Was Saddam really so bad?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Normal human nature will make us sympathize and feel sorry for any pathetic individual. This will happen with Saddam too. I honestly admit that part of me feels bad for the guy.

The question is: Was he really so bad?

Are the stories of murder and atrocities real or hyped?

If yes, then how do we steel ourselves to the prospect of executing justice on this guy? Are we confusing liberal western moral compassion with moral bankruptcy if we cannot hold him to full account? Is it a testament to our won true weakness that we would allow compassion to overtake humanist reality?

If no, then I will become rabidly anti-war and I'll be out for the heads of our leaders (figuratively of course).

Saddam was a tinpot dictator who brutalised his people. I can't see any moral problem in bringing him to trial and executing justice. The Iraqis must know whether the stories of his atrocities are real or hyped. They'll be the main witness for the prosecution. As far as I know he did nothing to the West other than harm our interests in Kuwait.

That depends on your perspective I guess Charles. I mean, was it not him, rather someone else who ordered his troops to invade Kuwait and murder the Iraqi neighbors? Or the mass killings of the Kurdish? I don't think the Kuwaiti people were exagerating in 1990 when Saddam's forces stormed into their streets. It's kinda hard to toss off historical fact and massive burial sites as "hype".

Charles if you are asking why treat Saddam humanely , The answer is its not because of his humanity that you try to treat him well its because of yours. Look at it this way people arguing that Saddam should be treated as Saddam treated others, are holding Saddam up as an example to be emulated. Is that what they realy want to be saying that we Should use Saddam to get our morals from? The arguement for treating Saddam with human rights is, because thats the way I wish to be treated if I am ever on trial. and 2.) if we try to give him fair Justice, then any verdict will be harder to challenge as simply taking revenge. And revenge is a game 2 can play.

Sorry the only question I have is about sarcastic I though I was trying to address the point you were making. actually I can see you were trying to make another point.


The simple answer to your point is this Charles Saddam won't be able to use the defense that he was only a tough leader. This will be true even if the new Iraqi Government becomes embrioliled in a civil war to hold its very different subjects together, and if the U.S. while its in control there can never end Iraqi resistance. Saddam will be judged on tougher standards. and even if he could use that defence there is still the matter of Kuwait ( never mind that this was common behaviour for kings and countries until not so long ago.) Charles if you have thoughts like this you might end up like me.