Full Version: The Black Book of Saddam
A book was published last year (in France) called the Black Book of Saddam Hussein (Le Livre Noir de Saddam Hussein). link
In it, the authors detail the atrocities surrounding the Hussein regime, starting from his purges of the Baath party shortly after coming to power and continuing through the mass murders of Kurds and Shiites who tried to topple him after Operation Desert Storm.
The book's editor writes in the Introduction:
"The American war was perhaps not a good solution to put an end to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. But, as this book shows, after 35 years of a dictatorship of exceptional violence which destroyed Iraqi civil society and created millions of victims, there wasn't a good option."
The book claims that the Hussein regime was responsible for 2 million deaths.
In the preface, Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Doctors Without Borders, calls Hussein "one of the worst tyrants in history."
I don't want to dwell on the timing or the justification for ousting Saddam, but merely on his actions over time:
Question for debate:
Where does Saddam Hussein rank among the tyrants of history?
In it, the authors detail the atrocities surrounding the Hussein regime, starting from his purges of the Baath party shortly after coming to power and continuing through the mass murders of Kurds and Shiites who tried to topple him after Operation Desert Storm.
The book's editor writes in the Introduction:
"The American war was perhaps not a good solution to put an end to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. But, as this book shows, after 35 years of a dictatorship of exceptional violence which destroyed Iraqi civil society and created millions of victims, there wasn't a good option."
The book claims that the Hussein regime was responsible for 2 million deaths.
In the preface, Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Doctors Without Borders, calls Hussein "one of the worst tyrants in history."
I don't want to dwell on the timing or the justification for ousting Saddam, but merely on his actions over time:
Question for debate:
Where does Saddam Hussein rank among the tyrants of history?
Very far far down the ladder. There's so much we in the west don't hear or read about, and for good reason. Imagine what would happen if the US press told the historical truth about Sadaam Hussein, most notably his achievements. Since we, actually you the war supporters, now know all the things they said about Iraq were completely false and outright lies, it's hard to trust any official who says Hussein did this, Hussein did that, paper shredder this, execution that...It's ridiculous. The US supported Hussein. Supported him. Think about that word. Giving money to. Giving weapons to, including the ballyhooed WMD, to Iraq. Sharing top secret sattelite intelligence with Iraq. All these are NOT the actions of a nation who is confronting evil. It's the actions of a self-interested country who acts with impunity to further their own agenda no matter the stripe no matter the side.
Here's an excerpt taken from the writings of some guy:
Here's an excerpt taken from the writings of some guy:
QUOTE
Very few people know or even care that until 1971, all of the oil reserves in Iraq were owned and completely controlled by American and British interests. At that precise point in recent history, the Iraqi people were regarded by the “Western Powers” merely as serfs, who were graciously allowed to keep three cents out of every three dollar barrel of their own Iraqi oil. The balance of US$2.97 per barrel went straight into the New York and London bank accounts of western “investors”.
Then suddenly in 1972, the young Saddam Hussein peacefully nationalized the Iraqi Oil Company, and told its American and British employees to recognize this new reality or leave the country. Most decided to leave, and horrified western investors then found “their” oil reserves in Iraq were no longer paying the rent on luxury apartments in Manhattan and Mayfair. From a Wall Street perspective it was Fidel Castro and Cuba all over again, and the bankers quietly vowed to take revenge on Saddam Hussein for his “reckless insubordination”.
As each year rolled by, Hussein ordered that all of Iraq’s recovered oil wealth be invested in irrigation, infrastructure, education, medicine, defense and other essentials. Within a decade Iraq became easily the most advanced secular Muslim country in the world, with large numbers of women in the professions, and a free health service that could only be marveled at by less fortunate nations.
Predictably perhaps, Saddam Hussein became a national hero: the man who “Kicked the Americans and British out” and catapulted Iraq into the 20th Century. Even today in 2003, all Iraqi citizens are free to carry loaded automatic weapons on the street, because President Hussein has nothing to fear from his own people.
As recently as last October, an Iraqi woman on a balcony in Baghdad saluted her President as he passed less than fifty yards away, by a firing a three-shot burst from a fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifle up in the air. Saddam Hussein, standing erect and unprotected in an open Jeep, merely smiled and nodded his acknowledgement. If any woman in Washington, London or Canberra had dared to salute President Bush, Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Howard in this way, she would have been shot dead immediately by government snipers.
Then suddenly in 1972, the young Saddam Hussein peacefully nationalized the Iraqi Oil Company, and told its American and British employees to recognize this new reality or leave the country. Most decided to leave, and horrified western investors then found “their” oil reserves in Iraq were no longer paying the rent on luxury apartments in Manhattan and Mayfair. From a Wall Street perspective it was Fidel Castro and Cuba all over again, and the bankers quietly vowed to take revenge on Saddam Hussein for his “reckless insubordination”.
As each year rolled by, Hussein ordered that all of Iraq’s recovered oil wealth be invested in irrigation, infrastructure, education, medicine, defense and other essentials. Within a decade Iraq became easily the most advanced secular Muslim country in the world, with large numbers of women in the professions, and a free health service that could only be marveled at by less fortunate nations.
Predictably perhaps, Saddam Hussein became a national hero: the man who “Kicked the Americans and British out” and catapulted Iraq into the 20th Century. Even today in 2003, all Iraqi citizens are free to carry loaded automatic weapons on the street, because President Hussein has nothing to fear from his own people.
As recently as last October, an Iraqi woman on a balcony in Baghdad saluted her President as he passed less than fifty yards away, by a firing a three-shot burst from a fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifle up in the air. Saddam Hussein, standing erect and unprotected in an open Jeep, merely smiled and nodded his acknowledgement. If any woman in Washington, London or Canberra had dared to salute President Bush, Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Howard in this way, she would have been shot dead immediately by government snipers.
Where does Saddam Hussein rank among the tyrants of history?
On what are we basing the ranking? Death toll?
If that's the case and the numbers are accurate, I believe this places Saddam in about the same place as Pol Pot in the rankings. Perhaps we should put him under house arrest. Maybe give him a Netflix account... he can order in Chinese.
He was a tyrant... do we really need to start deciding who was the most tyrannical. This reminds me of the Eddie Izzard bit:
On what are we basing the ranking? Death toll?
If that's the case and the numbers are accurate, I believe this places Saddam in about the same place as Pol Pot in the rankings. Perhaps we should put him under house arrest. Maybe give him a Netflix account... he can order in Chinese.
He was a tyrant... do we really need to start deciding who was the most tyrannical. This reminds me of the Eddie Izzard bit:
QUOTE
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym!
His regime was horrible in the extreme, of course. I don't see much debate here. My concern is that whatever regime replaces him, although it may be better, will still be very bad. ( I hope not. I genuinely hope that the American invasion of Iraq results in a liberal, secular, representative government.)
(Edited to correct a serious mistake kindly pointed out by my friend lederuvdapac.)
(Edited to correct a serious mistake kindly pointed out by my friend lederuvdapac.)
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ May 18 2006, 12:04 PM)
Very far far down the ladder. There's so much we in the west don't hear or read about, and for good reason. Imagine what would happen if the US press told the historical truth about Sadaam Hussein, most notably his achievements. Since we, actually you the war supporters, now know all the things they said about Iraq were completely false and outright lies, it's hard to trust any official who says Hussein did this, Hussein did that, paper shredder this, execution that...It's ridiculous. The US supported Hussein. Supported him. Think about that word. Giving money to. Giving weapons to, including the ballyhooed WMD, to Iraq. Sharing top secret sattelite intelligence with Iraq. All these are NOT the actions of a nation who is confronting evil. It's the actions of a self-interested country who acts with impunity to further their own agenda no matter the stripe no matter the side.
Here's an excerpt taken from the writings of some guy:
Here's an excerpt taken from the writings of some guy:
QUOTE
Very few people know or even care that until 1971, all of the oil reserves in Iraq were owned and completely controlled by American and British interests. At that precise point in recent history, the Iraqi people were regarded by the “Western Powers” merely as serfs, who were graciously allowed to keep three cents out of every three dollar barrel of their own Iraqi oil. The balance of US$2.97 per barrel went straight into the New York and London bank accounts of western “investors”.
Then suddenly in 1972, the young Saddam Hussein peacefully nationalized the Iraqi Oil Company, and told its American and British employees to recognize this new reality or leave the country. Most decided to leave, and horrified western investors then found “their” oil reserves in Iraq were no longer paying the rent on luxury apartments in Manhattan and Mayfair. From a Wall Street perspective it was Fidel Castro and Cuba all over again, and the bankers quietly vowed to take revenge on Saddam Hussein for his “reckless insubordination”.
As each year rolled by, Hussein ordered that all of Iraq’s recovered oil wealth be invested in irrigation, infrastructure, education, medicine, defense and other essentials. Within a decade Iraq became easily the most advanced secular Muslim country in the world, with large numbers of women in the professions, and a free health service that could only be marveled at by less fortunate nations.
Predictably perhaps, Saddam Hussein became a national hero: the man who “Kicked the Americans and British out” and catapulted Iraq into the 20th Century. Even today in 2003, all Iraqi citizens are free to carry loaded automatic weapons on the street, because President Hussein has nothing to fear from his own people.
As recently as last October, an Iraqi woman on a balcony in Baghdad saluted her President as he passed less than fifty yards away, by a firing a three-shot burst from a fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifle up in the air. Saddam Hussein, standing erect and unprotected in an open Jeep, merely smiled and nodded his acknowledgement. If any woman in Washington, London or Canberra had dared to salute President Bush, Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Howard in this way, she would have been shot dead immediately by government snipers.
Then suddenly in 1972, the young Saddam Hussein peacefully nationalized the Iraqi Oil Company, and told its American and British employees to recognize this new reality or leave the country. Most decided to leave, and horrified western investors then found “their” oil reserves in Iraq were no longer paying the rent on luxury apartments in Manhattan and Mayfair. From a Wall Street perspective it was Fidel Castro and Cuba all over again, and the bankers quietly vowed to take revenge on Saddam Hussein for his “reckless insubordination”.
As each year rolled by, Hussein ordered that all of Iraq’s recovered oil wealth be invested in irrigation, infrastructure, education, medicine, defense and other essentials. Within a decade Iraq became easily the most advanced secular Muslim country in the world, with large numbers of women in the professions, and a free health service that could only be marveled at by less fortunate nations.
Predictably perhaps, Saddam Hussein became a national hero: the man who “Kicked the Americans and British out” and catapulted Iraq into the 20th Century. Even today in 2003, all Iraqi citizens are free to carry loaded automatic weapons on the street, because President Hussein has nothing to fear from his own people.
As recently as last October, an Iraqi woman on a balcony in Baghdad saluted her President as he passed less than fifty yards away, by a firing a three-shot burst from a fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifle up in the air. Saddam Hussein, standing erect and unprotected in an open Jeep, merely smiled and nodded his acknowledgement. If any woman in Washington, London or Canberra had dared to salute President Bush, Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Howard in this way, she would have been shot dead immediately by government snipers.
Some guy huh? If i can't get away with that, no way you can
. I don't want to get into the whole "we supported Saddam" in this topic, perhaps you would prefer to start a new thread?Where does Saddam Hussein rank among the tyrants of history?
Its very difficult to judge. The population of his country pales in comparison to that of the nations under Stalin, Mao, or Hitler so the damage that he could do while maintaining a working country was less. However, the manner in which he carried out the killings he committed does place him high on the list IMO.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
His regime was horrible in the extreme, of course. I don't see much debate here. My concern is that whatever regime replaces him, although it may be better, will still be very bad. ( I hope not. I genuinely hope that the American invasion of Iran results in a liberal, secular, representative government.)
Freudian slip eh?
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ May 18 2006, 04:04 PM)
Very far far down the ladder. There's so much we in the west don't hear or read about, and for good reason. Imagine what would happen if the US press told the historical truth about Sadaam Hussein, most notably his achievements.
While written with a typical slant, none the less the general facts of TruthMarch's point are essentially true, Hussein did nationalise the oil fields, he was fairly smart with where the nationalised money went (Though Truthmarch left out the massive military spending which gave him the fourth largest Army on planet earth), and he was VERY popular with elements of Iraqi society.
The bit about firing into the air is something of an urban myth. When having nationalised the oil fields Hussein went on parade, there was firing into the air, and Hussein did not react to it: the source of this legend. However, in the several decades since, anyone caught firing into the air as President Hussein went by, or was on his balcony tended to disapear quite quickly and brutally.
Though as I said these comments are essentially true, it is a long way from the whole truth. Hussein was popular and well received when he went on parade (which was rarely), but then he only ever went on parade or made public appearances in a few select parts of the country; never in Kurdish or Shia portions of the country. He was like substantially less there.
It also leaves out how he came to power, through some skillful political maneuvering, and assassination of his rivals. It also leaves out his quite open and public ruthlessness towards political opponents, and of course his brutal supression of the Kurds and Shia, as well as anyone who would rase a voice against him.
Truthmarch's comments are 'true' in the same way someone writing of Hitler that he was a 'careful man who loved children and animals, didn't drink, was a brilliant speaker, and brought prosperity to germany early in his reign' would be telling the truth. Factually correct, but of course a complete fabrication in intention.
QUOTE
Where does Saddam Hussein rank among the tyrants of history?
It sort of depends by what criteria your basing your ranking on. There have been so many historical tyrants who made even Stalin look cuddly that its hard to say who was worse than who. Stalin (and I think also one of the Chinese emporers) holds the top spot for sheer numbers, but others, like Herod the Great, were far more brutal though they ruled over smaller populations.
Compare Saddam Hussein to some one like Nero or Caligula and he seems almost like a good leader!
Compare Saddam Hussein to his own peers then he is the worst of the lot, but only just. The tyranny that exists in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia may not be as visible as it was in Iraq, but it was and is there still.
I'd say Saddam Hussein was some where in the middle of the list. He killed a lot of people, hurt even more and doesn't deserve anything more than a Rumanian style day in court and then a quick execution round the back of the court house.
Where does Saddam Hussein rank among the tyrants of history?
??? You do realize that this is a question that is not easily answered!! Rank among ALL the tyrants in the entire history of the world? If we only take the body count than probably he will end fairly high, but it would be a inaccurate list. Saddam used modern "tools" to wipe out his opponents (toxic gasses, rockets, machine-guns etc), but is he worst than Robbespiere (who killed thousands of fellow Frenchmen with his guillotine), or Nero (who liked to use burning Christians as torches to light his gardens during his many orchies), or emperor Trajanus and his ethnic cleansing in Dacia (Romania), or multiple Katholic popes who, through the Inquisition, hunted down, tortured and killed many, many people in Europe? Even compared to other 'modern' tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao he is not even in the top spot.
But then again, what is the purpose of ranking Saddam? He was/is a megalomaniac tyran, and he brutally oppressed his people in large parts of his country. I applaud the fact that he has been captured and I believe he should be executed for all his misdeeds. Now that Saddam is gone, we can start eliminating all the other tyrants in the world. Wouldn't that be great.
Unfortunately this will never happen. Hypocracy in international politics will prevent this, some tyrants will be attacked, others will be praised. It all revolves around usefullness: if a tyrant is working along with the West he is portrayed as an important ally, if a tyrant goes against the will of the West, he will be pressured and painted in the blackest way possible. There are double standards at work, but then again this has always been the case.
??? You do realize that this is a question that is not easily answered!! Rank among ALL the tyrants in the entire history of the world? If we only take the body count than probably he will end fairly high, but it would be a inaccurate list. Saddam used modern "tools" to wipe out his opponents (toxic gasses, rockets, machine-guns etc), but is he worst than Robbespiere (who killed thousands of fellow Frenchmen with his guillotine), or Nero (who liked to use burning Christians as torches to light his gardens during his many orchies), or emperor Trajanus and his ethnic cleansing in Dacia (Romania), or multiple Katholic popes who, through the Inquisition, hunted down, tortured and killed many, many people in Europe? Even compared to other 'modern' tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao he is not even in the top spot.
But then again, what is the purpose of ranking Saddam? He was/is a megalomaniac tyran, and he brutally oppressed his people in large parts of his country. I applaud the fact that he has been captured and I believe he should be executed for all his misdeeds. Now that Saddam is gone, we can start eliminating all the other tyrants in the world. Wouldn't that be great.
Unfortunately this will never happen. Hypocracy in international politics will prevent this, some tyrants will be attacked, others will be praised. It all revolves around usefullness: if a tyrant is working along with the West he is portrayed as an important ally, if a tyrant goes against the will of the West, he will be pressured and painted in the blackest way possible. There are double standards at work, but then again this has always been the case.
Saddam was certainly a brutal dictator but ranking his crimes against others is difficult. Most of the deaths attributed to him were in acts of aggressive war against Iran and later Kuwait. His most egregious crimes were committed as acts of political suppression - gassing Kurdish villages, wiping out the reed people by draining there swampy homeland, and brutally suppressing the Shia after they rebelled following his defeat in Kuwait. He was also guilty of day to day suppressing and execution of suspected political opponents, but these deaths were comparatively modest in number compared to the former acts and certainly were no worse than Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, who we now find it convenient to support, just as we found it convenient to support Saddam for several decades as a foil against Iran.
2,000,000 Iranians, Kurds, Shia and others is a lot to account for, even if a portion of the crimes are assigned to those who aided and abetted them. Nevertheless, I don't think his crimes are comparable to the systematic destruction of intellectuals and others that the Khmer Rouge under took in Cambodia nor to the genocide of the European Jews that the Nazis engineered nor even to the genocide of the Armenians by the Turkish government in WWI. (The Rwanda genocide is a special case because of the defuse responsibility). He was no worse than Idi Amin in Uganda but ranks worse because of the aggressive wars he began. He admired Stalin but his crimes didn't reach Stalin's level but probably only because of a smaller stage.
I have more problem in comparing his crimes against our own. While most of ours were committed against a rational of acting for positive human values, the fact remains that we are responsible for 3,000,000 deaths in South East Asia, complicit in 500,000 killed in the Suharto coup in Indonesia, involved in supporting Central American regimes and guerilla groups who killed 270,000, and now we can add another 200,000 in Iraq. When are publicly declared good intentions insufficient?
2,000,000 Iranians, Kurds, Shia and others is a lot to account for, even if a portion of the crimes are assigned to those who aided and abetted them. Nevertheless, I don't think his crimes are comparable to the systematic destruction of intellectuals and others that the Khmer Rouge under took in Cambodia nor to the genocide of the European Jews that the Nazis engineered nor even to the genocide of the Armenians by the Turkish government in WWI. (The Rwanda genocide is a special case because of the defuse responsibility). He was no worse than Idi Amin in Uganda but ranks worse because of the aggressive wars he began. He admired Stalin but his crimes didn't reach Stalin's level but probably only because of a smaller stage.
I have more problem in comparing his crimes against our own. While most of ours were committed against a rational of acting for positive human values, the fact remains that we are responsible for 3,000,000 deaths in South East Asia, complicit in 500,000 killed in the Suharto coup in Indonesia, involved in supporting Central American regimes and guerilla groups who killed 270,000, and now we can add another 200,000 in Iraq. When are publicly declared good intentions insufficient?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.