Saddam

[MOSQ]

crowMaw,

1) The leaders of Poland, USSR, East Germany, Romania, did not have the stomach to be butchers of their own people to enforce their totalitarian regimes. When Stalin was in power, he did. But the leaders were no longer sadistic maniacs like Stalin and Saddam.

Saddam very much has the will and the means to slaughter people who would dissent and try to change the government.

2) The leaders of these communist countries had also come to realize that communism was not going to hang the last capitalist with his own rope. They realized capitalism was leaving them in the dust, and they were ready for a change.

Saddam will never be ready for a change.

A comparison of the communist countries in their last days with the regime of Saddam is not valid. They are totally different circumstances.

[miko2d]

MOSQ: 1) The leaders of Poland, USSR, East Germany, Romania, did not have the stomach to be butchers of their own people to enforce their totalitarian regimes. When Stalin was in power, he did. But the leaders were no longer sadistic maniacs like Stalin and Saddam.

 And the reason for that was that Stalin left a generation of rulers much less competent than his one - Khrushevm Molotove, etc.
 And the incompetent bunch that retired Khrushev - or ratehr two bunches - selected as a compromise teh mist incompetent and non-threatening Brezhnev as a figurehead, etc. Without real enemy mobilise them and having dead society, vs. dynamic market-based entrepreneural one, such states go corrupt, lax and crumble - the more disparate parts in threir empire, the faster. Eastern block, periphery of teh empire started getting the "freedom" rot even earlier - Poland, Hungary, etc.

Saddam very much has the will and the means to slaughter people who would dissent and try to change the government.

 But he would have died sooner or later. And teh regime would have changed - possibly with way fewer civilian casualties and certainly no hostility incured by americans.

 miko

[Martlet]

Originally posted by miko2d
But he would have died sooner or later. And teh regime would have changed - possibly with way fewer civilian casualties and certainly no hostility incured by americans.

 miko

Earth to miko, come in miko!  It's time to return to reality.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by miko2d
[b
Saddam very much has the will and the means to slaughter people who would dissent and try to change the government.

 But he would have died sooner or later. And teh regime would have changed - possibly with way fewer civilian casualties and certainly no hostility incured by americans.

 miko

I suppose this worked the same way for stalin in the ussr. I can see how that logic works. Lets see then, north korea should have had a regime change and all oppressive conditions were removed when kim  the first kicked the bucket and of course things changed dramatically when mao died in china. Yep the world really changed for folks in those countries when their kindly old dictator died............

Ya know I don't think your logic follows, but that is no surprise.

[MOSQ]

miko2d,

With fewer civilian casualties ? ! ?

How many civilians has Saddam killed already ? Between the Kurds, Shiites, Iranians ? 400,000 Iraqi kids die each year of malnutrition because Saddam keeps the food for oil money we send Iraq. He lives in gilded while the children starve.

The number of civilians killed by coalition forces will be miniscule in comparison.

The man is evil. His sons are evil. In your scenario Saddam dies, but who seizes control ? His Son ! And his Son is even more sadistic than Saddam !

So then we would have Saddam's son with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

We have no choice but to finish the Gulf War, and replace Saddam, his sons, and the Baath party.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
no what do you mean by this?

Crow says
 

"They Chose"

wow..Crow..they have so many choices!!!

[/b]

Jeez BiGB...I know you aint that dense!  What I mean by "they choose" does not mean by elections and voting.  They choose by inaction.  They refuse to overthrow Saddam, therefore they choose to live with him.

Lmfao..Crow..u answer a question with a question...

Again..EXplain to me how the East Germans and the rest of these east block countries free'd themselves?

[/b]

Need a history lesson, eh BiGB?  OK...you ready for a drink from the firehose?

East Germany:  The people of the GDR had been getting info about glasnost and perestroika which began around 1989.  Although the GDR leadership tried to deny the reality of these developments and franticly attempted to block the news coming out of the Soviet Union by preventing the distribution of Russian newsmagazines only strengthened growing protest within the population.

In Berlin, on October 7, the GDR leadership celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the foundation of the East German state. In his address, Honecker sharply condemned the FRG for interfering in the GDR's internal affairs and for encouraging protesters. Still convinced of his mission to secure the survival of the GDR as a state, he proclaimed: "Socialism will be halted in its course neither by ox, nor ass."

Two days later 70,000 protesters shouting "We are the people" demonstrated in Leipzig. When the police took no action during these historic hours of October 9, 1989, it became clear to everyone that the days of the GDR were numbered. After the crowds in Leipzig reached over 100,000 protesters on October 16, the Central Committee of the SED--previously kept in the background by Honecker and his comrades in the party leadership--took control. Honecker resigned from his offices as head of state and party leader on October 18.

Egon Krenz, longtime member of the Politburo and FDJ chairman, became Honecker's successor as general secretary of the SED. On October 24, Krenz also assumed the chairmanship of the Council of State. On his orders, all police actions against demonstrators were discontinued. On November 4, the largest demonstration in GDR history took place, with over 1 million people in East Berlin demanding democracy and free elections. Confronted with this wave of popular opposition, the GDR government, under Prime Minister Willi Stoph, resigned on November 7. The Politburo followed suit on November 8. Finally, on the evening of November 9, Politburo member Günter Schabowski announced the opening of the border crossings into the FRG.

Ohh ok..so what you are saying. is..East Germans Physicaly tore the wall down so that means they actually collapsed the Russina rule over the country/??   hahaha..if thats what you mean u are right..lololol[/b]

My respect for your intelligence is waining, bud.  If the people of the GDR had sat on their tulips in '89 and did nothing about Honecker from then until now, they would still be a communist country.

I do agree that losing the Cold War did have something to do with speeding their demise.  But more so, I belive that communism is doomed idealogically from the start...it would have been a matter of time even without the Cold War before the people of those countries tossed their respective Politburos out on their butts.

But the point is...the USA did not march into Berlin and liberate the East Germans for their own good.  The East Germans tossed their leaders out on their own.

I never saw this revolt...must have been quik..I beleive it was more of an implosion then revolt..They proved there style of government is a hunk of crap.. [/B]

You have to not be blind in order to see BigB.  Which revolt you want to know about?  We already did East Germany.  How about USSR...August 1991, the last gasp of the old Soviet Union.  Hardliners attempted to sieze control of the government away from Gorbechev.  A group calling itself the State Emergency Committee attempted to seize power in Moscow. The group announced that Gorbachev was ill and had been relieved of his state post as president. Soviet Union vice president Gennadiy Yanayev was named acting president. The committee's eight members included KGB chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov, Internal Affairs Minister Pugo, Defense Minister Dmitriy Yazov, and Prime Minister Pavlov, all of whom had risen to their posts under Gorbachev.

Large public demonstrations against the coup leaders took place in Moscow and Leningrad, and divided loyalties in the defense and security establishments prevented the armed forces from crushing the resistance that Yeltsin led from Russia's parliament building. I watched that on CNN...Yeltsen got up on top of a tank whos commander was loyal to the resistance movement and spoke to a huge crowd in Red Square. On August 21, the coup collapsed, and Gorbachev returned to Moscow.

Once back in Moscow, Gorbachev acted as if he were oblivious to the changes that had occurred in the preceding three days. As he returned to power, Gorbachev promised to purge conservatives from the CPSU. He resigned as general secretary but remained president of the Soviet Union. The coup's failure brought a series of collapses of all-union institutions. Yeltsin took control of the central broadcasting company and key economic ministries and agencies, and in November he banned the CPSU and the Russian Communist Party.

By December 1991, all of the former Soviet republics had declared independence.

I can go on...would you like to hear about Romania?  In that one the leader of the country was exicuted along with his wife by the people who revolted.  Just let me know and I'll be glad to school you some more.

XOXOX  as always.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Toad
Are you saying there was no Shiite revolt in '91?

Ah...I see...you have a reading comprehension problem.   This is what I said:

The Iraqi Shi'ites in the central and north, which is roughly half of the Iraqi population, evidently didn't rise up like their southern brothers.

Lets simplyfy this to:

The Iraqi Shi'ites in the central and north evidently didn't rise up like their southern brothers.

What does this mean?  

"...didn't rise up like their southern brothers" means that the southern Shi'ites rose up.  The word "evidently" indicates that the sentance proposes that the central and northern Shi'ites did not.

So to answer your question simply...yes, I am aware that the southern Iraqi Shi'ites revolted, which is evident by my quoted sentance.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by MOSQ
1) The leaders of Poland, USSR, East Germany, Romania, did not have the stomach to be butchers of their own people to enforce their totalitarian regimes.

[/b]

You have to be kidding me...Ceausescu and the Securitate were not willing to butcher their own Romanian people?  ROTFLOL!

b2) The leaders of these communist countries had also come to realize that communism was not going to hang the last capitalist with his own rope. They realized capitalism was leaving them in the dust, and they were ready for a change.

So that is why there was a hardline coup in the USSR in 1991. Uh-huh...okay.  And when GDR Chairman Honecker said, "Socialism will be halted in its course neither by ox, nor ass," two days before the East Geraman people revolted he was just pulling their leg.  Riiiiiight.  And I bet you are right that Ceausescu was ready for a change when the Romanian revolutionaries lined him up against a wall and shot him on public TV.  Those leaders sure were ready for a change alright.

A comparison of the communist countries in their last days with the regime of Saddam is not valid. They are totally different circumstances. [/B]

Lets see...Saddam is a socialist totalitarian dictator...hmmm, maybe he wasn't like any of the other socialist totalitarian dictators of the late '80s and early '90s.  I guess they were sweethearts and that is why their people overthrew them...yeah, that makes sense.

[BGBMAW]

heheh ok..You do agree Communism wont work..so a revoklt wasnt really needed?


But..i do beleive western powers had a good deal of work involved with rallying /supporting revolt/spying in east germany..these guys wer not on there own..

And Again..you admitted ..the collapse of the USSr was the MAIN reason gthe rest fell..

I meanif they still had there money/powere they could of killed all who disagreed..liek they did for so many decades right?

Seemed liek you are saying that Iraq people have the power to over throw there gov ' currenlty...I woudl say..Soddom gov has too many wepaons to havce a succes ful revolt..u agree?


ya ya, you schooled me..lolo

Crow says

I do agree that losing the Cold War did have something to do with speeding their demise.

My point is u are comparing Iraq with Russai and the eastern block.
I really think they are completyly different situations..


BiGB

of course
xoxo

[Toad]

Yeah, I'm illiterate, that's it.

Now then, the Shiites rebel in the South, the Kurds revolt as well. The revolt, bloody and violent in both the North and the South continues for about a month. Both the Kurds and the Southern Shiites are "brutally suppressed".

All estimates of Shiite deaths in this revolt start at "tens of thousands" and run as high as sixty thousand.

In the North, the Kurds, after suffering between 100,000 and 180,000 deaths in the Anfal at the hands of Saddam's brother-in-law "Chemical Ali" are initially successful in driving out Saddam's Sunni troops. However, within a week Saddam's loyal forces return and tens of thousands of Kurds die and an estimated million or more flee to Turkey and Iran. However, the UN establishes a no-fly zone and a de-facto independent Kurdistan is born... albeit with continual US/UK air support and oversight. So perhaps a partially successful revolt for the Kurds.

Now, your contention is if the Iraqi really wanted Saddam out, they could do it with numbers, just like East Germany or Russia.

Seems you overlook one key difference in your comparisons.

Saddam has his loyal, primarily Sunni Republican Guard. Obviously, they are not ihibited by the thought of killing their fellow countrymen. Witness the Anfal with 100K+ dead Kurds, the Shiite revolt with 60K dead Shias and more thousands of dead Kurds in the '01 revolt.

What would have been the result in East Germany if their had been an ethnic or religious minority loyal to the government but different from the "majority" of the common people that was not only willing but eager to kill dissidents? Suppose the 70K demonstrators in Leipzig had been decimated by these "house guard" troops?

There's the difference. Saddam has his loyal Sunni troops; they've held power as a minority by the sword for a long time and aren't afraid to use it.

Your contention that the Iraqis could just rise up and overthrow him like the East Germans tossed of the yoke of Communism loses it's credibility for that reason.

The revolutions you describe basically succeeded because there were no "loyal government troops" willing to slaughter tens of thousands of their fellow countrymen protestors/revolutionaries.

In Iraq, that has PROVEN not to be the case.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
Seemed liek you are saying that Iraq people have the power to over throw there gov ' currenlty...I woudl say..Soddom gov has too many wepaons to havce a succes ful revolt..u agree?

Toad, my response to this also goes for your contention that the Iraqi people cannot overthow Saddam.

I'll give you two examples from the past 25 years where the people from each country rose up and took down an extremely powerful, ruthless, dictator.  Dictators who had all the guns and the weapons.  Dictators who had armies and secret police loyal to them.  Dictators who had "loyal government troops willing to slaughter tens of thousands of their fellow countrymen protestors/revolutionaries."  Dictators equivalent to Saddam.

Iran in 1979 and Romania in 1989.  If you both really want me to give you history lessons about those two revolutions I will.  But regardless, I only need to show that it has been done in the past to validate my argument and invalidate yours.

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I'm illiterate, that's it.

[/b]
You must be...you sure didn't read the links I gave you.  If you had, you would have found out that Shi'ites make up a large portion of Saddam's "loyal troops".  Of the top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Saddam on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias, three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the Ba'ath Party--Shi'ites actually predominated. During the war with Iran, a number of Shi'ite officers were promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasions of Iraq in 1982 was Shi'ite. Moreover, three quarters of the military's lower ranks are Shi'ites.

[Toad]

What invalidates your comparison is that governmental forces in both of your examples remained essentially benign. They did not "pull the trigger" on their countrymen either because they weren't ordered to do so or because they refused such orders. Point is, they did not slaughter their countrymen, which I'm sure you will admit they had the capability to do.

Had they killed 60,000 protesters the results would have undoubtedly been much different and it's quite possible, likely even, that those revolts would totally fail. The difference is in the absence of forces that were willing to do that for their leader.

In short, I don't think you can call your examples a valid comparison in the least.

Now, had East Germany or Rumania undergone a month of vicious all out warfare, government vs protesters, and the protesters emerged victorious, you might have something. But that didn't happen.

Further, the Kurds, after being initially driven out were able to eventually establish an area now referred to as "Independent Kurdistan" by some. Would seem to validate  your hypothesis that the Iraqis could do it by themselves, correct?

However, this was only accomplished AFTER the establishment of the Northern no-fly zone by the US/UK (and France initially) at a cost to the Allies of approximately $1 billion/year. Without the no-fly zone, no independent Kurdistan. Seems pretty clear that they cannot do it themselves.

[Toad]

Oh, and if your point is that a revolution cannot be successful until the military allows it to happen (given the absence of external forces), I'd agree.

[BGBMAW]

Crow..didnt we help a great deal in Iran?

[JoeSmoe]

Completely idiotic.

therefore they choose to live with him.

IF they Choose anything ELSE, or speak for that matter about ANYTHING ELSE, they are killed.

Wake the phuck up moron, the people DO NOT have A CHOICE, that is why they LIVE WITH HIM.

Lets say I take a Gun to you and your  family, in a room, and say,.. Hey Give me your money. ARE You GOING TO NOT give me your money and have me kill you AND your family?  Jesus, I hope you say that you will give me the money.  

THAT Would be your choice..  NONE.. if you choose LIFE moron.

They "CHOOSE" to "Live with saddam" because that is the ONLY option aside from death.