Disney Count support may be spotty from here. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Ironies of Ironies

Saddam Hussein was actually a good client. Turns out he was keeping the US and Israel safe from Al Qaeda and Iran.

What a fuckup!
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 23rd, 2007 7:07am
Yes, apart from being a murderous, genocidal, tyrannical, paranoid and treacherous despote he was really a blessing for the region. 
An atheist, separating church and state, educating the population, developing the country, the western dream of middle east government.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg 
July 23rd, 2007 8:06am
Yeah, he was a despot, but until he invaded Kuwait he was OUR despot.  And apparently despotism is what it takes to keep such a place as Iraq in line.

But we could have maintained a "no fly zone" and suppored the Kurds for a really-really long effing time for what we spend in ONE MONTH on Iraq now.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 8:42am
Let's not forget that women in Saddam's Iraq enjoyed nearly equal rights.

That is no longer true.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 23rd, 2007 8:46am
I think it mattered what their religion was, and probably who their husband was, so "equal rights" in a despotism is probably a relative term.

This has always been a problem with democracy -- what if The People vote out the democracy, what should happen then?  And the classic answer to this is a free, educated populace wouldn't DO something so against their own interests.

So effective democracy is predecated on a populace that values freedom over Religious rule, and an education system that teaches that what is good for them and their children is NOT a Religious Theocracy.

Sadly, I don't think many Iraqi's know these things.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 8:54am
They who can give up any liberty to obtain any security deserve neither liberty nor security.
Permalink Benny Franklin 
July 23rd, 2007 9:08am
They used to know this, some of them.  The educated ones, at least.

Read Riverbend's "Bagdad Burning" blog for an insight into how some Iraqis have experienced life under both Saddam and now.  You'd be surprised at how little animosity there was between the Sunni and Shia middle class in Bagdad.  They routinely intermarried, and it was considered a bit rude to ask which denomination someone belonged to.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 23rd, 2007 9:12am
Yes, it's better to be unsafe under dictatorship than free under the democracy.
Permalink Benny Franklin 
July 23rd, 2007 9:14am
> "So effective democracy is predecated on a populace that values freedom over Religious rule"

Let's see what the turks make of it. They just democratically elected a muslim-religious party in power. If they can pull off a full term as a religous party running a secular state it might set an example for the region. 
A muslim-democratic political movement modelled after the european christian-democrats who thoroughly respect and support the separation of church and state is the way forward IMHO
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg 
July 23rd, 2007 9:22am
+1 LB.  I believe Turkey has a constitution that forbids the creation of a Religious state.  And that the new winner had propaganda thrown against him that SAID he would support a theocracy.  Time will tell.

And I agree that an Islamic-Democratic state, dedicated to the principle of separation of Church and State, might be the way forward.  The only problem with that is, some of the Sharia law principles regarding women's rights are pretty draconian.

So it seems to me it would be extremely difficult for an Islamic-Democratic state to exist on that basis, since you'd effectively be disenfranchising half your population.  But time will tell, as you say.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 9:35am
> They just democratically elected a muslim-religious party in power.

Uhm, the AKP was already in power for quite some time.

This election strengthened their majority, but not enough to force constitutional change.
Permalink Send private email Erik Springelkamp 
July 23rd, 2007 9:42am
Fuckup? I think not. This administration has praised terrorism all the while it has denounced it.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 23rd, 2007 10:19am
You hypocrites. I apply free market principles to politics and you object. I cornered the market on votes. I did whatever it took to make profit. I tried to expand my territories. I paid the executives thousands of times more than the serfs. I responded to competition with innovative counter pagers. I locked up my intellectual property.

What's the problem?
Permalink Saddam Hussein 
July 23rd, 2007 10:35am
You invaded Kuwait.  You gassed the Kurds.

Otherwise, you'd have been golden.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 10:39am
> You invaded Kuwait.  You gassed the Kurds.

Sometimes competition gets a little rough. I have a responsibility to make the most money possible. That's the real world. Everyone does it.
Permalink Saddam Hussein 
July 23rd, 2007 10:43am
No need to get defensive about it.  You asked what fucked-up your relationship with America, that was it.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 11:06am
> You asked what fucked-up your relationship with America, that was it

You are naive like a child. I was all those things you mentioned way before my formerly good friend's first election. Was I ever mentioned? No. Did he campaign on my cruelties? No. Did they take my money? Yes.

So you must look elsewhere for why I no longer was useful.
Permalink Saddam Hussein 
July 23rd, 2007 11:11am
You're dead.  You lost.  End of story.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 11:16am
> You're dead.  You lost.  End of story.

I lost? You are spending $12 Billion a month on war. Thousands of your people dieing and being chopped up into pieces. With your every ill considered move you create generations of future terrorists.

And I lost?
Permalink Saddam Hussein 
July 23rd, 2007 11:21am
"You're dead, Roy. So stop standing there pretending like you're not."

-Billy Bob Thornton in 'Ice Harvest'
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 23rd, 2007 11:31am
"educating the population, developing the country, the western dream of middle east government"

I agree with this. Iraq was one of the most western of those countries. Very egalitarian, great schools, and islamic fundamentalism was not tolerated.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 23rd, 2007 2:42pm
And Kuwait historically belonged to Iraq so it was their perogative to take out Kuwait's vicious system of unelected king-despot and replace it with something more like a western government. But the US opposed this.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 23rd, 2007 2:46pm
"and islamic fundamentalism was not tolerated."

Of course, there could only be one dictator. See PRC.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
July 23rd, 2007 4:21pm
All this is why we should find some other way to power our lifestyles.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 23rd, 2007 5:20pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics