Why was this man executed, Veeky Forums?

he gassed kurdish civilians. many of the crazy (sunni) islamists in iraq today are his former supporters

This covers a few of them.
abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2761722

This first sentence mainly, but not in caps, and without the other ones that came after it. Same with Gaddafi.

Because the CIA likes to topple any nation which wants to Nationalize their resources and build stability in the region. Look it up

He was a bad goy.

StevieMREEE is to pure for this board... or life

USA wanted to set a message to what happens to anyone who defies it
Too bad things backfired for the CIA glow in the dark niggers and amerimutts later when Iran and Syria exerted influence on the country and they tried to wrest it back by funding sunni islamists and ISIS and they still got shoveled out.
(Citation Needed)
Most of the sunni islamists todays are being supported by the USA, but that probably exceeds your narrow and limited comprehension capabilities.

He outlived his usefulness.

I'd say that he deserved everything that happened to him because he was a tyrant that was oppressing his people and that, despite everything, America did try to bring freedom to Iraq, even if that may have not been its primary goal

But now I realize that most people in Middle East are disgusting subhumans that need a Saddam to keep them in check, at least until they reach a level of wisdom and development that will allow them to become a democratic society. I am very sorry for all the people living there that are actually sane and will be crushed by those animals, but the fact is that the Middle East deserves nothing but to be isolated

Half of the isis leadership came from his army

Ya, if you commit genocide, you're through, Just ask Lenin, and Mao, and Trotsky, and Stalin, and..

It's funny how ISIS never killed any jews, just other moslems.. Even though Israel was right there.. Strange.

>(Citation Needed)
>let me proceede with unsourced flatulent diatribe of my own making to refute your unsourced statement
>HaHAH! See how clever I yam! (random insults dispersed here and there)

Kill the heretic before then infindel

is there an actual source on this?

>Lenin
>Trotsky
>genocidals

(((Citation Needed)))
Name the leaders

LETS GET THIS ALL OUT ONTO A TRAY

>le petrodollar meme

He was just another thorn in americas greddy sides.

Literally go to Wikileaks right now. Type ''Hilary leaked emails Israel'' and see it for yourself. Her leaked emails are a goldmine.

>commit atrocities
>get conquered

Pick ONE

Warmongering

>muh wmds and gas

kys boomer

>Lenin
>Genocide

who is this Victor guy everybody talks about

Victor Hugo - the French writer. He wrote many books dealing with historical events. This eventually led to the popular saying that history is written by "the Victor", just as we may refer to Trump as "the Donald".

>Why was this man executed, Veeky Forums?

Saddam was becoming too powerful and threatened to untie the Arabs, so the Jews (via Mossad) convinced him to attack Iran but when that didn’t result in his downfall, the Jews convinced him to attack Kuwait and yet that still didn’t result in his downfall, so the Jews got their American puppets to invade Iraq under the pretext of “terrorism” and pitch the Muslim world into a civil war, whereby Israel’s security would be insured by the Muslims fighting each other instead and preventing the Arab world from ever getting its shit together.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_al-Baghdadi

> [al-Baghdadi] was reportedly a police brigadier general in the 1990s during the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein

Because he was a threat to jewish interests, which is why he died.

it all makes sense now

This, literally what happened to Gaddafi.

All these arab countries have a lock of shit in the backyard, the US didn't give a damn about them until they foundthe oil.

...

>implying lenin's actions didn't lead to genocide
>implying he wouldn't have been another Stalin if he didn't die too soon

He was a good leader in a islamic country.

...

What's Veeky Forums deal with Saddam? I keep seeing him praised here almost every week. He repressed and genocides Shias, oppositions and Kurds, populated minority towns with Sunni Arabs, went to a war with Iran while getting helped by Americans, and failed it after 8 years. He then went on to attack his neighboring Arab countries and then changed his secular country to a crusading Islamic one right down to the flag and the fact that he wrote a copy of the Quran with his fucking blood. Not to mention how shitty his sons were...

Am I overthinking this if it's just memes, or is this thread demonstrates actual praise to a man who had Stalin like propaganda? I can't tell if people are joking or not anymore.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that overthrowing him led to nothing good afterwards.

Now that Assad is secure what's going to happen next?
"WMD's" to be found?

Because most his motives were good, and he was the rope that kept most of the middle east in place.

The real question is why you are making this exact same innocuous comment under each Saddam thread and than slowly bait and devolve the discussion into "no u" and "he was a cartoon villain" shitposting? if you don't have anything meaningful to add to a discussion or you're just going to turn a blind-eye to other arguments/alternatives to what's nailed down into your brain, than stop posting in Veeky Forums altogether, and it would be a favor to the board.

>most of isis today are saddams soldiers

>changed his secular country to a crusading Islamic one right down to the flag and the fact that he wrote a copy of the Quran with his fucking blood.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Veeky Forums is unironically the worst place ever for discussing Cold War history. I see so much regurgitated arguments from Youtube conspiratards accepted as facts that it makes me cringe tbqh

>he was the rope that kept most of the middle east in place.
...Really?? Because during the 60s, 70s, and 80s were riddled with wars/civil wars, coups, tense rivalries, foreign invasions and skirmishes. And all the US/USSR policies that led to the shithole that we are in today.

>The real question is why you are making this exact same innocuous comment under each Saddam thread and than slowly bait and devolve the discussion into "no u" and "he was a cartoon villain" shitposting?
Because every single time no one gave me a convincing argument for his motives to be good, and even if it somehow is, the way he conducted his actions were fucking awful and could've been prevented had he not been an idiot. Maybe you should give me sources or boobs on why Saddam did what he did instead of continuing this charade.

Maybe not most of Isis, but clearly some of the important pillars in that organization were ones

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_campaign

*books
clearly I had not masterbated enough

It's /pol/ being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Iraq would have collapsed under the rule of his less than sane sons, and we'd have seen ever worse sectarian violence.

This is the history board, not the counterfactual history board

>60's, 70's
Not under Saddam's rule.
>80's
Please list the "civil wars" of the 80's that are comparable to the ones Iraq had since 2007.

>Because every single time no one gave me a convincing argument for his motives to ....
So you're just confirming that you're turning a blind-eye to any counter-argument, great. Opinion discarded.

>Maybe not most of Isis, but clearly some of the important pillars in that organization were ones
That's something being currently denied by Izzat Al Douri, Saddam's surviving right-hand man. You are still not citing sources nor pointing how this is related to Saddam being a villain in the grand scheme

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_campaign
I fail to see anything mentioning that the Iraqi government was converted to a 'crusading islamist' one and Nationalist secularist socialism was dropped altogether. Please cite another source.

...

>even though Israel was right there
So was Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They only conquered territory in Syria and Iraq because they were easy pickings and even then they still lost.

are you arguing that Saddam did not commit atrocities?

>he was the rope that kept most of the middle east in place
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Iraq_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

>Please list the "civil wars" of the 80's that are comparable to the ones Iraq had since 2007.
The lebanese civil war that continued from 75 till 90. And don't start the whole "it was in 75 so it doesn't count".

>So you're just confirming that you're turning a blind-eye to any counter-argument, great. Opinion discarded.
That's because I don't see any "counter argument". I see posts like yours ironically saying to me "no u" and not giving me arguments on why he did such things . Why aren't you giving me sources on how his motives are good?

>That's something being currently denied by Izzat Al Douri, Saddam's surviving right-hand man. You are still not citing sources nor pointing how this is related to Saddam being a villain in the grand scheme
What denial? I also did not paint Saddam as a villain in the grand scheme as you call it, I called out on his actions during his time as president and how damaging his policies were even after his execution. When did Izzat Al Douri say that and when was the last time he made an appearance? 2016 or 15? You also haven't given me any sources, so you better do it just so we're on the same page here.

>I fail to see anything mentioning that the Iraqi government was converted to a 'crusading islamist' one and Nationalist secularist socialism was dropped altogether. Please cite another source.I fail to see anything mentioning that the Iraqi government was converted to a 'crusading islamist' one and Nationalist secularist socialism was dropped altogether. Please cite another source.
The article explains quite clearly tried to appeal to his ultra conservative salafists which are equivalent to what I'm saying.

Honestly, I should just prepare a list of sources just for people like you. Reminds me of all those hasbara propaganda bombarded at me by those JIDF fuckers but unlike them, they gave arguments while you just sit there saying "nuh uh, you're wrong, you're stupid, your opinion is discarded".

Iran Iraq war was not Saddam's doing, he was pushed into it by the USA, "we'll give you all the weapons, everything, just go unto Iran and make sure the USSR doesn't take it from us". If Iran turned Islamist post-rebellion without Saddam's intervention, it was inevitable that Iraq and the levant would be destabilized by angry Shi'ites trying to follow the great revolution in Iran, whom Iran and Syria would support. Eventually dropping the middle east like a bunch of legos.

Now that we dismantled this, let's move on to Kuwait. Again, it was not Saddam's doing, if the USA told Saddam they were not OK with it, he wouldn't have sperged out there. But they gave him green-flags and took a pro-Iraq stance on the Kuwaiti oil-drilling incident, all in time to start consolidating their position in the middle east and proceeding with operation breakout/securing Israel from strong Arab dictators who want/might attack it. Once Saddam took the bait, they slowly made sure he had no other option than fighting a war, or running back to Iraq and lose all face and rile up the minorities in his country to revolt (Which would've been used as a pretext to invade Iraq, probably). But luckily for them Saddam was stubborn. They produced their own set of excuses and bullshit to cater the war to retarded masses (like the fake nayrah testimony/Iraqis cannibalizing babies from baby incubators) and surfacing things they've long kept hidden/had a part in, like the Halabja chemical attack.

I now await your meme response with a brainless white man or some retarded greentexts and hardly expect otherwise.

>UN Security Council passes a resolution demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait and authorizing force to remove Iraq from Kuwait if they do not withdraw
>Iraqi forces do not withdraw

Everything after this was Saddam's fault.

>If the USA told Saddam they were not OK with it, he wouldn't have sperged out there

You could blame this on the Jews, but never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The US didn't consider the possibility of an invasion of annexation of Kuwait seriously, and Saddam heard what he wanted to hear.

man, this is really an incredible post

You deny that anyone in the world other than America has any agency at all.

>third world countries
>having any agency
come on now, even know know it's true

Israel? Saudi Arabia? I lumped both under USA, they belong to it and both majorly act under directions from the US, for all the things that matter greatly, alteast.
The meeting with the envoy was probably not the end of the ride, you're not looking at the overall grand picture
>we have a useless fucking nationalist arab dictator in the middle east who's super pissed with Israel and wants to develop nukes
>and he's on a shitload of debt so he's financially useless too

Not that guy, but the real redpill is that most of history happened because nobody had any idea what was going on.

Most of the time, politics is a clusterfuck where no one person has a complete understanding of the situation, much less complete control.

If the US wanted to eliminate one state in the Middle East, it would be Iran, not Iraq.

The Iranians literally inaugurated their new government by holding the US embassy hostage for over a year. They followed this up by blowing up the US embassy in Lebanon, torturing the CIA station chief in Beirut to death, and turning a couple hundred Marines into hamburger meat.

Saddam was basically harmless to US interests until the invasion of Kuwait.

Contrarianism + succeeded by a disastrous US occupation and brutal, sectarian civil war.

also forgot to mention
>rallying the world's largest multinational coalition including most Arab countries
>Passing an extremely provocative resolution that very obviously tries to taunt Saddam instead of calming/de-escelating the situation
Like I stated previously, Saddam forged a reputation in the Arab world in the 80's and 90's as a strong leader with one of the world's largest armies and one who rules with an iron fist. If he retreated into Iraq, he would've lost face. Many people would've rebelled, his diplomatic status in the middle east will be dumped into the shitter hated-by-everybody status, and ambitious generals will see that as a sign of weakness and coups will start (Saddam's republican guards attempted a coup almost immediately after the gulf war), USA cornered and coerced Saddam in Kuwait. Just like they are doing today with Kim Jong Un with the "if you don't bend over we're gonna nuke the shit out of you" rain of threats. It's very easy to tell diplomatic language apart from trying to shit on someone's ego, just use your eyes.
>Iran
no it wasn't
>but muh embassy
Nothing on the grand scheme. The big and important risk to the USA with Iran was the post-shah power vacuum that could've been taken over by communists through soviet intervention, after Iran literally want into a rabid state that openly middle-fingered everyone who's not a Muslim (And a destroyed, devestated one at that) they were no longer any threat or anything that mattered. Iran returned to threat-status in the early 2000's, when they recovered, and started trying to exert influence around the middle east along with Syria, and started their nuclear program, and supported separatist groups in Palestine and Lebanon.

don't forget that there was also a significant escalation of the Iran-Iraq war into the persian gulf, where Iran attempted to enforce an embargo on Iraqi oil by attacking Kuwaiti oil tankers bound for America

youtube.com/watch?v=RzpAQu2jDZo
start at 23:28 for a very good discussion of "the tanker war"

This is a good post user

>He repressed and genocides Shias, oppositions and Kurds, populated minority towns with Sunni Arabs, went to a war with Iran while getting helped by Americans, and failed it after 8 years. He then went on to attack his neighboring Arab countries and then changed his secular country to a crusading Islamic one right down to the flag and the fact that he wrote a copy of the Quran with his fucking blood. Not to mention how shitty his sons were...

True, but none of that was America's concern, overthrowing Saddam (like overthrowing Gaddafi and trying to over throw Assad) was done strictly for Israel's benefit and payed for with American blood and tax dollars.

>Iraqi air forces weren't trained to hit Navy targets
I forgot what source it was and maybe I'm mistaken, but I remember Iraqi forces were severely untrained and squads would fall into traps in ground combat. Even with all the US military aid, with no training it's useless.

In what way has overthrowing Saddam benefited Israel? And why did the US do this for the supposed benefit of Israel?

there was also this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

>>Please list the "civil wars" of the 80's that are comparable to the ones Iraq had since 2007.
>The lebanese civil war that continued from 75 till 90.

Again, that was Israel's doing.

in what way

Just read the basic/short rundown of 60s-90s middle eastern history user, thank you.

>Nothing on the grand scheme

You know nothing of grand strategy.

There is nothing that a state can do that is anywhere near as serious as making a US president look bad.

Iran cost a US president his second term. They made Reagan look so bad that he had to invade Grenada to get the dead Marines off of TV.

The US has broken nations for less.

>Israel literally makes a clandestine attack no Iraq's nuclear reactor in cooperation with Iran
>"user how is israel benifitting of this uhhh my braincells are hurting"
Just read some fucking history user, holy fucking shit.
Guys what would Rome benefit from taking out Carthage? what's in it for them?

>The US didn't consider the possibility of an invasion of annexation of Kuwait seriously

The U.S. has satellites continually flying overhead watching everything that's going on, do you honestly think the U.S. _wasn't aware_ that Saddam was building up bazillions of troops and thousands of tanks to invade Kuwait?

Are we really supposed to believe the U.S. State Dept. was SO inept they somehow didn't see it coming....

USA did respond to the Iran hostage embassy, though.
refer to my post They had Saddam go into Iran for them, but again. The embassy was fucking nothing on the grand scheme, Iran becoming a pro-soviet client in the middle east is the bigger matter at hand.

The US isn't omnipotent.

I find it more plausible that the US simply didn't realize the shitstorm that was about to ensue until it was too late, rather than that the entire thing was Israel's keikaku.

Not to mention the obvious fact that Iraq could have just obeyed the UN resolution and left, leaving the coalition with blue balls and Saddam with his entire army.

this is not an argument at all, I could say the exact same to you against your point

overthrowing Iraq had greatly empowered Iran, that does not seem to be to Israel's benefit. Israel and Iraq were not even remotely comparable to Rome and Carthage, two premodern states which existed in vastly different contexts. "Just read some history" is an insult, not an argument. You also failed to address the second question of my post, that according to you the US did this for the benefit of Israel, why?

>i find it more convenient on me to not believe that i was played for a retarded fool by my country's politics and choose to keep myself in a belief that I'm on top and actually aware of the real situation
t. literal retard

I must emphasize.

The most important goal of US foreign policy, at any time, is to make the US president look good.

Iran made the US look bad.

Besides that, Iran was even a bigger foe to Israel. They were directly responsible for the rise of Hezbollah, and allies with Syria while Syria fucked with Israel relentlessly.

Mobilization is just posturing, dick-wagging, 99 times out of 100. Ultimately, analysis of intelligence is prone to human error.

>All those tanks and calling up the reserves? Is he going to invade
>Sir, our mole in Saddam's palace says Saddam won't invade Kuwait. He's never been wrong before
>You're right, only an idiot would invade and piss off the entire rest of the world.

>if you don't agree with me you're naive
>if you don't accept my assertions without asking for proof you're naive

>The most important goal of US foreign policy, at any time, is to make the US president look good.
I think that's more than a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think? The most important goal of US foreign policy is to maintain global stability which the American economy depends on. Secondary to that is promoting US economic interest abroad.

Maintaining global stability and a good economy makes the president look good.

This is incidentally why the US deployed troops to Somalia and Haiti, and why the US bombed the Bosnian Serbs.

Because humanitarian tragedies make the president look impotent, and coming to the rescue makes the US president look good.

this is an overly cynical analysis, humanitarian efforts can be undertaken for genuinely philanthropic reasons

Isn't it true though? I have yet to see an organization other then doctors without borders not having a specific agenda or actually do good stuff and not being all talk

>Iraq literally goes to war with Israel on the very day it was created
>extremely important pipeline going through transjordan and Israel from Iraq, so hostile relations are fucking unavoidable
>Iraq deploys troops against Israel in 1967 and deploys thousands in 1973 in the attacks against Israel
>Iraq develops a nuclear reactor which Israel responds to by launching a clandestine bombing operation saying it will be used against them in the future
>1991, first night of the war
>literally the first fucking thing Iraq does is fire SCUD's on Israel
>Saddam was a supporter of Palestinian resistance organizations through most his rule and reinforced that support after 1991
Why are you arguing under a middle-eastern modern thread if you don't know the basics?

Israel’s goal has always been to disrupt the Muslim / Arab world to prevent them from becoming unified, secularized and civilized and directing their full attention against Israel and as I mentioned up thread, Saddam was fast becoming the leader of the Arab world and a potential unifying force, thus he had to go.

Israel leads American foreign policy around by the nose, everything we’ve done in the MidEast has been for Israel’s benefit and at our expense and by turning the MidEast into an anarchic war zone of Muslim vs. Muslim, Israel is no longer in their sights.

Add to this, the mass (economic) migration of Arabs and Africans into Europe due to the Mossad/CIA’s “Arab Spring” has place everybody “under siege” by Islam and thus, Israel’s defacto allies.

That's the point of the American system.

You can never know for sure whether somebody is a philanthropist of a canny politician, because they take essentially the same actions.

If the system is working at peak efficiency, you can take a complete sociopath and they'll come out of it looking like a rose.

Also, the probability of an American humanitarian intervention is heavily dictated by media coverage, which is why the US devoted more resources to stopping the Kosovo War, which killed around 14,000 people, than they did to stopping the Second Congo War, which killed more than five million.

If you think about it, the single most important quality in any elected official is their ability to control public opinion at specific times.

unironically because the jews no longer wanted him in power

yeah except for the fact that Arabs never wag their dicks like that, when they do. They make sure they make a big fucking scene of it, but the build-up on the border with Kuwait was secret, and a direct response to American green-lighting and hand-holding for the months before the invasion, and pointing accusation fingers at Kuwait on the drilling incident.