Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Saddam Hussain Saint or Sinner?


War Hero
Before the Iraq conflict I was convinced that Saddam was the lowest form of life known to mankind and that the sooner he was removed the better.
However did he know something that the rest of the world didn't?
He through his despot rule manged to control Iraq and its population.
Could it be that his type of rule, rule by fear and retribution is the only kind that is understood by the population of Iraq?
no......... he is stil the lowest form of life
he knew what the verdict was going to be and now has found that ol' time religion and patrioism......
and no his type of rule has not been the norm for Iraq, just for the last 20-30 years so the majority of those alive today will not have known anything else. So it will take a long time to change especially if it's from from one extreme to the other.
It's true Arab countries do seem to like "strong" leaders but the values and lifestyle and attitudes that have evolved have taken 2000+ years to get there and we're not going to change them and why should we?...
It works for them.
So basically it's OK to kill thousands of his own people and do all of the other nasty stuff he did during his reign? Don't think so mate.

How long are you planning on being off-world?

So basically it's OK to kill thousands of his own people and do all of the other nasty stuff he did during his reign? Don't think so mate.

How long are you planning on being off-world?


The question I posed was.
What do Iraqis require to stop them from fighting each other, i.e
A peaceful solution or an enforced subservience.
I am against our troops being the but of attacks from people that we are supposedly there to protect.
It would seem that our presence is not really wanted anyway.
I know it was a serious question mate. I just couldn't help myself.

I'll take myself away shortly and give myself a good talking to.

To answer the question, it is interesting that whilst many I speak to don't necessarily agree that things were better under Saddam, they do despair at the inability of the combined coalition & Iraqi military and civil forces to stop the violence.

The statistics around Baghdad on a daily basis are literally quite horrifying in terms of IEDs, kidnappings, murders, beatings, threats, etc. Many just can't see an end to it.

The whole thing is pretty grim. Realistically it will take at least a generation to put it behind them, probably longer.

No offence taken SF
Its just that the other week on the news some Iraqis were stating that at least under Saddam they were safe to got to work, go shopping and generally get on with their lives. It may be that for other Iraqis this was not the case. The Saint or Sinner heading was put there rather tongue in check, lets face it he could never be seen as a saint.
What is p!ss!ng me off is that the coalition forces are losing young men to a situation which is not of their making.
I assume that you are there on the spot and seeing far more than we get from the BBC.
Many of the British public (myself included) are sick & tired of our troops being placed in dangerous situations to protect people who have no respect for them.
Its the difference between the often unseen methods used by Saddam or the very open and in your face methods being used by the insurgents, sorry - terrorists. Either way, the body count is far too high.

No idea what the answer is though and I seriously doubt that anyone has actually come up with a formula which resolve this situation, short of resorting to open warfare against these tossers again and that's not going to happen because apparently the war is over.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that we should pull out and let the inevitable civil war happen. Let god sort them out. Reckon there may be a shortage of virgins to go round though.
I believe this is wrong... Saddam has terrorized his people for decades. I mean I won't go into detail because you should know most of the attrocities he has commited. And even though he managed to control his population with fear. Fear did breed violence, and therefore there were many people who tried to stand up against him and his regime.

I don't think we should pull out of Iraq, we do, and we will still be left to blame for our mess. We have to and when I mean 'we', I mean U.S and the coalition to secure and reconstruct Iraq, and maintain a secure structure of the government, and that can not be maintained without a secure military infrastructure.
Saddam for all his un westernised dealing with problems had Iraq on a steady base. The wanna be terrorists in his period of rule were met with as much 'terror' they decided to sit down and keep themselves very quiet.

At the moment Iraq has an imposed way of life--albeit supposedly voted in by the people with a lot of US and UK bylaws. The Government is backed by the west -pity its not backed by the people!

Reminds me of Vietnam and we all know what happened there!!

Yesterdays insurgents[terrorists] are tommorrows politicians.
So basically it's OK to kill thousands of his own people and do all of the other nasty stuff he did during his reign? Don't think so mate.

How long are you planning on being off-world?


When the Shiite majority rule and impose Sharia law, as they eventually will, many more will be exterminated, as in Iran. We forget the hundreds of executions that occur in Iran each year, and the "random" and "spontaneous" killings that occur, no doubt orchestrated by the Mullahs. Though they are not on the same scale as Saddam's campaign of mass slaughter, they certainly bear similarities in those they target for extermination. If the Iranian authorities were targetting a racial or religious group not other, unprotected minorities, their actions would be classified under international law, as genocide.
It is a difficult decission to make
Saddam kills a thousand people a week and life goes on
We sort it out and ten thosand are killed a week and as it is democratic that is OK

It would have been cheaper all round to pay Saddam a lot more for his oil and have a few thousand a month killed
Than to get current rates for the oil and have several thousand a month killed along with the deaths of our own troops

We would have been wise to turn a Nelson eye and not get involved

A Ten thousand a month slaughtered and oil at $50 a barrel
B Twenty thousand a month slaughtered plus sixty Coalition forces , oil $60 a barrel and the whole of the UK on terrorist alert

I prefer A

Mr Bliar cocked it up IMHO

Jack McHammocklashing
THere is no doubt that Saddam was an evil bastard, however he was just your common or garden old fashioned dictator. Although not above playing the religious card when necessary, he did keep the various muslim fanatics in line. The problem was always going to be if Saddam goes, who or what will replace him?
there have been some very good managers of their country round the world;
pol pot, tito, amin, hitler etc etc. doesnt make it right though - does it ? :roll:

Latest Threads