Discussion:
Time to return Saddam to power?
(too old to reply)
Dennis Brown
2005-07-11 21:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Maybe it's time to return Saddam to power, with Chemical and Comical
Ali, Tariq Aziz, and all the colourful old rogues we came to know and love.
Saddam proved his leadership abilities, he held off the Iranians, kept
the Kurds from scaring Turkey, prevented the museums from being looted,
was a fierce opponent of Islamic fundamentalism. Even learned how to
do his own washing. Took up gardening. Wrote a novel. Hey, if this
guy spoke english, he could do streeters for CNN! Yeah, the guy had a
lot of admirable qualities. Of course he was a tyrant too. But, hey,
so is Mubarek and half a dozen other good friends of Bush. Maybe, in
keeping with the new reality of "fighting them over here", sending Saddam
"over there" is good tactical move. As Mike Myers used to say, while
channeling a character based on his mother-in-law: "discuss amongst
yourselves". :-)
--
Dennis Brown
Geoff Gigg
2005-07-11 22:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Brown
Maybe it's time to return Saddam to power, with Chemical and Comical
Ali, Tariq Aziz, and all the colourful old rogues we came to know and love.
Saddam proved his leadership abilities, he held off the Iranians, kept
the Kurds from scaring Turkey, prevented the museums from being looted,
was a fierce opponent of Islamic fundamentalism. Even learned how to
do his own washing. Took up gardening. Wrote a novel. Hey, if this
guy spoke english, he could do streeters for CNN! Yeah, the guy had a
lot of admirable qualities. Of course he was a tyrant too. But, hey,
so is Mubarek and half a dozen other good friends of Bush. Maybe, in
Mubarek is not in the same league. Who are the other half-dozen, in
your opinion?

Geoff
William R. Watt
2005-07-12 04:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Naw, there'll never be another Hitler. Stop dreaming.
Post by Geoff Gigg
Post by Dennis Brown
Maybe it's time to return Saddam to power, with Chemical and Comical
Ali, Tariq Aziz, and all the colourful old rogues we came to know and love.
Saddam proved his leadership abilities, he held off the Iranians, kept
the Kurds from scaring Turkey, prevented the museums from being looted,
was a fierce opponent of Islamic fundamentalism. Even learned how to
do his own washing. Took up gardening. Wrote a novel. Hey, if this
guy spoke english, he could do streeters for CNN! Yeah, the guy had a
lot of admirable qualities. Of course he was a tyrant too. But, hey,
so is Mubarek and half a dozen other good friends of Bush. Maybe, in
Mubarek is not in the same league. Who are the other half-dozen, in
your opinion?
Geoff
--
Dennis Brown
2005-07-12 04:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Gigg
Mubarek is not in the same league. Who are the other half-dozen, in
your opinion?
Good point. I keep forgetting the comparisons made of Saddam
to Hitler and Stalin. Nobody's ever put Mubarek into that category.
For example:

Saddam joins Hitler, Stalin: Rumsfeld

April 10 2003, 6:37 AM

Washington: Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is going down with Adolf Hitler
and Joseph Stalin among history's failed dictators, Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld said today.

Describing the scenes of jubilation in Baghdad after the entry of US
troops as "breathtaking," Rumsfeld compared the events to the fall of
the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the ensuing collapse of communism in Eastern
Europe....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/10/1049567773284.html?oneclick=true

In fact, I can't think of a half-dozen other contemporary dictators
who would get the Hitler and Stalin comparisons. That's the problem with
determining which "league" Saddam is really in. People keep putting him
in the same sentence as Hitler and Stalin. Maybe Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan
Milošević, Ilham Aliyev, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet,
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime are more appropriate comparisons.

Btw, I did find a Web site with some charts and stats of 20th century
wars and atrocities at:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
--
Dennis Brown
William R. Watt
2005-07-12 12:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Lest we forget, SH came to power by having opposition members of the elected
assembly escorted out of the chamber and executed in the corridor. Hitler
came to power legally. It was Hitler's party or the Communists.


--
Geoff Gigg
2005-07-12 13:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Brown
Post by Geoff Gigg
Mubarek is not in the same league. Who are the other half-dozen, in
your opinion?
Good point. I keep forgetting the comparisons made of Saddam
to Hitler and Stalin. Nobody's ever put Mubarek into that category.
Saddam joins Hitler, Stalin: Rumsfeld
April 10 2003, 6:37 AM
Washington: Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is going down with Adolf Hitler
and Joseph Stalin among history's failed dictators, Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld said today.
Describing the scenes of jubilation in Baghdad after the entry of US
troops as "breathtaking," Rumsfeld compared the events to the fall of
the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the ensuing collapse of communism in Eastern
Europe....
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/10/1049567773284.html?oneclick=true
In fact, I can't think of a half-dozen other contemporary dictators
who would get the Hitler and Stalin comparisons.
Rumsfeld's opinion? Not worth much (on just about any subject). It's not
the comparison you made and not what I asked. I'm still interested. Who
are the other half dozen tyrants Bush counts as friends, in your opinion?

Note that I am not discounting Mubarek as a "tyrant", although that has
a connotation of madness and blood-thirstiness for its own sake that he
doesn't seem to possess. Maybe "authoritarian regime" would suit his
situation better.
Post by Dennis Brown
That's the problem with
determining which "league" Saddam is really in. People keep putting him
in the same sentence as Hitler and Stalin. Maybe Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan
Milošević, Ilham Aliyev, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet,
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime are more appropriate comparisons.
Pol Pot - I'd put him up there with Hitler and Stalin. Some of the
others lacked the complete ruthlessness, or are "could be's" but lacked
sufficient "human material" to ravage.
Post by Dennis Brown
Btw, I did find a Web site with some charts and stats of 20th century
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
Took a look. Sad commentary on humanity. Here's a brief excerpt from
Stud Terkel's "'The Good War'" (taken from Jacob Bronowski talking about
going to Nagasaki in 1945) :

"... let us acknowledge our subject for what it is: civilization, face
to face with its own implications. The implications are both the
industrial slum which Nagasaki was before it was bombed, and the ashy
desolation which the bomb made of the slum. And civilization asks of
both ruins, "Is You Is or Is You Ain't My Baby?"

Geoff
Dennis Brown
2005-07-13 14:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Gigg
Rumsfeld's opinion? Not worth much (on just about any subject). It's not
the comparison you made and not what I asked. I'm still interested. Who
are the other half dozen tyrants Bush counts as friends, in your opinion?
Note that I am not discounting Mubarek as a "tyrant", although that has
a connotation of madness and blood-thirstiness for its own sake that he
doesn't seem to possess. Maybe "authoritarian regime" would suit his
situation better.
Maybe "authoritarian regimes" would have been a better choice of
words on my part as real tyrants at the state level are becoming more
scarce due to the drying up of the cold war, with its attendant client
states and arms race. There's still local warlords that carry on the
madness and blood-letting, but they are regional powerbrokers, not
official heads of state. So, if Saddam is the standard, I couldn't
name half a dozen of his equal that would qualify as Bush friends.

I could name a half dozen repressive regimes that have strategic
trade or military relations with the U.S. but that's not the tyrants
you requested. As the dinosaurs of tyranny retire, the rodents of
terrorism rush in to take their place. The same 24 hour news cycle
that makes it harder for tyrants to hide their large atrocities,
makes it easier for terrorists to get world-wide shock value for much
smaller atrocities. The Internet now plays a large role as well.

Gwynne Dyer pointed out in an interview I saw that there are
actually fewer wars and large scale atrocities now than at any time
in recent history, despite what the news appears to show. And, you
know, when I looked over the Web site with the worst tyrants and
mass murderers from history I realized that almost all are now in
the past. Who of the really big players is still in business?
--
Dennis Brown
Creighton T. Paterson
2005-07-14 13:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Brown
official heads of state. So, if Saddam is the standard, I couldn't
name half a dozen of his equal that would qualify as Bush friends.
With the reduced criteria to something along the lines of "bloodthirsty
lunatic who heads a US allied country", I think our current poster boy is
Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan.

That being said, I never had the impression that Saddam was in the same
league as Karimov, even. His sons were definately off the deep end, but
my impression is Saddam had moved beyond torture for torture's sake (at a
personal level - such a system is probably rife with abuses, vendettas, etc).

If we were to expand the criteria to something more like "governments who
willfully engage in torture, violence, and rape against their own
citizens" - which are pretty much the only things that Hussein was
rightfully accused of - then coming up with a half-dozen governments is
easy.
Post by Dennis Brown
you requested. As the dinosaurs of tyranny retire, the rodents of
terrorism rush in to take their place. The same 24 hour news cycle
that makes it harder for tyrants to hide their large atrocities,
makes it easier for terrorists to get world-wide shock value for much
smaller atrocities. The Internet now plays a large role as well.
I hope that better mass media coverage will keep these kinds of things
from happening again, but I doubt that's true. I don't think most
Americans could name Uzbekistan as a military ally, and I think even fewer
could document what goes on there.

I think what helped keep people like that in power is vast financial,
political, and military backing from a global power. The end of the Cold
War removed the most significant rivalry, allowing a lot of this to shake
loose (most notably in Eastern Europe). Most recently, though, the US has
been throwing it's weight around, hooking up with some unsavory people to
"fight terrorism". Europe and Russia are beginning to distance themselves
from the US and taking steps to set themselves up as more independent
powers, and the US almost seems determined to start a cold war with China.

So, with global moves to limit US power, and US playing games to secure it
- smaller countries could become -- strike that -- are becoming strategic
pieces again.

This trend is not encouraging to the dream of a tyrant free world.
Post by Dennis Brown
Gwynne Dyer pointed out in an interview I saw that there are
actually fewer wars and large scale atrocities now than at any time
in recent history, despite what the news appears to show.
Absolutely true. Just for a bit of perspective - I'm thirty - so while I
remember the Cold War, it was in it's last throes before I started to
notice the world. This certainly would *seem* to be the world's most
dangerous time from my memory.

That being said, I've read about things like the Cuban Missile Crisis, the
tension during the 50s, Mutual Assured Destruction, World War II, the
Great Depression, the Spanish Flu, the Great War...

The current doomsday scenario is a terrorist setting off a nuke in New
York City, killing millions of people. The doomsday scenario when I was
born was a total nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR - killing
EVERYONE.

The world is a much better place than it used to be.
Post by Dennis Brown
know, when I looked over the Web site with the worst tyrants and
mass murderers from history I realized that almost all are now in
the past. Who of the really big players is still in business?
Darfur isn't solved, whether you want to lay that at the feet of Halil or
al-Bashir or someone else still seems to be something of an open question.
Kambanda is in jail for the Rwandan genocide - but he was sentenced seven
years ago; so I wouldn't put this *too* far out of our minds.

The Maoist rebels are, by some counts, winning their war in Nepal - and
would seem to be inclined to set up another Maoist government like the one
Cambodia was treated to under Pol Pot.

True, none of these guys are no Stalin, or Hitler, or even Pol Pot (not yet,
anyway) - but they're not small time, either.

I'm also very concerned with the rising anti-muslim sentement in many
quarters of the world. It may be only a matter of time before someone
gets the idea that all their problems would go away if they did.


I fully agree the world is a safer and better place than it's given credit
for - but we're not done, yet.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers.

--
C.T. Paterson, ***@freenet.carleton.ca
When e-mailing, include "waterloo" in the subject to bypass spam filters.
Dave Livingston
2005-07-14 15:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Creighton T. Paterson (***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:

<snip>
Post by Creighton T. Paterson
I'm also very concerned with the rising anti-muslim sentement in many
quarters of the world. It may be only a matter of time before someone
gets the idea that all their problems would go away if they did.
I'm a fan of the ontological argument first put together by Anselm of
Canterbury in the 11th century CE, updated by Kurt Goedel in the middle of
last century, and endorsed by at least two Muslim scholars over the past
two centuries. Common ground concerning the being than which a greater
cannot be conceived. Even though the argument has never been refuted, I'm not
holding my breath until there's universal and practical recognition of it's
validity.

Meanwhile, convinced as we seem to be that our way of life is so perfectly
and unalterably complete, I think we're missing many opportunities to
blend and integrate on a more superficial and cosmetic level. I'm looking
for a crochet calotte (skull-cap), galabiyya, malay shirt, and maybe a
jubba.

Graeme Beckett
2005-07-12 16:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Brown
Post by Geoff Gigg
Mubarek is not in the same league. Who are the other half-dozen, in
your opinion?
Good point. I keep forgetting the comparisons made of Saddam
to Hitler and Stalin. Nobody's ever put Mubarek into that category.
In fact, I can't think of a half-dozen other contemporary dictators
who would get the Hitler and Stalin comparisons. That's the problem with
determining which "league" Saddam is really in. People keep putting him
in the same sentence as Hitler and Stalin. Maybe Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan
Milosevic, Ilham Aliyev, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Noriega, Marcos,
Pinochet,
Post by Dennis Brown
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime are more appropriate comparisons.
Btw, I did find a Web site with some charts and stats of 20th century
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
Short biographies and background notes on selected world heroes and killers of
the 20th century
Starting with Idi.: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/amin.html

And to balance things out:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/
Graeme Beckett
2005-07-12 23:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Beckett
Short biographies and background notes on selected world heroes and killers of
the 20th century
Starting with Idi.: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/amin.html
http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/
I'm curious if anyone has heard this song before?

Idi Amin - Amazin' Man
http://www.nofear.org/Archives/Media/2003/08/idi-amin.mp3

John Bird's satirical reggae song about Idi Amin was apparently banned in the
UK. It starts out as a quartet and oops, ends as solo.
Graeme Beckett
2005-07-12 23:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Beckett
I'm curious if anyone has heard this song before?
Idi Amin - Amazin' Man
http://www.nofear.org/Archives/Media/2003/08/idi-amin.mp3
John Bird's satirical reggae song about Idi Amin was apparently banned in the
UK. It starts out as a quartet and oops, ends as solo.
I found some of the lyrics:
--------
Ok, right now, here we're going again from de top and this time, the first
violins, uh I want you to plug the instruments into de gas main because I'm
not getting the sound I'm liking.
and de wives whats forming de backing group, get round to de front of me where
I can keep my eye on you.

Now, I'm counting you with the well known counting [...]

One, Two, .... oh no, what come after two? ......... Five..

Idi, Idi, Idi Amin
Most amazing man there's ever been
He de General, de President, de King of de Scene
Idi, Idi, Idi Amin

Look at the history, it packed with men
What rising to de top and getting chopped again.
No one handed dem de secret of de whole damn thing
You gotta give de population something to sing

Idi, Idi, Idi Amin
Most amazing man there's ever been
He de General, de President, de King of de Scene
Idi, Idi, Idi Amin

Take Hitler, Stalin, Attila de Nun,
No-one got a good word for a single one.
Where these first class geniuses all going wrong
They never got the population singing along.

Idi, Idi, Idi Amin
Most amazing man there's ever been
He de General, de President, de King of de Scene
Idi, Idi, Idi Amin

etc.
Dwight Williams
2005-07-13 15:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Someone tell me that DC Comics has filed suit over the abuse
of at least three of their trademarks here re: this song. Please?
--
Dwight Williams(***@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Personal Web Page: http://www.ncf.ca/~ad696/
John W. Bienko
2005-07-12 23:19:34 UTC
Permalink
The foreign policy of the USA is transparent..
The government of the USA will support ANY dictator/despot/
tyrant who acts in accordance with the interests of the USA.
Sadam Hussein provided cheap and ready access to Iraq oil..
and contributed enormous profits to US oil interests.
When Saddam Hussein began insisting on a greater
share of the profits.. the USA saw this as threatening
USA oil sources.. and decided to resort to military
action to regain its interests in the oil fields.
--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q
Graeme Beckett
2005-07-12 23:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W. Bienko
The foreign policy of the USA is transparent..
The government of the USA will support ANY dictator/despot/
tyrant who acts in accordance with the interests of the USA.
Sadam Hussein provided cheap and ready access to Iraq oil..
and contributed enormous profits to US oil interests.
When Saddam Hussein began insisting on a greater
share of the profits..
.....insisting on a greater share of the profits in Kuwait. ;)
Post by John W. Bienko
the USA saw this as threatening
USA oil sources.. and decided to resort to military
action to regain its interests in the oil fields.
Loading...