For DirectFiesta & The Others That Think Iraq Was Better Under Saddam
 

Scroll down and hit these 2 links when you get to the page.

http://www.ogrish.com/ogrish-dot-com...aq-small-2.wmv

http://www.ogrish.com/ogrish-dot-com...iraq-small.wmv

Yeh, that's the ticket!

dude saw ogrish in the title and thought to my self...nope not gonna click it...LOL

You have a way of putting words in my mouth ... nice spin;

Iraq was not better UNDER Saddam, but was better off DURING the time Saddam was in power to compare to the time Bush is ...

Tell that to the folks getting their hands and other body parts chopped off by Saddam's goons.

What country are you from again?

Iraq always has been and still is fucked up. It's really not a good place to live at.

Doesn't this happen in all the other Middle Eastern countries until fundamentalist rule?

Yes, it's what happens if you get caught stealing - they've got some very low crime rates in that part of the world so I hear :2 cents:

How do we know the people Saddam was busy killing aren't the same kind of people we're busy killing now? He fought a brutal fight against fundamentalists who wanted Iraq to be a theocracy all throughout his presidency. As we continue to do, and as the new Iraqi govt will continue to do. I can't guess which regime will have the lowest incidence of innocent collateral damage. So far, we've been killing random civilians at a much fater rate.

Objectively, in the big historical perspective, it's hard to deny that it would have been better for wider secular western interests if Saddam remained in our service.

Saddam was our only real arab friend in the region (pre-gulfwar). The Saudis pretend to be our friend, but ideologically they are not. Saddam was a true secularist. He loved the USA and western popular culture. He wanted Iraq to be secular. He forced Iraqis to read and get educated.

But after the cold war, Bush Sr dismissed the value of Saddam. He betrayed him for finanical and political gain. (Saddam informed us of his intention to settle disputes with Kuwait with militiary force, and our goverment told him we had no opinion about it... then Bush Sr used him as a scapegoat..) Now Saddam had enemys on all sides, and it was the beginning of the end for him.

Your brain turns me on....

Others should read twice that post...

Look at Saudi Arabia now: it is boiling and soon will pour over. In other words, the umpopular tyrannic ( yes, they also are ) royal family will be removed by a revolution just like the Shah was in Iran, and this despite the will of the US.

To KRL, I am Canadian .

Imagine if the Arabs would invade the US and do a regime because they think that "lethal injection" is barbaric, or electrical chair....

That way of thinking means that eveybody has to think the same, eat the same, dress the same ... Sounds like fucking China under Mao...remember, they were also your ennemies...

Differences make this world fun...

Right on the Money Cam Chick!

Thank god!


My hats off to you!

CamChick has an interesting point. The only thing that can be said about it is that Saddam had a harsher middle east way of handling things which is very non-PC, at least to us in the west. Who knows what's ultimately going to be better for the reigion. From our standpoint it would seem like having a democratic nation in the middle would be to our benefit but it is rallying all of our enemies which is more detrimental than any positive accomplishments we might have scored.

A lot of people are saying this, and I'm not sure if they are just misusing the language or what...

'Democracy' means a government based on the will of the majority. In a country where most people believe the only true law is islamic law, a true democracy would operate counter to our interests.

We have to win a cultural war. No amount of military force will ever win a culture war. Direct force will actually have the opposite effect.

The best method to beat this bunch of reglious nuts is the same method we use to beat the religious nuts in our own country; TV - movies - video games - fun stuff that tempts people away from dangerous religion. Progressive content that pushes the boundries and breaks artifical taboos and moves popular-culture/civilization along.

oh great, a kanuck is telling us how we should run our country, eh?

You are talking out of your ass (surprise). The best they can hope to do is kill us off one at a time, and with each death they bring themselves closer to the brink of their own annihilation. They place no value on human life while we do... they need to wise up and back off before they become the pane in an elaborate stained glass menagerie.

Iraq was none of the USA's fucking business till the UN say's its US business.

Umm...

Thats pretty cut and dry.

I really do not give a fuck if its better or worse over there, its not the USA's place.

Maybe the USA and its leaders should pay attention to the USA's own problems...

Inflation.
Unemployment.
Education.
Defense.

Oh no instead America votes in a fucken retard, wait America didnt even vote Bush in it was a fucken fixed election. Well anyways...

Umm...

Yeah.

someone needs to print up a bumpersticker "fighting the war on terrorism one porno flick at a time"

:1orglaugh

I think we have defense covered there Francis.

Absolutely not! Unless Iraq is YOUR country?

iraq=52nd state

Multinational corporations run the world. The majority of them are US companies. The world is our business. That is why we spend over $1 Billion a day for the military to project our power and protect our corporate interests in all these countries we exploit.

I read an article on the weekend written by Andrew Bolt, an Australian Journalist. The guy is a bit of a twat, but he wrote about when he was in Iraq in 1991:

"I won't forget the day when i saw one of Saddam's tanks crushing the heads of 40 Shiite Iraqis who were among others arrested for no obvious reason in 1991."

Now shut the fuck up.

I mean seriously. All you see on the news are the problems with Iraq. It's a pretty old saying that if a newspaper was to be launched with nothing but good news, it would not sell any copies. People don't want to see any of the good stuff that is happening. Now i'm not going to go around and say that everything is fucking roses, because it's not, but it is better if you look at anything other than the constant news of attacks and insurgents.

Again, shut the fuck up you ignorant twat.

It is now. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

What meds are you on...

I gave a fictive example, didn't even talked about killing or anhilation ... sorry if it was boring to you.

Let's go for a rally boost:

USA RULES !! USA RULES !! :ak47: :ak47:
BRING THEM ON !

:1orglaugh

"Kill them all and let god sort them out"

Sorry no med's... maybe that's what's wrong with me.

LOL... What is the difference between Saddam repressing 40 shites trying to kick him out, and the US bombing houses and weddings to prevent Iraqis to kick them out...

You do the same as Saddam did, just with less success... because finally, you are pussies...

:1orglaugh

You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs.

Thanks for making my point.

Fuck the regime, the WMD, the poor iraqis... ( you can go to Congo to find poor people dying, but no oil)...

This is just like when Poland was invaded: first country to fall to a dangerous dictator.

Or in this case " a few heads " ... :Graucho

directfiesta is an idiot who thinks he is always right. :2 cents:

I'm drunk and going to bed... you win you are the bestest.

:winkwink:

Whats with all these references to Hitler?

Goddamn you're giving a Hitler a bad name :1orglaugh
(I know Hitler was evil incarnate... but he posessed more intelligence than a toothpick)

What's the difference being ruled by Saddam or occupied by the US? Little. The abuse and killings continue and the future is a total unknown that will probably be left for others to clean up.

Meanwhile, all the other Saddam's continue to rule and for some strange reason, there is not a word about them. Saddam is the irrelevant part to the US occupation of Iraq and akin to "womens rights in Afghanistan" that there was, oh so much concern over. It's all called bullshit and "excuses".

HaHaHaBruHaHaJHa LOL ....

Oopss, past your bedtime...

You honestly believe Shiites weren't routinely arrested for no reason whatsoever? 40 Shiites having their skulls crushed by a tank simply for being Shiites. They were often arrested for no reason. Tortured, beaten, maimed and killed. No fucking reason.

Can't you read???

I will quote myself ( a bit like TheKing does...lol )

Can you fucking read? I never said anything about them being arrested for any sort of uprising or protest. I don't know anything about the situation other than the brief paragraph i read. If you know something more about it, then point it out so i know what the fuck you are talking about.

chodadog:

What's the difference in, eg. Columbia, where exactly the same thing is happening?? The only difference is the US is the only country to attempt to claim "Columbian human rights have improved" and gave them a nice lump of aid to continue this conduct to the amazement of almost all human rights organisations.

It's called hypocracy and bullshit and the action of a regime which is out of control.

This little fiasco is causing everyone to wonder thise things. It's going to be very hard for Bush to justify what's happening over the next few years.

I think he's going to still be in office for the next term too.

Obviously....

FYI, Shiites have always been the ennemies of the Sunnis ( Saddam ethnic bg ), just like the Kurds....

Nice way to go off on an unrelated tangent. I brought up the point about 40 guys having their skulls crushed for nothing more than being Shiites. Perhaps they were protesting. I don't know. Like i said, i only know what i read in the article.

The US are not killing people in the most brutal ways they can think of simply for being who they are, or voicing an opinion that the US disagrees with.

Yeah, you can go on about the prisoner abuse scandal. And yes, it's fucked up. Very fucked up, especially considering how many people knew about it. But the abuse of falsely imprisoned Shiites in Iraq was sanctioned by Saddam's government. It was routine to take a completely innocent person off the street for years of torture, never to be seen again, because he ended up in a mass grave on the prison grounds.

same old BLAH BLAH BLAH

I think it's safe to assume that the guy was right in saying that they were killed for something fairly minor given Saddam's track record of the way he treated Shiites. Unless you have any other information to show that this fair assumpition is incorrect, shut the fuck up.

I'd put money down that they were doing nothing worse than protesting.

Remember that you americanclaim that Iraq is " camel jockeys" and " sand n-i-g-g-e-e-r-s" ... so archaic in the " modern civilisation" concept.

This is from the ,modern civilisation, the one of the US :

To each of the dictators, the end justifies the means....

chodadog:

Hardly unrelated!! Tell that the the relatives of those who have been murdered in Columbia. There are plenty more examples.

The idea of moaning about one asshole committing violent acts and supporting others to do the same thing when it suits, is ... well... totally immoral and hypocritical.

As far as "US are not killing people in the most brutal ways", what's the difference in being bugeoned to death in a jail cell or being crushed? Tho this may be a bit "unusal", it is "usually" done by others on behalf of the US in an effort to keep clean hands. They are called by that euphemism, "CIA contractors", and have done good work in Kosova, Afghanistan and Iraq while the "real CIA" look on from an uncompromising distance.

Time will tell on Saddam and the US role in Iraq - I doubt either will show up in a good light.

From your posts camchicks you sound smarter than this.... but remember it was the kurds he was killing in the thousands.

The people in these pics don't look all that dangerous :(

http://medyaarts.com/halabja-pics.htm

Did we supply him with the gas? Maybe, but we didn't ask him to use it on the kurds that is for sure.

ding ding ding.. we have a winner.

Pre 1st gulf war and sanctions Iraq wasn't a bad place under Saddam, he spent billions from the oil money on giving Iraqis the best literacy rates, health and technology in the Middle East... Sure he kinda fucked it up by going nutball, but it's moronic to suggest that Iraq was always fucked up under Saddam's rule.
At least he hated the same people we hate... the fundamentalists were the single greatest threat to his power.
In the long run if Iraq doesn't have a shiite islamic revolution and does calm down it will be a better place though, and certainly a better place than it has been for the last 15 years.. but it's too early yet to tell.

If the US could have just waited for the UN and gone in with peacekeeper back up we probably wouldn't be in the shit storm we're in.. America is great as the Iron fist that crushes military resistance, but almost useless when it comes to the cultural sensitivity needed for peacekeeping and occupation.

The Kurds aren't nice people either. They're as crazy as damn near every other sect over there. They kill their daughters for disgracing the family and all that shit we hate arab cultures for.

Hard to feel sorry for them.

Politcally, historically, he Kurd fighters were terrorists by standard deifnition. They call themselves 'freedom fighters' and now our govt/media does too.. but that's just what you call terrorists you ally with. The Kurds were rebelling, trying to seperate from Iraq and gain land that they have had no claim to in the last 1000 years.

What did the USA federal government do when some states tried to seperate themselves? What would they do today if some ethnic/religious group tried to carve out their own country within the borders of the USA? America would use all force necessary to put down the rebellion of course.

All of Saddams conventional forces were busy fighting Iran for us, so he used what he had left at his disposal (gas).