Rummy admits Saddam's brutality kept Iraq peaceful. Amazing!

[Mugsy]

Anyone else catch this?

In the opening minutes of "Meet the Press", guest Def Sec Rumsfeld, in an off-hand comment, suggested (something I've argued for months) that Saddam used brutality "to maintan the peace" in Iraq where as "now they will have a Constitution to keep the peace" (how's that working out for ya, Rummy?).

This is the first time I've heard ANYONE in the Bush administration admit that maybe Saddam did what he did because it was neccessary. I wonder if his lawers will use it in his defense?

Whether you agree with Saddam's methods or not, they worked. And I was STUNNED to hear Rumsfeld admit it, and just as stunned that host Mark Russert didn't even seem to notice.

[atommom]

1. I've long suspected that the neocons are secretly jealous

of the dictators in other countries, who can be as savage as they wish to be. If Rummy felt he could get away with it, what kind of tactics would he use to keep the peace here...?

[Raksha]

37. Not so secretly!

Bush admitted not long ago that his job would be so much easier if he were a dictator. God knows he's never stopped trying to be one, but he's not having too much success these days.

[blm]

2. Saddam kept the Islamic extremists in line. Isn't that what Bush is TRYING

to do in Afghanistan and Iraq and FAILING?

Bush handed Iraq over to Bin Laden and his extremist loyalists on a silver platter.

[Mugsy]

25. The amazing point people are missing...

You are right.

What people responding here seem to be missing is that Rummy finally conceeded that Saddam's goal was peace, not power.

[geek tragedy]

40. It's because it's not true.

Saddam did not want peace. Saddam wanted power.

People who want peace don't invade their neighbors (twice).

People who want peace don't commit mass murder and attempted genocide.

People who want peace don't sponsor terrorists in Palestine.

When the choice was peace without power, or power with extreme violence, Saddam chose the latter.

Confusing "peace" with complete subservience to the state is an old totalitarian canard.

[blm]

48. Saddam wanted total power, and forced, fearful peace in his country.

That';s not exactly the "peace" we think of.

My point was that Saddam and Bush are both fuck ups, but Bush's fuck up is now with an entire region.

[FreedomAngel82]

51. And it looks like they took that

about a hundred years back. Way to go Rummy!

[bullimiami]

3. its not mark russert its tim er DIM RUSSERT

of course thats the truth. and just more evidence of the extreme poor judgement in what bushco has done.

they dont plan or care about ANYTHING they just try to take what they want by force and they are too arrogant and evil to care about the damage to everyone and everything as long as they get theirs. its about money and power. period.

[Mugsy]

4. Oops, Tim. (chuckle)

Mark Russert is the piano playing political comic, isn't he?

[enid602]

32. ?

Or perhaps Dim Russet?

[Terran1212]

5. Actually, not being invaded and colonized kept the peace

Having a hated but mostly noninterventionist dictator was leagues better.

[geek tragedy]

6. Defending oppression and brutality is not a progressive value.

There was very little internal strife under Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy and Stalin's USSR and Mao's China.

The ends do not justify the means.

Saddam will still hang, and justly so, for his crimes.

[Mugsy]

8. So are you saying * is right?

So you believe the U.S. has the right to "liberate" every oppressive government on the planet?

[geek tragedy]

9. No. What I'm saying is that trying to justify Saddam's cruelty and

violent oppression of his subjects is reprehensible.

Saddam did what was necessary to keep his own corrupt, evil ass in power.

There is no legal right to butcher and torture to keep oneself in power. What Saddam did can't be justified on any legal or moral plane.

[gulliver]

23. That idea is ahead of its time.

Every single day people are forced to make choices they should not have to face in an ideal world. Hussein was no Hitler. Hussein was a two-bit, tinpot dictator.

The question is not whether torture, death squads, oppression, and financial support of suicide bombers are good things. The question is whether our choice of response made things better or worse. How much more good (and how much less evil) might there now be overall had Bush and his band of disgruntled lunatics not rushed us into a war on false information?

Is there less bloodshed now? Less torture? Less oppression? Is the world better off now? Is there more peace? Is anyone any safer?

Saddam was a sucker play. A bad investment. His victims aren't the only victims in the world. Bush now has the world and the country so divided, confused, and angry that the plight of the world's victims is an afterthought. Witness the Sudan.

The Bushies glossed the details in their decision. They acted recklessly and without the kind of planning expected of our executive branch. They did not seek alternatives. They damaged the United States and the world immeasurably.

[geek tragedy]

26. The US invasion was a very bad thing. However, that is not the topic

of this thread. This thread, especially the OP, dealt with legality of Hussein's methods and whether they were justified

[Raksha]

38. I don't think anyone here is defending oppression and brutality.

They are pointing out that Saddam was more successful in keeping the peace, albeit by brutal methods. BushCo is trying to do the same thing in Iraq (same goal, same methods) and NOT succeeding.

[stepnw1f]

7. Playing Dumb is Dumb

It's amazing how ironic these folks are. They know what's going on, and reaslize what they are doing... but it's the consequences of their inactions as well as actions, that they never seem to grasp. They ignore reality in order to get what they want and then deny there is anything wrong with what they have done.

These folks are the most selfish, ignorant, useless members of society now in charge. And look at how bad things have become since they have been in power.

IRONIC!

[Psephos]

10. Brutality "keeps the peace" - is this a surprise?

Forget about the Bushco clowns for a moment and consider what you're saying.

Of course brutality "keeps the peace," if by peace you mean that the government has the monopoly on murder of the citizenry, who are then prevented from shooting each other in the street, but not from disappearing in the middle of the night. It worked in Stalin's USSR, it worked in Mao's PRC, and it worked in Iraq.

Saddam did what he did because it was necessary? Do you really think that Saddam was interested in doing what was necessary for Iraqis? Or for himself?

Put me down in the "Don't Agree with Saddam's Methods" column. Sheesh.


EDIT: added missing word

[Terran1212]

12. Saddam did some things for people's good

I thought it was a credit of the Left to understand psychology and the complexity of the human mind and conscience.

I felt he respected some values and morals.

After all, he modernized Iraq and created one of the best healthcare and education systems in the world.

Other forms of conscience he lacked.

I think dubya and even the pentagoners have some sense of morality -- but it doesn't extend too far.

Demonizing people is not logical.

[geek tragedy]

13. It's also a core value of the left to denounce tyranny and tyrants.

Therefore, denouncing Saddam is pretty much a no-brainer.

[Terran1212]

14. Denounce what he did wrong praise what he did right

Balance and humanism not all out ignorant demonization.

[LynnTheDem]

24. Perfectly said.

Exactly what a real progressive would and should say.

"black-white" is for morans.

Now if only the "black-white" folk would open their narrow little minds and look at all the facts. REAL facts. Maybe they'd then understand why the vast overwhelming majority of the entire planet said hell no to attacking Iraq. It wasn't because they're all "Saddam lovers".

[geek tragedy]

27. Barf. He was a murderer, a sadist, and a blood-soaked tyrant.

Where I come from, being a murderer, sadist, and blood-soaked tyrant makes someone a really bad person.

[Mugsy]

28. Are you talking about Saddam or Bush?

:evilgrin:

[LynnTheDem]

34. LOL! Good question.

:D

[Psephos]

16. Saddam is not a man of nuance and complexity.

He's a garden-variety megalomaniac, who explicitly stated he admired Stalin, and read his biography with the hope of learning from the master. BTW, from the photos and accounts I've seen of Iraq's medical infrastructure (outdated and primitively equipped), and from UN county-by-country morbidity and mortality statistics for the last two decades, I don't see evidence to support your contention that Saddam ran a great healthcare system. Quite the opposite, actually.

As for the bit about "demonizing people is not logical," I'd say about 90% of posts here are about demonizing people whose politics we disagree with.

I guess I'd support this ubiquitous demonization (while holding my nose) if it did any good...but it doesn't. Again, quite the opposite.

I don't mean to sound harsh here. We have different opinions, but I respect each person's right to their own.

Peace.

[Terran1212]

17. Wrong again

Iraq's health and education system was destroyed by the gulf war and resulting economic sanctions.

In 1982 they even recieved a UNESCO award for being the first country to go from the third world to eliminating illiteracy.

Their healthcare and education system sustained even during the war with Iran.

[Psephos]

19. Yes, you have your facts and I have mine.

Probably both chosen to support the view we already had. Whatever. I notice the wars and sanctions didn't seem to affect Saddam's ability to import Rolls Royces and gold-plated toilet seats.

That's hardly the main point here. The main point is that we on the left have no business trying to soft-peddle tyrants and dictators. Let's leave that for the wingnuts.

As a progressive, I am *absolutely* against tyrrany, abuse of power, secret police, and the apparatus of terror. Do you realize how much damage you do to our political standing when you try to put a Santa beard on Saddam?

[Mugsy]

18. Saddam was not a megalomaniac.

Don't put me in the position of defending Saddam because I'm not.

But you are committing the equally egregious error of painting him as something he wasn't.

Calling Saddam a "megalomaniac" only helps to justify the war to remove him. I think you need to look the term up and provide examples if this is what you believe.

[Psephos]

20. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Why don't you post the examples?

You're the one who put yourself in the defensive position. I could care less.

If you wish to believe Saddam wasn't megalomaniacal, I have no problem with it. Each is entitled to their own opinion.

[Mugsy]

21. Fact is not "opinion".

Saddam attacked Iran because they disputed over Iran trying to influence his government.

He invaded Kuwait... another neighbor... with OUR BLESSING because they were slant-drilling Iraqi oil on the Iraq border and owed Iraq $20 Million in unpaid debt.

In neither case, did Saddam seek "global domination" and draw up plans to conquer Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan or Turkey (his other neighbors).

The word "megalomanic" is what you'd use to describe Hitler or Napoleon -I. They went on a "conquering spree" to try to increase their territory/power. Hitler invaded Poland because it was between him and Russia. Napoleon invaded Coventry to steal their wealth.

Now if you can name a single country Saddam invaded "just because he was bent on global domination", then I'll retract my statement.

Beyond that, we are getting WAY off topic... that Rummy has finally conceeded that Saddam's goal was peace, not power (or is that the same point after all???)

[geek tragedy]

31. Saddam's goal was not peace. That's a patently false statement.

Two wars of aggression, and extraordinary violence directed at opponents of his rule.

He sought power and dominance over his own people, not peace.

[LynnTheDem]

36. Facts re Iran-Iraq war...not that any of the "black-white" thinkers will

bother their beautiful minds with the facts. Such as the fact of the many times Hussein tried to avoid the Iran-Iraq war and the many times he tried to end the Iran-Iraq war trhough diplomacy, and every single time the regime in Iran said bugger off.

Always worth a try though, I figure. Even closed minds can sometimes be opened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3801741

[geek tragedy]

30. Sorry, but you are defending Saddam.

1) Making the false statement that Saddam wasn't a megalomaniac? Oh really? I guess aliens must have put giant wall murals and statues of him on every street corner in Iraq;

2) Saying that his brutality was necessary and possibly a legal defense;

3) Justifying two wars of aggression that he launched.

[Mugsy]

15. That wasn't their line before the war.

Up until now, Saddam used brutality "simply to stay in power".

This is the first suggestion that there was a method to his madness.

Look at Iraq now? The only "peaceful" moment in the past two years was when they declared Martial Law during the elections, turning off cell phones and restricting any-and-all travel by car.

Now look at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. What is their soltion for compliance and keeping order? Brutality. They've been operating under the insistance that they are better than Saddam. Now they find themselves using his methods.

[central scrutinizer]

11. This is exactly why the multinational corps. move to dictatorships

The leaders of those countries are afraid of organized workers and the corporations can rely upon on troops and tanks to put down any unionization attempts. Capitalists hate democracy and freedom - it hurts their bottom line.

[LynnTheDem]

22. And under Saddam, Iraq HAD a Constitution, and a good one.

And it still took a strongman to keep the peace in Iraq.

Something the world's first & only "hyper-power" can't even do for a month, let alone 30 years.

[geek tragedy]

29. Yeah, a COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS CONSTITUTION.

What a stupid comment.

[warsager]

33. I find it unlikely that Saddam will be brought to trial

If he were, he would expose the decades of corruption and US aid towards his regime. The US doesn't want him to speak because then their own atrocities will be made public to the world.

You can say Saddam was a horrible murderous dictator, but he got there thanks to the US. You can not speak of the horrors he committed without acknowledging the heavy hand the US played in all of them. They hired him BECAUSE of his brutality. He was our very own assassin. The US is just as guilty for all the crimes Saddam committed. Whether it was turning a blind eye or providing him with the means to do these things. That is the truth.

[geek tragedy]

39. Saddam's backers include a who's who of the powerful nations.

China, France, the USSR all, like the US, helped arm and enable Saddam a

[Deja Q]

35. Because they will soon apply the same techniques for we Americans.

Stunned, be not.

Afraid, do be.

[Disturbed]

41. The Saudi Family are also brutal Dictators .

Has the Bush Regime tried to "spread freedom" to them? The Rethugs frame the wrong issues and Dems follow along. Dems need to frame their own issues and force the Rethugs to follow. Saddam was just fine with Reagon and Bush 1 until he strayed off on to his own agenda, thus the 1st Gulf War. Read the history on that. This illegal invasion centered upon two issues: The oil and U.S. Military prescence in the ME. Had Saddam not strayed from the U.S. Program there would have been no overthrow.

[geek tragedy]

43. Word.

The Republicans outfoxed the Dems on the issue of foreign policy and "spreading freedom." The plain fact is that while supporting the spread of freedom is a good thing, spreading freedom is not the Republican agenda.

[Psephos]

50. You put your finger right on it. n/t

[msmcghee]

42. We Americans foolishly judge Saddam as if . .

. . Iraq was just like the USA except for it's leadership . . like Iraqis all love freedom and liberty and a just constitutional government - but Saddam wouldn't let them have it. That is absurd. Saddam controlled Iraq because he was better at killing those who opposed him than anyone else. It's that simple. If he had failed then another tyrant would have taken his place - worse than Saddam by definition.

Democracy is a very fragile proposition. It requires a tremendous amount of good faith on the part of it's citizens. It can not survive anywhere unless almost all of the people understand what it is, believe in it and are willing to defend it from assholes who see it as a barrier to their own quest for power and control. (That's why we are losing it here.)

In Iraq, due to several thousand years of culture that sees militant violent male dominance as the definition of leadership - and the stupid attempts of the west to impose western friendly bureaucratic fascism after the fall of the Ottomans - this is simply not going to happen. Not in Iraq and not in any place else in the Muslim dominated Middle East.

There probably are thousands of enlightened, aware Iraqis who'd love to live in a democracy. But they have no power or ability to influence their nation's direction. They know that their only reward for vocally supporting a democratic movement will be to get shot along with their family - if not by the current regime, then certainly by the next one who will come to power in a coup.

As long as even 5 or 10 percent of males in Arab nations subscribe to to violent strongman politics then there can never be a democracy. In Iraq probably a majority of males see government as necessarily violent and totalitarian - and are willing to condone violence, if not use it, to support their faction.

[geek tragedy]

44. So, in other words, Arabs are violent and despotic and we therefore

shouldn't care about them. Sorry, not buying it.

The great majority of oppressive Arab governments are modeled after Western institutions. The Algerians learned from the French, Saddam learned from Stalin, so on and so forth.

The ruthless use of force to support a totalitarian autocratic state is an idea we gave them

[msmcghee]

45. Care about them?

I don't think I expressed any opinion about that.

Many Arab governments share structural similarities with the west. But those have little to do with how power is wielded there - any more than the Sherriff in Alabama saw his job as defending the civil rights of the three men who were killed by his friends and henchmen.

The Arab empire was being ruled by ruthless totalitarian autocrats (sheiks) for thousands of years before the west even got past feudalism.

[geek tragedy]

46. Germany was strongly prone to totalitarianism during the first part

of the 20th Century. As was Italy and Spain.

A good segment of the US population remains fascistic in its mentality.

This does not lessen the gravity of sins committed by the totalitarian leaders, nor does it lessen the urgency in resisting fascism.

[msmcghee]

47. What are we arguing about?

In all nations, in fact even in every scout troop, there is the desire in the hearts of some individuals to control the others and wield power for their own benefit - and that of their friends and family - against the rest who they'd like to subjugate - if they could get away with it.

Certainly the first form of government of bands of proto-humans was totalitarian and despotic and violent toward domestic transgressors. It's the path of least resistance. He who has the greatest ability to kill his opposition, he who has the most testosterone, will rise to power. It is survival of the fittest at its most essential. It is utterly human.

Democracy was created with the idea that everyone has a right to be happy - to have a chance to get ahead, not just the powerful few. But it runs against the grain of human nature. It must always be defended with blood.

We in America will soon get the chance to spill our own for freedom and democracy - if we wish to save it from the neocons and Christo-fascists. I doubt many of us will take that chance. I hope I'm wrong.

[Goldmund]

49. So let me get this straight

You're saying that this rag-tag country of inherently uncivilized camel jockeys can only be kept at peace by a murderous dictator?

That the mess Iraq is in now has nothing to do with the fact that it's been demolished by an invader? It's because the only way to keep those dogs from eating each other is to keep them in cages?

How liberal of you.

[Solly Mack]

52. Another perspective

"Not long ago, hard men like Adnan, especially Sunnis, were giving orders to no one. Six weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the Coalition Provisional Authority dismissed the Sunni-led Iraqi Army, and the United States military set out to rebuild Iraq's armed forces from the ground up, training new officers and soldiers rather than calling on those who knew how to fight but had done so in the service of Saddam Hussein. By late last year, though, it had become clear that the new American-trained forces were not shaping up as an effective fighting force, and the old guard was called upon. Now people like Adnan, a former Baathist, have been given the task of defeating the insurgency. The new strategy is showing signs of success, but it is a success that may carry its own costs."

http://www.uoregon.edu/~caguirre/nytimes_salvadorization.pdf
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/05/02/africa/web.0502warCOMPLETE.php