewish propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Same with gaddafi. I don't care how much you hate the petrodollar and central banking, the moment you build a rape chamber to kidnap and defile underage boys in is the moment you deserve all ten of those bayonets shoved up your ass.

Source for this.
 
A lot of people misunderstand Saddam like OP does. Yes, his regime was very corrupt, and yes, his sons were pretty shit people (even if some of the stories are likely made up atrocity propaganda), but Saddam did an admirable job in governing a country which had long been an absolute mess of tribalism. It's downright incredible the amount of propaganda the US produced against Saddam Hussein from 1990-2005. Like I remember being at college and a professor had a box of books he was offering for free, so I picked up the Saddam book, and it was nothing but pure propaganda glorifying the Gulf War ("golf war" lmao nice one OP) neocon war agenda. It's really sad a lot of people still buy into it.

Let's keep in mind that Iraq had centuries and centuries of sectarianism. "Iraq" was almost entirely a creation of British colonialism slapping a bunch of Arab tribes of two faiths, Kurds, Turks, and some other minorities together in one country. It was incredibly poor and relied on nothing but oil. Saddam took this and gave the people of Iraq national pride and turned Baghdad into one of the finest cities of the Middle East thanks to his Iraq-first economic policies. Corruption was just the side effect of this program, but he couldn't not be corrupt, otherwise why would all the tribal sheikhs back him?

It's very contentious what he did to the Shia and the Kurds, but keep in mind a lot of this policy started due to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which was Shiite based. As far as I'm concerned, suppression of the Shiites (and not all Shiites were oppressed, since some had government posts) was like suppressing communists in 1950s America or Catholics in 1600s England. You can't have a faction within your country advocating sectarian religious supremacy and pledging allegiance to a foreign power, otherwise you don't have a country. Similarly, the Kurds were Iran/CIA backed as a destabilization force against Saddam, so they too deserved it. I won't say Saddam is 100% innocent in how his regime handled the problem, but it's far from "ethnic cleansing" or "crimes against humanity" and other nonsense.

Saddam's real problem was his bad foreign policy. He should've put real effort into keeping Ba'athism together as a political force instead of splitting with Syria. Many, many mistakes were made in the war with Iran, and it never should've continued as long as it did. And picking a fight with the West was really, really bad. He also could've pivoted toward not being AS hostile toward Israel in the wake of the Islamic Revolution, since at the very least it would've kept Mossad from snooping around and killing talented scientists like Dr. Gerald Bull who could've been just as big for the space industry as Elon Musk is today thanks to the space gun Saddam was funding him to design.

Overall I'd say he was a solid ruler and a product of the nation and times he emerged from. I wouldn't want to live in his country, but he did a lot for the people of Iraq which was all undone by the barbarism inflicted on that nation by the West during the 1990s that culminated in the illegal and murderous invasion that pillaged the country.
I like the history of the region so I joke about Saddam being my favorite dictator, but in reality he was a regular bastard and a really poor leader at that. Shit like the Halabja chemical weapons attacks and the Dujail massacre are inexcusable. He started a war with Iran and ran it entirely on debt, creating an economic crisis which he tried to resolve by invading Kuwait. He started the war with Iran ostensibly to "liberate" the Arabs living in southwestern Iran, only to mistreat them to the point where they'd rather fight for Iran. He interfered with the army to the point where it had a marked effect on their ability to effectively prosecute the war.
You do know the so-called Halabja massacre was due to those Kurds being part of an Iranian-backed rebel group, and that town harboring their fighters, right? Same with most other supposed "crimes against humanity" Saddam committed against the Kurds. The evidence for it is shoddy and reeks of CIA nonsense.
 
A few corrections:
- Saddam wasn't placed by the US. He was fairly unfriendly from the start.
- The US was outright hostile towards Saddam since the Gulf War. 9/11 was a convenient event to add another grievance to the list.
- The Iraq war had nothing to do with democracy, gold, or oil. The reasons for the 03 invasion can be summed up as "clusterfuck," but the clusterfuck of reasoning was a mixture of warhawks who wanted to "finish the fight" and a genuine belief that Iraq had the capability to re-produce chemical weapons (not helped by Saddam refusing UN inspectors and very shoddy intelligence worwork
The thing is chemical weapons WERE found. Not many and in poor condition. But the fucker had them. Play the game of telephone, and yes, we believed he was fully capable of mass producing the stuff like he did in the Iran Iraq war. Give him another decade and he might have had the capability to do just that.
 
With the advantage of hindsight, it's tempting to say that removing Saddam was a retarded idea. But that assumes that the golem has a say in that (or any) matter.
 
I mean what leader is a "great guy" anyhow. Its an arab nation they're non functional without a firm hand up top, see libya post gaddafi.. Pretty epic how removing him just shifted iraq from non aligned/sort of pro-west to fully in iran's sphere.
It's not like functional and  fairly liberal arab nations can't exist: see Jordan and Oman for example.
Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and others were actually on the path to success in the 50s and early 60s. They had steady economic growth and were setting up functional parliamentary democracies. Unfortunately, all of these countries suffered to fate of having their governments couped by Nasser wannabes who fucked them beyond repair and erased any foundation of a functioning state outside their dictatorships.
 
It's not like functional and  fairly liberal arab nations can't exist: see Jordan and Oman for example.
Oman only proves my point imo its an absolute monarchy with no separation of powers not really "fairly liberal"

even jordan to call it liberal is to be veeeery relativistic with the rest of the ME.

in any case my original post isn't so much "Saddam is a good guy and heckin based and redpilled" but simply the recognition he wasn't the saturday night cartoon villain media made him out to be. He did a lot of good, such as the literacy rates, and a lot of bad (I'm not a fan of regicide for example)
 
He'll be remembered for trying to separate the kurds from the whey

With extreme prejudice
 
Back