The Life and Times of Saddam Hussein

re;Saima Shah: Hi there!! let mehave yr comments about Saddam Hussein I see that some critics have not liked or even appreciated this article.one of accused me oflacking in original thinking.For the benefit of all such critics i can only say ``Those who forget the past are conde,ned to repeat it.`` My article on Saddam Hussein is not a piece of vreative writing or any original brain wave.it is onl a biographical sketch of oneof the most conroversial leaders of modern times and i believe our readers have the rightto know the inside life story or as much of it as possibleabout this strange and mysterious figure of modern times.

The Economist - (07/01 - 07/07)had an article on ``The genetic starting line``. The article illustrates the Human Genome Project, pros and cons and the ``Good Science, evil men``. Who else except ``his highness`` under discussion was the talk of the town - ``More dangerous, however, than the inadvertant spread of genetically engineered species is the risk that somebody will use the technology to do deliberate harm - by building better pathogens, for example. Those who worry about Saddam Hussein cloning himself using the new technology should probably worry more about what he is cloning in his country`s germ-warfare labs. That is knowing the human genome, and knowing the genomes of numerous pathogens, it might be possible to re-engineer the latter so that the former cannot resist.`` [Economist]

Re: Fuzair

How about some contributions for Chowk?

Victory has many fathers( supporters), defeat none.

Do people remember all those wild and huge demonstrations from Cairo to Karachi in support of Saddam? Didn`t people know at that time what kind of devil he was? What if he had won or if he still wins!

My apologies. I meant US vs. Iraq(or the Allies vs. Iraq to be precise:) instead of Iran-Iraq in my previous post.

I remember when the Iran-Iraq war broke out and there were massive processions in Pakistan supporting Saddam.All the distinguished people were explaining to the young ones how clever Saddam was and that he had secret weapons and how the US will find its Vietnam in Iraq.After a few days of massive TNT usage the same people were indignant at Saddam and how he had let down the Muslim Ummah.....:)

One of the major reasons Saddam is in power is because there is a power vaccuum in the middle east.Centuries of non-democratic traditions have left the region bereft of any alternatives. Believing in the adage of dealing with the devil they know rather than the one they don`t, the powers that be have decided to support the Saudis and the likes(or at least stop destabilising them) of Saddam.History of the middle east is probably one of the purest examples of personalities(Ibn -Suad comes to mind immediately) shaping the destinies of their nations and Saddam happens to be one of them. What is probably most lamentable about the Iran-Iraq war and Saddam shares the most blame on that count was the destruction of probably the most modern and progressive Islamic societies in the region.

later

-sac

Why is this paper, which reads like a high school or college assignment, being shown on Chowk? Did the author just decide to have something extremely irrelevant and unoriginal put up on the net for ego`s sake? There is not a single sentence in here with any analysis or creative thought--all the author does is rehash well known history very easily accessible in a multitude of other sources--just check any encyclopedia.

In response to Fuzair, #3:

``Lets move on to the other glaring sin of omission in this bit of rubbish masquerading as serious writing. The author writes, ``During the entire Iraq-Iran conflict Saddam was the blue eyed boy of the entire West who took great pains to inflate his ego, his treasury and his armed might.`` True enough but what is carefully omitted, since it would go directly against the author`s ``the evil West is responsible for all bad things in the world`` blathering is the simple fact that virtually the entire Arab world backed Hussein to the hilt during the Iran-Iraq War.``

I don`t think ``the West` can be excused so easily.

The point, I think, was that the West cheered Saddam Hussien on during his *offensive * excursion into Iran, yet when he did the same in Kuwait, the very countries that supported his fight in Iran took a leadership role in organizing a military force against Iraq.

In any case, the Arab countries would have obviously supported socialist Iraq against Islamic Iran. Iran was a threat in that Islamism was on the rise throughout the Arab world. Iran was thought to be a major influence, if not supporter, of these movements.

Further, during the time of the Iran-Iraq war, both the Soviet Union and America had incredible influence in the region. *BOTH * wanted to see Iran contained, if not destroyed. I suppose an argument could be made that America also wanted to see Iraq, the regional superpower, involved with a skirmish with Iran as it kept *both * out of the hair of Israel. So I don`t think it`s too outrageous to think that the influence of America and the Soviet Union was another reason for the Arab world`s support for Iraq.

In response to Temporal`s post in message #1:

Although it can be taken for granted that Saddam Hussien can in no way be considered a Savior or Angel, one wonders why he`s so vilified when his compatriots, like the late Mr. Assad of Syria, can be viewed in a more positive light (to wit: the CNN coverage of his death).

The fact is, before the Gulf war, Saddam was beloved by his people. And given the brutality of Western sanctions on Iraq, he is still somewhat of a respectable figure there.



It`s funny that he`s picked out over all other world leaders as a kind of Hitler re-visited. I suppose that demonstrates the power and influence of America`s media.

Unfortunately, his regime is pretty much exemplary of those in that part of the world, even so-called democratic ones.

This is yet another instance of the abominably low standard of most of Chowk`s articles. I think history has already passed judgement on this particular dictator. I fail to see how the author could list some of Saddam Hussein`s never-ending list of atrocities and still, in the last paragraph, write, ``History has yet to pass judgement on this man Savior or despot, hero or villain, Devil or Angel.`` Surely this man`s list of evil deeds speaks for themselves?

Let me add two that this author chooses to omit. The use of nerve gas on the Kurds, only one of a long list of atrocities committed on them, by Iraqi troops is a documented fact. The fate of the Shatt Arabs that rose up in revolt against Hussein`s tyranny is also well known. By the standards of this author`s analysis, the jury is still out on Adolph Hitler as well:

``Well he did rebuild Germany between 1933-39 but he did start WWII and kill several million people. On the whole, it about balances out, we can`t tell for sure.``

Ye gods! The mind boggles!

Lets move on to the other glaring sin of omission in this bit of rubbish masquerading as serious writing. The author writes, ``During the entire Iraq-Iran conflict Saddam was the blue eyed boy of the entire West who took great pains to inflate his ego, his treasury and his armed might.`` True enough but what is carefully omitted, since it would go directly against the author`s ``the evil West is responsible for all bad things in the world`` blathering is the simple fact that virtually the entire Arab world backed Hussein to the hilt during the Iran-Iraq War. They armed him, they provided ``volunteers`` to help him fight his war, they paid for it by giving him billions of dollars in aid, etc. etc. etc. There is some evidence to suggest that one of the motivations behind Hussein`s invasion of Kuwait was that the Kuwaitis seriously expected him to start paying back some of the loans. Hussein`s view was that he had fought the entire Arab world`s fight against the thrice-accursed Persians and so they should be giving him more money to rebuild Iraq.

Sure the West cheered him on but the Arabs, Syria excepted, were cheering him on louder. And not just cheering but aiding in every way possible.

Chowk editors: ``Where the heck are your red pencils? This article certainly hasn`t reached the blue pencil stage yet.``

To Asif Naqshbandi continued from the ``Khudahafiz Kashmir thread``

Asif Naqshbandi ...

First of all I making every effort to get this book which I am sure you have not read .......

Second the grey Wolf was published for the first time during the time of the Gazi .... and Gazi is known to have rebutted a lot of it ... it was written by a British author who was Kemal because of the services he had rendered to the Turks ....

Now before you start attacking Ataturk as a Kafir ... Only Allah knows what he was ... we are no one to judge him ....

His contribution to the Turks and his inspiration to the Muslims all around the world is awesome... his theory of Kemalism stands out as a beacon of light for the Muslims of this world .....

The fact that he might be a Kafir (which I doubt)

does not over shadow the fact that he was the last truly successful military leader for any Muslim army ... hence the name Gazi ...

Prophet Muhammad`s personality remains beyond any outbursts by anyone ... his is a live revolution ..

Infidel Ataturk maybe but he did in essence purge the Muslim world of Obscuranitist elements that Prophet Muhammad himself had stood up against ...

Muslims can be thankful to Ataturk for crushing the obscuranitist Naqshbandi Brotherhood of Turkey

but I see that he couldnt complete the job .....

Ah ... well maybe someone else will ....

Till then, keep putting up your posts ... they are quite amusing ...

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

Apart from the people of Iraq, the worst sufferer of Saddam`s policies, post-invasion of Kuwait has been Baghdad. That city renowned for its learning and mosques, looked like the surface of the moon after the bombing raids. Indians who don`t know a thing about Islam, will know about Baghdad, from stories and fables. Apart from the curses of his own people, Saddam has earned the ire and wrath of Baghdad.

Saddam Husain has been all of the above ... goes to show the contradictions in a human being ...

Saddam is a despot and a saviour, he is a bloody villian and a hero too, he is devil incarnate and yet he is also an angel .....

The time of wars and military victories is now past .... Muslim world has yet to come to grips with this ...

The modern battlefield is the field of Economics.

In the yesteryears the wars were fought for Economic gains... now that war has been replaced by Economics ... hence forth all Jihads are to be in the fields of Economics, Science and technology.... Humanity has had enough of killing ... now humanity has found another way to compete for the greatness ....

The best thing I can see the Muslim world doing is the formation of a Muslim Union based on the European Union experiment.....

I see this union having 3 blocks, with Arab and african countries forming the first block, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Iraq and the central Asian states forming the second block,

and Bangladesh Malaysia, and Indonesia forming the third ....

These blocks of autonomous countries should then come together in a greater Economic Union of the Muslim states ...

The west will have to be ensured of 2 things however ...

1) That this union is purely Economic and not military

2) Permanent peace with Israel....

The US will be most opposed to this Economic Union ... however if this Union can ensure the eradication of the social ills palpable in the Muslim World ie terrorism, fanaticism, bigotry etc... we can gain a favorable view from the US ..

Our future requires such an Economic arrangement..

provided we can assure that there will be no proclamations of ``Khilafah`` and ``Al-Jihad`` ....

Our Jihad henceforth should be Economics, our battle field the Dow Jones .....

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

History has already passed a verdict on him: gulity.

Tariq:

Please tell us you were kidding when you wrote, ``History has yet to pass judgement on this man Savior or despot, hero or villain, Devil or Angel.``

Or am I in a minority who thinks this --- for lack of a better word ---- man --- has no redeemable qualities that can be seen with the naked eye?

regards,

temporal