The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Saddam

Re: Saddam
Posted by Rashad (Guest) - Wednesday, November 9 2011, 4:39:41 (UTC)
from 74.136.42.189 - 74-136-42-189.dhcp.insightbb.com Commercial - Windows Codename Longhorn - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
>Hello Rashad,
>
> It is a known fact today by almost everyone except ignorant Americans that Saddam was brought to power by the US.
>
>We know for sure that the CIA helped topple the pro-soviet Qassem after a failed assassination attempt. So the Baath party was indeed brought to power with their help. But I don't think he was handpicked as a puppet leader to serve US interest.

They not only helped topple Qassim but also backed Saddam. They provided him with names of Iraqis who were communists and he went on to execute many of them. I say he was working in their interests. He was also friends with Dick Chenney, Donald Rumsfeld and the older Bush. He was given the green light by Washington to attack Iran and when he bombed the Kurds after the uprising, they did not object to it since he was their boy. I believe he was picked but he probably used them for his own agenda.
>
> Let's talk about the US democracy and how good is it really. Many presidents have come and gone in the last 100 years but the policies haven't changed. The face changes but policy remains the same.
>
>That may be the situation in most countries. The rhetoric of the campaigns makes it seem that the parties are very different but the reality on the ground obliges them to follow similar policies. Also the political system in the US requires the president to go through many hurdles in order to take radical steps.

If they have to follow similar policies, then there won't be much change. It's one thing to agree on some issues but when there isn't any disagreements with major issues such as the US foreign policy and other things then I don't see any difference.
>
> Hillary Clinton was going toe to toe with Obama yet ended up being in his administration and how is that possible if they were so different?
>
>They belong to the same party so it's not surprising that they're not so different. It's like brand positioning. Many products are identical to each other but the companies try to promote a distinctive image. But she is in a subordinate role now.

Of course they are both democrats so they are likely the same on almost every issue.
>
> Obama sat with Bush and even John McCain after he won the election to get suggestions and "work closely with republicans." They are supposed to be different yet nothing changes so this is a perfect example of what can go wrong even with "free elections."
>
>Well they should sit and work with each other. The republicans hold almost half the seats in the congress and the senate. If they are going to spend the time fighting each other then there will be a gridlock, like what happened in Iraq a year ago.

it's one thing to dialogue and try to solve issues or differences but Obama proceeded with his cousin, Bush, policies. He didn't follow through with anything he claimed he was going to do.
>
> I agree with Pancho that it also depends on the level of education. People can be manipulated to vote against their own interests and sometimes without even knowing it. Americans are very naive, ignorant and it is done intentionally as well.
>
>At least it's better than forcibly coercing the people into subjection. There is an Arabic saying: “the law does protect the idiots”. No political system can render the population immune from being deceived. So yes, this is a basic requirement of democracy. The people have to be educated and vigilant of what's going on around them.
>
> America claims to be a democracy yet you only have two party system. There are candidates who aren't even republican nor democrat yet run under those banners just because they can't get ballot access.
>
>Yes that's unfair. But the two party system seems to be a trend in most democracies. Even if you had many parties, they will merge and form alliances until eventually you end up with two major parties or political blocks. This happened in Lebanon and Iraq.
>
> Obama was obviously too selected instead of elected because the majority of whites did not vote for him. Blacks are a minority and even if everyone of them had voted Obama, he still wouldn't make it.
>
>Obama was selected? You mean he did not get the majority of votes? How come?

I base this on what I see from white people in America. Almost all whites, and including the poor, vote republican and a recent poll showed that a huge number of Americans believe he is Muslim and another huge number don't even believe he was born here. At my work they call him "Hussein" instead of Obama or Barrack.
>
> Even democraatic systems can be taken advantage of and people can be manipulated. Palestinians elected their leadership democratically yet Israel/US did not approve. Somalia also democratically elected its leadership yet it was overthrown few weeks later by the US via Ethiopia. Iran elected its leadership in the 50s but was assassinated and replaced by a western backed dictatorship.
>
>Well those are cases of foreign interferences and not of democratic systems being taken advantage of or examples of the flaws of democracy.

Right, but my point is that the US don't care for democracy and would never allow Africans, Arabs etc to elect their own leader who will not be a puppet or some kind of doormat for the big boys in the west. Saddam became a bad guy to them only when he took a different route and did things he wasn't suppose to. How dare he offer free education, health, and nationalize the oil industry. In 2003, when the US first looked at the Iraqi system, they thought Saddam was a Marxist because everything except for small businesses(hotels, restaurants, etc) were all state owned. They will always interfere with any democracy. The current Iraqi government was handpicked also.
>
> One of my friends comes from Shia family in Iraq and he said he grew up poor with his single mother struggling to provide for the children in the 1960s. He said he could notice how quickly life improved for him and his siblings when Saddam came to power.
>
>Iraq is a very rich country. The lives of everyone would have improved regardless of the ruler. All you need is stability and a continuous flow of oil revenues. He had to initiate changes and reform and improve the lives of the people to make it appear that the revolution was a great thing and to built popularity. Considering Iraq's wealth, it is not difficult to do so. He's not going to screw up it from the get go.

I agree, but many places are rich in resources but the people are poor. Africans, Iraqis etc aren't poor because the people are barbaric or bloodthirsty but because the west has made them so. Iraq could be a very prosperous country and they achieved much during Saddam's time. They had the best health cares system in the region and one of the highest standard of living. Sure, another ruler could have done so too, but outside intervention would never allow that. Th country is made unstable intentionally by the outsiders.
>
> I highly doubt that in any capitalistic country, which claims to be free and democratic, votes of the majority(which are almost always right at about poverty or below), do votes actually matter. It is the interests of billionaires and super wealthy which are looked out for and not what people want.
>
>That is not the case in France, Germany, Sweden, Japan... and so on.

France, Sweden, Germany, Norway, etc are also much different from America. They have higher quality of life, standard of living and strong social programs.
>
> I don't know what your intention is with this post but I hope it's not to justify the invasion of Iraq
>
>Not at all. I would have preferred a popular revolt but that is impossible under Saddam. You eventually need foreign intervention. My friend told me that there was once a small and peaceful demonstration in Baghdad. They were merely demanding higher wage. Orders were given to crush them. He can still distinctly remember the sound of the bones smashing under the weight of Saddam's tanks.

I agree internal revolution would have been better but Saddam was protected by the US since he was their boy. The foreign intervention wasn't to help Iraqis or to free them from Saddam regime. It was for their own interests and Iraqis haven't prospered from this "liberation" and almost a million Iraqis have died since the war began. Iraq was and is a great money making opportunity with both oil and reconstruction. Dick Cheney has gotten his pockets even fatter from this war. You got people who hated Saddam and there are also people who liked him or speak highly of him. I guess it depends on which side of the fence your own. I didn't agree with all of his policies but I can;t deny that he also did good things for Iraq. If you compare him to a Bush or others, he will look like a baby or an ant.
>
> or to tell me that the US has it better than Iraqis because they can elect their leaders.
>
>Well they certainly do have it better but not because they can elect their leaders.

They have it better right now since they are not under any foreign occupation but things aren't so pretty right now.
>
> Americans didn't vote for more wars, spending etc. Americans voted for bringing troops home, stop these wars, close Guantanamo Bay etc. Obama made many such promises just like the presidents before him but was only lying.
>
>More wars? Well they are bringing the troops back.

Bombing Pakistan now, Libya, Yemen etc. He has expanded and started more wars. Iran is waiting for their turn but they realize it's a lot harder than they thought. He hasn't brought troops home but only shifted them around to other locations. My friend served in Iraq, came back and now is in Afghanistan. My brother is also in the service and when he is through with training, he will go to Afghanistan also. He had sent more troops to Iraq and then brought few back, but the numbers didn't change from how many Bush had in Iraq.
>
> He has become no different from those "brutal dictators" because he has assassinated people and there hardly any kind of opposition in America.
>
>Assassinated? No opposition?

He has assassinated people only on suspicion they were terrorists. They have prisons for torture in Europe, USA and elsewhere. And believe me this is not some conspiracy theory or some crap I got from Alex Jones. They caught Bin Laden without any weapons and killed him. Why didn't they capture him and bring him to court?
>
> During this term, Obama has killed more people than Saddam did in 30 years. He may have been a dictator but the claims that "he has killed his people" have never been proven ever.
>
>You lost me here. Killed more people?

around a 100,000 Libyans were killed during this 8 month long war. Iraqis have also died by the tons under Obama's watch.
>
> Which government has killed people? US has capital punishment and everything. Highest prison population in the world. Is this a free and democratic country?
>
>Why were they executed? Why are they in prison? For political reasons? For opposing Obama?

I don't know why they were executed in every case but I am making a point. If we count how many people are executed during the term of a president, Obama has killed more in that case. That is what they are doing with Saddam when they said he was killing his people. In the case of Saddam, they really never proved he killed all the people they claimed he killed. But who needs prove when it comes to America, and who would hold them accountable or bring them to justice?

I agreed with some things you said but also disagreed with some.



---------------------


The full topic:



Host: www.insideassyria.com
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/7.0.1
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Connection: close
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Saddam-9gou.Eksz.QUOTE
Cookie: *hidded*
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Content-length: 12856



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9