Ex-CIA officer says Saddam should have been left to run Iraq

[Clutch]

Exactly that's what all peaceful people of the world think now. He was iron fisted but charismatic leader who kept everything under control..there was no ISIS and sectarian issues...Middle-East was a peaceful place..But he made an idiotic mistake of attacking Kuwait which provided USA an excuse to attack Iraq and finally bring the terrorist like Noori Malki in power who destroyed Iraq and rest of the middle east by spreading sectarian hate and corruption.

It was all by design. Chaos was their goal from the get go. You thought the West wanted a marshal plan for the middle east to bring to them democracy , development, and progress? Lol... gullibility should be outlawed

 

[HAIDER]

God rule no 1 .....Give opportunity to straight up its act....If not, then suddenly angel of death visit from no where.....and it happens. He killed not 100s , not 1000s, in millions.
And he been killed by the hand which feed him.

Yes. You are right that my post is in bad taste. "Racist" is not correct. I was being anti-ethnic, not racist. That is, my sweeping condemnation was prompted by my opinion of Arab culture rather than any negative opinion about Arab genetic material or innate abilities. I have removed my post. It will live in your quote, however.

American believe in state interest , rest of some muslim countries believe in emotional binding. Which is failed concept in real world. Where interest always comes first.

 

[war&peace]

Interesting since you mentioned terrorism, because Saddam was the greatest terrorist in contemporary history of Middle East. The reason Iraq is like this is that Sunnis in Iraq started violence from day 1 after American invasion, they can not get it into their heads that they can't rule Iraq like Saddam's era anymore.

And Saddam Hussein wasn't in control always. In 1991, he lost most provinces of Iraq to Shia and Kurdish demonstrators and it was only because of silence of international community and use of excessive force (and the fact that Shias weren't nutjobs who would create terrorist groups like Nusra/Ahral al-Sham, ISIS in today's Syria and Iraq) that he could rule Iraq until 2003. Iraq used to be a prosperous country in 60s and 70s, but the bastard attacked Iran and then Kuwait and brought Iraq the misery it is fighting to this very day.

Go tell common Iraqi in streets of Baghdad that Saddam was a good ruler and they will slap you in the face left and right.

Well what stated are facts but of course are views are different and I don't expect you will agree. But one thing I really find strange is that Iranians normally called USA as shaitan-e-akbar (the biggest devil) but when it comes to Iraq and Saddam, they totally approve US policy ..
Furthermore this problem has a strong sectarian angle and that is a sensitive issue especially on this forum,. But other than that also we can't have discussion, because I will try to be neutral but the same won't happen from your side

Yes. You are right that my post is in bad taste. "Racist" is not correct. I was being anti-ethnic, not racist. That is, my sweeping condemnation was prompted by my opinion of Arab culture rather than any negative opinion about Arab genetic material or innate abilities. I have removed my post. It will live in your quote, however.

I deleted as well

 

[mike2000 is back]

No, I don't support the disasterous 2003 invasion by the nutjob Bush and smaller nutjob, Blair. The point is, if there was any plan to overthrow him, it should have been done in 1991 and not in 2003 and Iraq would be in a much much better shape today if that was the case. But back then in 1991, Saddam had not still overstayed his usefulness. Yes Saddam was Iran's enemy, but after 1991, he was only a paper tiger. He couldn't and wouldn't d anything against Iran anymore.

Lol So you wanted us to overthrow him in 19991 instead of 2003? interesting.
I thought you people have always been against 'evil' western powers intervening in the region ,much less toppling regimes? lol
Moreover, how can you be against Saddams Baathist tyranny(granted he prevented Iran alot from expanding its influence in the region) but support Assad's Baathist Tyranny?

 

[HAIDER]

UK

Thatcher stands by Pinochet

Baroness Thatcher thanked Pinochet for his help in the Falklands

Baroness Thatcher has visited General Pinochet at the home where he is staying under house arrest near London - and talked of the "debt" she believes the UK owes him.

 

[Valar Dohaeris]

Interesting since you mentioned terrorism, because Saddam was the greatest terrorist in contemporary history of Middle East. The reason Iraq is like this is that Sunnis in Iraq started violence from day 1 after American invasion, they can not get it into their heads that they can't rule Iraq like Saddam's era anymore.

And Saddam Hussein wasn't in control always. In 1991, he lost most provinces of Iraq to Shia and Kurdish demonstrators and it was only because of silence of international community and use of excessive force (and the fact that Shias weren't nutjobs who would create terrorist groups like Nusra/Ahral al-Sham, ISIS in today's Syria and Iraq) that he could rule Iraq until 2003. Iraq used to be a prosperous country in 60s and 70s, but the bastard attacked Iran and then Kuwait and brought Iraq the misery it is fighting to this very day.

Go tell common Iraqi in streets of Baghdad that Saddam was a good ruler and they will slap you in the face left and right.



U.S could easily topple Saddam in 1991, but they didn't and it is also one of the reason Iraq is in current situation. They destroyed Iraq in 1991, but let a humiliated lunatic to continue ruling Iraq and take his revenge from the Iraqi people instead until 12 years later. If Sadaam had been toppled in 1991, Iraq would be in a much better shape today. But Americans used Saddam like a used toilet paper and threw him away only when they thought it suits them.

It will be interesting and relevance would be breathtaking if we replace the word 'Saddam' with 'Assad' and 'Iraq' with 'Syria' and 'Shia' with 'Sunni' in all your post. Amazing.

Also, I think Iran does not have moral grounds to talk of Saddam when they support Assad with all of their force. In-spite of the fact that both Assad ans Saddam belonged to the same Ba'ath party.

What I get from most of the pro-Iranian posters on PDF is that everything is okay and acceptable if it is under the influence of Iran, the rest may all go to hell and be called with any name out of IS/Nusra/Bla bla which deem fit.