Was Sadam really progressive?

[athon]

I think I missed something a while ago, and haven't been able to pick up the thread since. Before this whole war on terror, I understood that Sadam's dislike of the Shiite muslims was due, in part, to their suppression of women in society. Iraq was becoming a nation where women could become doctors, lawyers, etc., and while there was still inequity, it was improving.

Now understand, I'm not for Sadam and his methods. And Iraq is definately on its way to becoming a land where enemies of Sadam are free to dance in the streets - which is good. Shiites everywhere must be esctatic, while other politically old-world muslims are also quite joyous (according to one of my Iraqi students, whose uncle was arrested and held for a number of years because he publically denounced his niece's right to attend university).

Seriously, this is not a 'huzzah Sadam' post. So those who wish to make the 'if you're not with the US, you're against the US' statement, don't bother posting. You've missed the point.

I want to know why we do we still claim victory over 'anti-freedom' Muslims? Sadam hated the terrorist cells - who hated him in turn - who were advocating a return of the Islamic Glory Age...the Baath party's policies were in support of increased freedoms (I know, for those who agreed with him, but you get my point).

While I can understand the ideas behind the paranoia of proposed threats (without seeing the evidence for them), I still cannot grasp how Iraq can be grouped with countries like Afghanistan. The links I've seen in the past are pathetic and rely on a spin that has no evidence or is just plain ludicrous.

I'm writing this after an interesting discussion I had today with two of my Iraqi students, one of whom is a refugee, the other interestingly comes from a progressive Shiite family (I know - is there such a thing?) who hated Sadam but also cannot understand the spin being put on the war.

Just needed to put my ideas up.

Athon

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

You have, in some respects, decent reasoning.

However, while Saddam did work to free Iraq from the bounds of hard-line Muslims, it would seem to me that he did so to "eliminate a rival" for power.

While I completely disagree with the war and the way it was handled, I am well aware of attrocities committed by Hussein.

Basically, he was just as viscious, just to different groups.

 

[Crossbow]

Up until the first Gulf War, Saddam was pretty much considered a tyrant, but a progressive tyrant all the same.

Women were allowed to go to college, hold professional jobs, drive cars, not have to wear veils, etc.
Men and women were allowed to travel abroad to get education and expand business contacts.
Saddam himself often wore suits, as opposed to a military uniform, in public.
Saddam had Christians, Sunnis, and Shiites at very high positions in his cabinet.

 

[Malachi151]

Athon, I made many of the same remarks a while back, and the truth is you can't get anywhere with them. You may as well try to explain how Hitler was trying to help the Germans.

Yes Saddam was progressive and yes he went about it in the wrong way, but the truth is that Iraq became the most powerful and advanced country in the Middle East, save possibly Israel, under his regime and this scared the daylights out of the West, and that is what this is all about.

Saddam was pro-technology and advancement, he tried to suppress religion, he tried to aqure many advanced technologies for the country and did so and developed one of the best university systems in the Middle East with one of the most profesional populations in the Middle East.

The sad part is that Americans will never think of Iraqis as anything more than towel head camel jockies.

The country was bombed back to the stone age, then Americans only see footage of Iraq after it was devastated by Desert Storm and they sit there thinking "these people are old backwards, horrible, desert living, Muslim fanatics, who are no good for nothin."

Take a poll, I bet aat least 50% of Americans think that way.

Of course in reality in 1990, prior to Desert Storm, Iraq was considered the Japan of the Middle East and one of the most affluent counties in the region, and the wealth was spread among the citizens much more than it was in Saudi Arabi, or Iran, or Pakistan, etc.

Saddam was a brute who liked control and wanted to do things his way and was brought up in that type of environemnt where you get your way by force, however his goals for Iraq I think really were to try adn improve the country. Again though, it was HIS vision, not the people's vision, and that's where the problem lied. I'm not sure why he did what he did, or in fact if he did what the US claimes he did, after Desert Storm.

People are so happy about the freedom that some of these groups have in Iraq now, but in some ways it was like giving more freedom to the KKK. Over here its like "wohoo, everyone has freedom", but in reality its like, there were good reasons why some of them were being held down before, as I said, some are like the Muslim version of the KKK.

Saddam was an extremeist as suppressing extremists. He suppressed the Communists, and the religious fundamentlaists. He was using extreme methods to support a centrist system in an extremist climate.

 

[Charles Livingston]

The country was bombed back to the stone age, then Americans only see footage of Iraq after it was devastated by Desert Storm and they sit there thinking "these people are old backwards, horrible, desert living, Muslim fanatics, who are no good for nothin."

Take a poll, I bet aat least 50% of Americans think that way.

Those are your words, dont attribute them to 50% of Americans.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Saddam was a cruel despot, but he was also very intelligent, I'll give him that. Islamic fundamentalism was as much of a threat to his dictatorship as any other factor. Right now, there are clerics from Iran just rubbing their hands together, waiting for the US to succumb to pressures to leave Iraq, so that they can go in and set up another Ayatollah. Saddam found out that relying on the weakness of the US isn't 100% foolproof. I hope the same holds true for the frothing-at-the-mouth fundamentalists.

 

[athon]

I fear that where precedents like this can occur, the world does not need to explore the issues with any real criticism. I get sick of hearing now how Iraq was a terrorist nation and anti-freedom, when in truth the evils that existed were not so straight-forward. The suppression of rights and violence is something mirrored in many nations around the world, and while this must be addressed. But when deceit and spin-doctoring is said enough times, is becomes quoted as truth, and history has created false foundations as pseudoscience creates false foundations for science.

Organisations that use terrorism (I've ranted before my hesitation calling them 'terrorists', as terrorism is a weapon as bombs and land mines, espionage and land mines are weapons, and we don't label groups as 'bombists') must be laughing - the west has fooled itself into thinking it has succeeded. Attacking nations will do nothing - JI in Indonesia is apparently shrinking not because of direct assault, but because of intelligence and international negotiation. The US government's mind games on the subject only continue to aid their cause.

Athon