The History of Saddam Hussein

[Jeratain]

EDIT:

I have removed the information for the reason that it is from a biased source. This was not my intention.

If you would still like to see the information you can find it at this site: http://www.courtneyremes.com/stopwar/history.asp

However, as mentioned, it has an ani-US spin to it and seems to be a bit biased.

My appologies.

 

[Panda]

I have no idea about the credibility of this link, but it's still good for a sad, hollow laugh.

Jews saved Saddam from abortion

An Iraqi Jewish family took in Saddam Hussein's mother in 1937 and talked her out of an abortion, according to Israel's leading expert on Iraq and the large traditional Jewish community that once prospered there.

Full story
here.

 

[Cecasander]

Um, what is your point by posting it?
I've seen this before...
It's not propeganda or something, it only point out that
Saddam Hussayn isn't pure evil or the devil undercover.
He did not just attack his citizens just for sadistic fun or something, he killed who opposed him...

Truth is only truth when all parties exept it as the Truth.
Before that, it's just a interpretation...

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by Cecasander
Um, what is your point by posting it?
I've seen this before...

The only point in posting it is so that those who don't know anything about Saddam other than "he is a bad man" will know about him and the many interests the US and other countries have taken in him prior to this year.

I'm not trying to glorify him, nor am I trying to bash the US or other countries - just a plain old history of key highlights.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Cecasander
Um, what is your point by posting it?
I've seen this before...
It's not propeganda or something, it only point out that
Saddam Hussayn isn't pure evil or the devil undercover.
He did not just attack his citizens just for sadistic fun or something, he killed who opposed him...

If Saddam isn't pure evil, I don't know what your definition of evil is - unless you find torturing and gassing those who oppose you and their families eminently reasonable ? Bah.

As much as Western support for Saddam during the 1980s bordered on the criminal, and as much as much ambassador Glaspie inexplicably blundered before the first Gulf War, the fact remains that Saddam did all the things outlined above by his own choice. Anyone who does all these things by choice is pure evil in my book.

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by jack merchant
Anyone who does all these things by choice is pure evil in my book.

By that judgement, you could also say that the same people that gave arms to Iraq and Iran are just as evil.

 

[jack merchant]

That's what I said - bordering on the criminal. Maybe I should just say criminal instead.

 

[amadeus]

Belive it or not, Saddam Hussein was the lesser of three evils (other two being Iran and the Soviets) in attaining our strategic interests, much like the alliance with Stalin.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Cecasander
Um, what is your point by posting it?
I've seen this before...
It's not propeganda or something, it only point out that
Saddam Hussayn isn't pure evil or the devil undercover.
He did not just attack his citizens just for sadistic fun or something, he killed who opposed him...

Many governments have citizens who oppose them yet they do not go out of their way to kill them.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Belive it or not, Saddam Hussein was the lesser of three evils (other two being Iran and the Soviets) in attaining our strategic interests, much like the alliance with Stalin.

That's assuming arming Saddam to the teeth and turning a blind eye to the use of poison gas (and in some cases, providing its ingredients) was the only way to contain the Iranians.
I don't buy that.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Jeratain
I am unsure on the source as this was taken from a site with no source provided. Also, as this might belong in the History Forum, I think many anti-war and pro-war people might find this information interesting if not at least useful (though soon it will all be irrelevant.)

Actually, that IS propoganda and I've seen it before. Its done to give an anti-American spin, not tell the story of Saddam Hussein.

Take for exampe: It uses Saddam's use of chemical weapons to question Reagan's lack of action. Or it posts unreliable statistics from "a Harvard medical team" about how many Iraqi children were killed in bombing... what does this have to do with Saddam?

 

[napoleon526]

It's sickening that our government started a war between 2 countries just so (hopefully) neither would be a threat to us. It's another of the criminal Reagan's foreign policy 'legacies', along with El Salvador and Nicaragua.

 

[jack merchant]

Napoleon, there is no evidence that the US pushed Saddam to invade Iran. Also, he invaded while Carter was still in charge. Saddam only started to get major western support when he started losing the war.
Also, the article above contains some falsehoods and misinterpretations, among which most egregiously the claim that Halabja was gassed by the Iranians. That claim has long since been disproved.

That does not detract from your point about El Salvador and Nicaragua, where I fully agree with you.

 

[Ashoka]

Originally posted by Greadius
Actually, that IS propoganda and I've seen it before. Its done to give an anti-American spin, not tell the story of Saddam Hussein.

Take for exampe: It uses Saddam's use of chemical weapons to question Reagan's lack of action. Or it posts unreliable statistics from "a Harvard medical team" about how many Iraqi children were killed in bombing... what does this have to do with Saddam?

I agree - you had me for a while - - many of those things I wouldn't be surprised by, the US Gov't often tramples others in a very self-interested way.

But there is too much obvious propaganda here -- -

Also, the U.S. army had used depleted uranium, a highly radioactive waste product of the nuclear power industry, in its weaponry. Depleted uranium, unlike other metals, doesn't shatter upon impact but burns. Iraq's armored divisions were decimated. The use of this uranium also left 390 tons of Uranium 238 in Iraq's environment, 70% of it in particle form.

This is crap. Spent uranium is not "highly radioactive" - - US soldiers and airmen handle bullets with spent uranium cores, and spent uranium is used as part of the armor on some tanks. At one point, there were accusations that spent uranium bullets, after they were fired, somehow became 'reacitive' again. This was researched and discarded.

I'm sorry if the word 'uranium' scares people - - they probably should create a brand name (like 'happium') to make people feel better.

Your post reminds me of the anti-drug ads - - I'm sometimes almost convinced, until I see a piece of blatant fakery - then I tend to disregard the whole thing.

Ashoka

 

[Smaasnekje]

Saddam Hussein were beaten up as a child, and has once taken a bullet out of his leg with a pair of scissors AFAIK

 

[napoleon526]

@ "happium"

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by Greadius
Actually, that IS propoganda and I've seen it before. Its done to give an anti-American spin, not tell the story of Saddam Hussein.

I'm not disagreeing with you - I think that is very true actually. It also said that the US deliberately shot down the Iranian airliner killing 300 civilians on purpose - though it is possible I don't think it is true. I'll go ahead and edit in a disclaimer. Nonetheless it was an interesting read.

Originally posted by napoleon526
It's sickening that our government started a war between 2 countries just so (hopefully) neither would be a threat to us.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that our government started it. They did however contribute to it through the sale of arms and other little actions - after all it proved in the country's interests.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by napoleon526
It's sickening that our government started a war between 2 countries just so (hopefully) neither would be a threat to us. It's another of the criminal Reagan's foreign policy 'legacies', along with El Salvador and Nicaragua.

I have no fondness for Republican administrations either, but fair is fair. The Iraq-Iran war started in '79 under Carter's watch. Reagan wasn't sworn in until Jan. '81.

 

[Jeratain]

Okay, I just found the source of this and I think I am going to remove the bio because it really is a biased source - that's not what I wanted to do.

If you want to read it go ahead and see it here: http://www.courtneyremes.com/stopwar/history.asp

Sorry for the shoddy information - Last time I post something without the source.

 

[Ashoka]

Originally posted by Jeratain
Okay, I just found the source of this and I think I am going to remove the bio because it really is a biased source - that's not what I wanted to do.

If you want to read it go ahead and see it here: http://www.courtneyremes.com/stopwar/history.asp

Sorry for the shoddy information - Last time I post something without the source.

Nawh - - we've all done it. Since most of us are information junkies, we're always looking for the next fix.

Sometimes it's slightly adulterated. You get the shakes, but move on.

Sad thing is, *some* of it is probably true, but it's d@mn near impossible to weed thru the propaganda to get to the truth.

Ashoka