Iraqi Flag removed and replaced with a interim Flag..

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Iraq

Many Iraqis aren't happy and were, I quote
'On January 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_22), 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008), a new flag was confirmed by the Iraqi parliament. In this iteration, the three stars were removed, while the Takbir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir) was left written in green Kufic script. Many Iraqis demonstrated against this new flag and showed their love to the old flag by carrying it in the streets of Baghdad.'

Again, it shows how much they loved and admired Saddam Hussein yet we took their leader away from them and killed innocent people turning the country into a hellhole.

[alexxxxx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Iraq

Many Iraqis aren't happy and were, I quote

Again, it shows how much they loved and admired Saddam Hussein yet we took their leader away from them and killed innocent people turning the country into a hellhole.

how conservative are you? There's no doubting he killed thousands of his own people. I know thousands of innocent people have been killed in this war, but saying that every iraqi loved and admired Hussain. Infact, i think thats disrespectable to some people.

And i'm not having an argument.

[-:Undertaker:-]

;4389591']how conservative are you? There's no doubting he killed thousands of his own people. I know thousands of innocent people have been killed in this war, but saying that every iraqi loved and admired Hussain. Infact, i think thats disrespectable to some people.

And i'm not having an argument.

I didn't say 100% of the population loved him, the clear majority did support him and more support him now as they realise without him they have no food, water or security.

[Jordy]

Hasn't the Iraqi parliament got better things to do than create new flags?

Your country is on the verge of civil war, oh lets design a new flag!

[Spectate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Iraq

Many Iraqis aren't happy and were, I quote

Again, it shows how much they loved and admired Saddam Hussein yet we took their leader away from them and killed innocent people turning the country into a hellhole.

It would be great if you could report things without your snide remarks. It would also be great if you hadn't just latched onto the most basic form of one of the more simple ideologies and refused to deviate from it in any way.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hasn't the Iraqi parliament got better things to do than create new flags?

Your country is on the verge of civil war, oh lets design a new flag!

I agree, it's just so wrong the whole thing and people aren't as angry as we should be.


It would be great if you could report things without your snide remarks. It would also be great if you hadn't just latched onto the most basic form of one of the more simple ideologies and refused to deviate from it in any way.

Snide remarks? You may have supported the Iraq invasion but I do not, so I can say the hell I want seeing as it's a forum :rolleyes:

[Jõnathan]

The flag suxxx now - the green stars made the flag what it was. Now it just looks crap.

[Lycan]

Looks ok to me,


i have no idea what the hell the thread starters on about saying they supported him because of the flag,

a flags a flag , even if they hated him its still the flag they grew up with, and to be honest the fact that the iraqs protested in a peaceful way shows how well its devloping rather then another suicide bomb.

I have to ask undertaker if he actually understands the world at all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The flag suxxx now - the green stars made the flag what it was. Now it just looks crap.

I agree.


Looks ok to me,


i have no idea what the hell the thread starters on about saying they supported him because of the flag,

a flags a flag , even if they hated him its still the flag they grew up with, and to be honest the fact that the iraqs protested in a peaceful way shows how well its devloping rather then another suicide bomb.

I have to ask undertaker if he actually understands the world at all.

The three stars on the flag stood for the Ba'ath Party, considering they ruled and they are upset because of the removal of the stars I would stay the regime was pretty popular.

[---MAD---]

They do not love him, they love the flag. Saddam only added the arabic words to the flag. Even with Saddam people had no water and electricity, nothing new. Thats why 5 million people left Iraq when he came into power.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They do not love him, they love the flag. Saddam only added the arabic words to the flag. Even with Saddam people had no water and electricity, nothing new. Thats why 5 million people left Iraq when he came into power.

Saddam did provide water, police, electric, western clothes for women and security fot the country. Women used to be allowed under Saddam, to wear western clothes. Now with the other group of muslims in power they aren't allowed. People fled the country because of the bombing, poverty and murder which all spawned from the invasion. Saddam and his party did add the stars as they are the symbol of the Ba'ath party.

[---MAD---]

Saddam did provide water, police, electric, western clothes for women and security fot the country. Women used to be allowed under Saddam, to wear western clothes. Now with the other group of muslims in power they aren't allowed. People fled the country because of the bombing, poverty and murder which all spawned from the invasion. Saddam and his party did add the stars as they are the symbol of the Ba'ath party.
Water and electricity were mostly given to his family and family friends and his million palaces.

[Spectate]

Women used to be allowed under Saddam, to wear western clothes.

Hahahahahaha! What a ridiculous thing to say.

"To extract information from dissidents, suspected dissidents, and opposition members abroad, Hussein was fond of sending them video tapes showing their female relatives raped by members of the secret police.

"Honor killings of women who were suspected of pre-marital sex or victims of rape, thereby “dishonoring” the family name, dramatically increased after Hussein reduced the prison sentences of male perpetrators from 8 years to no more than 6 months—a punishment in any case rarely imposed."

Yup, a true saint who did so much for Iraqi women. :rolleyes:

[---MAD---]

Precisely.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hahahahahaha! What a ridiculous thing to say.

"To extract information from dissidents, suspected dissidents, and opposition members abroad, Hussein was fond of sending them video tapes showing their female relatives raped by members of the secret police.

"Honor killings of women who were suspected of pre-marital sex or victims of rape, thereby “dishonoring” the family name, dramatically increased after Hussein reduced the prison sentences of male perpetrators from 8 years to no more than 6 months—a punishment in any case rarely imposed."

Yup, a true saint who did so much for Iraqi women. :rolleyes:

Does that have anything to do with clothing?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Saddam1970s.jpg

~ Saddam with women, notice they are not covered up?


Water and electricity were mostly given to his family and family friends and his million palaces.

Actually it was given to Iraqi's.

[Technologic]

The onyl reason we stay in iraw is because as we + the usa basically have control of iraw we have control of all the oil. This means we can take it all for ourselves

[Virgin Mary]

I think it's more to do with general nationalism rather than "love" for Saddam Hussein. People in any country would probably protest against the changing of their flag, regardless of who designed it.

[Spectate]

Does that have anything to do with clothing?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Saddam1970s.jpg

~ Saddam with women, notice they are not covered up?

Please don't bring pictures into it... I'm not going to post any, but I think we can safely say there are a fair few that back up my argument.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please don't bring pictures into it... I'm not going to post any, but I think we can safely say there are a fair few that back up my argument.

You could post the genocide ones, I 100% am against killing but Saddam had no choice I believe. The kurds wanted to overthrow Iraq and the far right wanted to take over and put Iraq back into the stone age. You cannot govern a country in the Middle East like one over here in the west. Just take a look at President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan at the moment, Pakistan is a more moderate country than Iraq, he has the army behind him and he's still struggling to stay in power. Saddam was the right leader for the Middle East however you look at it.

[Technologic]

We invaded iraq because saddam wasn't doing what we wanted to do...
We stay because we have the oil

[---MAD---]

You could post the genocide ones, I 100% am against killing but Saddam had no choice I believe. The kurds wanted to overthrow Iraq and the far right wanted to take over and put Iraq back into the stone age. You cannot govern a country in the Middle East like one over here in the west. Just take a look at President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan at the moment, Pakistan is a more moderate country than Iraq, he has the army behind him and he's still struggling to stay in power. Saddam was the right leader for the Middle East however you look at it.
Have you been to iraq to be able to say that? And have you been to other middle eastern countries?

Iraq was one of the most advanced middle eastern countries before Saddam. He completely destroyed the country and the whole region.

Telephone lines, electricity, clean water, and food have always been a problem there since he took over because of the fact he spent millions and millions on his family and his palaces.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Have you been to iraq to be able to say that? And have you been to other middle eastern countries?

Iraq was one of th emost advanced middle eastern countries before Saddam. He completely destroyed the country and the whole region.


Telephone lines, electricity, clean water, and food have always been a problem there since he took over because of the fact he spent millions and millions on his family and his palaces.

Actually Iraq had no electric and supplies before Saddam, before him only 30% of Iraqis had literacy skills, he brought that up to 70%. HE was the one who implemented the Modernisation program. You are thinking of the Persian era where Persia was the centre of the Middle East.

He was the one who built all them!

[GommeInc]

Wouldn't any other country protest against a change of flag which had the same style for many years, regardless of how bad the leader is? Unless the leader was so incredibly crap, they may change it and not care.

Iraq should be doing important things, not changing a flag at this stage.

[---MAD---]

Wouldn't any other country protest against a change of flag which had the same style for many years, regardless of how bad the leader is? Unless the leader was so incredibly crap, they may change it and not care.

Iraq should be doing important things, not changing a flag at this stage.
Yeah exactly - flag and the leader don't matter. Its just the flag they know and adore.

Undertaker - like I said, have you been to Iraq? Have you been to a middle eastern country?

And btw thats not true what you said about saddam bring the power up to 70% etc. Iraw was the most advanced ME country before Saddam forced himself into power.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah exactly - flag and the leader don't matter. Its just the flag they know and adore.

Undertaker - like I said, have you been to Iraq? Have you been to a middle eastern country?

And btw thats not true what you said about saddam bring the power up to 70% etc. Iraw was the most advanced ME country before Saddam forced himself into power.

No it wasn't, you are thinking of the Ottoman Empire. If Iraq was such a great country before Saddam, why were so many Governments overthrown by one another in coups? It is true, Saddam had a modernisation program which gave Iraq real roads, Electric, Education, ability for women to have high jobs, Water and security, something which it had none of/lacked before him.

[Hazza]

No it wasn't, you are thinking of the Ottoman Empire. If Iraq was such a great country before Saddam, why were so many Governments overthrown by one another in coups? It is true, Saddam had a modernisation program which gave Iraq real roads, Electric, Education, ability for women to have high jobs, Water and security, something which it had none of/lacked before him.
You still haven't answered his question...

Undertaker - like I said, have you been to Iraq? Have you been to a middle eastern country?

[Jordy]

No it wasn't, you are thinking of the Ottoman Empire. If Iraq was such a great country before Saddam, why were so many Governments overthrown by one another in coups? It is true, Saddam had a modernisation program which gave Iraq real roads, Electric, Education, ability for women to have high jobs, Water and security, something which it had none of/lacked before him.I'm with Undertaker on this, if you want evidence Saddam's method of modernisation works, take a look at Saudi Arabia. They had a brutal monarchy and loads of oil. By forcing out 'Rebels' who disagreed and having extremely harsh and inhumane forms of Punishment, they created something called 'order'. Saudi Arabia is now a very secure, well established country, and it's also extremely wealthy, Iraq is following this and with time it would work.

There's no easy or humane way of solving a middle-east problem like this.

[---MAD---]

I'm with Undertaker on this, if you want evidence Saddam's method of modernisation works, take a look at Saudi Arabia. They had a brutal monarchy and loads of oil. By forcing out 'Rebels' who disagreed and having extremely harsh and inhumane forms of Punishment, they created something called 'order'. Saudi Arabia is now a very secure, well established country, and it's also extremely wealthy, Iraq is following this and with time it would work.

There's no easy or humane way of solving a middle-east problem like this.

Saudi Arabia is now a very secure, well established country, and it's also extremely wealthy, Iraq is following this and with time it would work.
Which is why there are bombings in compounds where westeners live ;)?

Countries like Kuwait, United Arab emirates, Qatar have proper governments where they share the countries wealth with the people. These countries are far better off than Saudi and Iraq even though they have far less oil.

Iraq has the most oil in the world. Saudi has the most production of oil and yet look at both these countries.

Do you have any idea how horrible it is to live in Saudi arabia?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You still haven't answered his question...

No I haven't, neither has he, neither have you. However I have looked at this in great depth and have an opinion and from anyone with common sence it shows that under Saddam Iraq was better.


I'm with Undertaker on this, if you want evidence Saddam's method of modernisation works, take a look at Saudi Arabia. They had a brutal monarchy and loads of oil. By forcing out 'Rebels' who disagreed and having extremely harsh and inhumane forms of Punishment, they created something called 'order'. Saudi Arabia is now a very secure, well established country, and it's also extremely wealthy, Iraq is following this and with time it would work.

There's no easy or humane way of solving a middle-east problem like this.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia and Iraq used to be the top secure Middle Eastern countrys as both used methods that work.


Which is why there are bombings in compounds where westeners live ;)?

Countries like Kuwait, United Arab emirates, Qatar have proper governments where they share the countries wealth with the people. These countries are far better off than Saudi and Iraq even though they have far less oil.

Iraq has the most oil in the world. Saudi has the most production of oil and yet look at both these countries.

Do you have any idea how horrible it is to live in Saudi arabia?

I would rather live in Saudi Arabia than be in a country like Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has the most oil in the world btw, Iraq is second. Yeah you have some examples of 'democracys' in the Middle East, however they will not work in countrys like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. You give out this idea that everyone will now hold hands and dance around a rainbow now that Saddam Hussein has gone. I would rather live in a secure Iraq with water and electric than the hell hole that has been created now.

[Jordy]

Which is why there are bombings in compounds where westeners live ;)?

Countries like Kuwait, United Arab emirates, Qatar have proper governments where they share the countries wealth with the people. These countries are far better off than Saudi and Iraq even though they have far less oil.

Iraq has the most oil in the world. Saudi has the most production of oil and yet look at both these countries.

Do you have any idea how horrible it is to live in Saudi arabia?My dad lived in Saudi Arabia for 10 years and he only ever saw a few crimes being committed. If you robbed you got your fingers chopped off, it's not exactly hard to see why there's no crime there. I am aware that there is more civilised countries in the Middle East like the one's you mentioned, but Saudi Arabia has a 6 times bigger population than the United Arab Emirates, with just a minor 4 million people living in it. Population seems to largely come down to it, Kuwait is tiny...

[---MAD---]

My dad lived in Saudi Arabia for 10 years and he only ever saw a few crimes being committed. If you robbed you got your fingers chopped off, it's not exactly hard to see why there's no crime there. I am aware that there is more civilised countries in the Middle East like the one's you mentioned, but Saudi Arabia has a 6 times bigger population than the United Arab Emirates, with just a minor 4 million people living in it. Population seems to largely come down to it, Kuwait is tiny...
I know how tough Saudi are with crime but the country is very boring to live in. Cinemas are banned, women have to cover up, women cannot drive etc.


Saudi Arabia has the most oil in the world btw, Iraq is second.
No I believe Iraq has the most but saudi pumps out the most.




No I haven't, neither has he, neither have you. However I have looked at this in great depth and have an opinion and from anyone with common sence it shows that under Saddam Iraq was better.
Actually I have been to Iraq. I went there in 1997 (and 1993 but was too young to remember much at that time) to visit some family.

Iraq is far better of without Saddam. All we have to do now is wait 5-10 years for everything to settle down. Under Saddam there was no hope.

[Jordy]

Actually I have been to Iraq. I went there in 1997 (and 1993 but was too young to remember much at that time) to visit some family.

Iraq is far better of without Saddam. All we have to do now is wait 5-10 years for everything to settle down. Under Saddam there was no hope.So how was Iraq when you went 11 years ago? At least when Saddam was incharge you could actually go to Iraq, as you just admitted you can't go with the state it's in now.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I know how tough Saudi are with crime but the country is very boring to live in. Cinemas are banned, women have to cover up, women cannot drive etc.


No I believe Iraq has the most but saudi pumps out the most.



Actually I have been to Iraq. I went there in 1997 (and 1993 but was too young to remember much at that time) to visit some family.

Iraq is far better of without Saddam. All we have to do now is wait 5-10 years for everything to settle down. Under Saddam there was no hope.

Yeah it's fantastic how everyones family members are dead and how the hardline people now rule. I cannot understand how you can say it's better. Terrorists are now ripe in Iraq when before there were none, Roads are ruined, buildings destroyed, American companies are now pumping out the oil, no water due to pipes ruined, families being displaced and electric gone.

[dannyisnotamazing]

Does look better though

[lScottl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Iraq

Many Iraqis aren't happy and were, I quote

Again, it shows how much they loved and admired Saddam Hussein yet we took their leader away from them and killed innocent people turning the country into a hellhole.

*Removed*

Edited by --ss-- (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude towards others.

[Jordy]

*Removed*I thought there was a rule about posting in other languages? :S

[-:Undertaker:-]

*Removed*

You don't have to post, infact DONT because what you post is complete CRAP.

[lScottl]

You don't have to post, infact DONT because what you post is complete CRAP.

Ill post when and in whatever thread I would like.

[Spectate]

Yeah it's fantastic how everyones family members are dead and how the hardline people now rule. I cannot understand how you can say it's better. Terrorists are now ripe in Iraq when before there were none, Roads are ruined, buildings destroyed, American companies are now pumping out the oil, no water due to pipes ruined, families being displaced and electric gone.

Surely it's only a matter of time before they go mouldy then. :P

On a more serious note, Iraq's in a period of transition. There's nearly always going to be some resistance to change, but that change is often for the better in the long term. I mean, the UK could still be under an absolutist monarch ruling with 'divine right', but thanks to Cromwell and his pals the country's more democratic!

[PaintYourTarget]

On a totally unrelated note, hasn't the British Garrison in Basra completely pulled back to Basra Airport to maintain a training and support role, not a peacekeeping one, because our General's felt the Iraqi Police could handle it on their own?
We're totally hanging in there for the oil!!

And, I'm going to follow Undertaker and claim that Hitler was good too!! He modernised Germany, brought it out of the depression, maintained order in his Empire... Hell, he was amazing for Europe. Don't hate Hitler, Hug a Hitler!!

:rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ill post when and in whatever thread I would like.

If you post then at least post something that contributes.


Surely it's only a matter of time before they go mouldy then. :P

On a more serious note, Iraq's in a period of transition. There's nearly always going to be some resistance to change, but that change is often for the better in the long term. I mean, the UK could still be under an absolutist monarch ruling with 'divine right', but thanks to Cromwell and his pals the country's more democratic!

Iraq didn't need changing, and as I and Jordy have said the Middle East works far differently compared to the west. Full Democracy does not work in the Middle East and Africa.


On a totally unrelated note, hasn't the British Garrison in Basra completely pulled back to Basra Airport to maintain a training and support role, not a peacekeeping one, because our General's felt the Iraqi Police could handle it on their own?
We're totally hanging in there for the oil!!

And, I'm going to follow Undertaker and claim that Hitler was good too!! He modernised Germany, brought it out of the depression, maintained order in his Empire... Hell, he was amazing for Europe. Don't hate Hitler, Hug a Hitler!!

:rolleyes:

The companies are in control of the oil now, soliders have nothing to do with the oil anymore. Also if you have done History Hitler was good for the majority of Germans at the start, he brought them back wealth and pride. The difference between Hitler and Saddam is that Hitler invaded numerous countrys to build an Empire, whereas Saddams Iran and Kuwait wars were disputes between the countrys. Saddam and the Ba'ath party never sought to build a empire.

[drama]

Hasn't the Iraqi parliament got better things to do than create new flags?

Your country is on the verge of civil war, oh lets design a new flag!

looooollll.

[---MAD---]

So how was Iraq when you went 11 years ago? At least when Saddam was incharge you could actually go to Iraq, as you just admitted you can't go with the state it's in now.
It was a pile of junk thats what it was. It was very dangerous you couldn't even leave the house when you felt like it. You had to be very careful and left only for important things ie restocking food, school etc.

I only went to Iraq twice under Saddam. That shows how bad it was. I haven't been to Iraq yet since Saddam fell however family go and come there often and tell me what has changed for the better and what has changed for the worse.

Yeah it's fantastic how everyones family members are dead and how the hardline people now rule. I cannot understand how you can say it's better. Terrorists are now ripe in Iraq when before there were none, Roads are ruined, buildings destroyed, American companies are now pumping out the oil, no water due to pipes ruined, families being displaced and electric gone.
Mate, under Saddam family members were killed too. Now its just far more public. Under Saddam you would be put in prison for life and could not say a thing about it. You would get torchered etc for no valid reason.

Undertaker, roads are easy to repair, buildings are easy to replace. At least theres freedom where Iraqs can demonstrate, they can celebrate, they can get on with their religious activities. Fair enough terrorists try to stop this but the killings are far lower than under Saddam. Living under the fear of Saddam was far, far worse. Terrorist attacks happen all over the world, even in stable countries like the USA and UK. Its just that the region itself is unstable because of the neighbours too scared to tackle Al Q and other terrorist groups.

Let the americans take the oil, its not like they can take it all. Its sort of a pay back for what they have done for Iraq :). I don't even think theres actual proof of them doing it although they probably are.

Like I said earlier, electric and water have been a problem for decades. Saddam never repaired the lines. Same for telephones. Now at least people can easily contact family without having to try get through operator for hours on end.


On a more serious note, Iraq's in a period of transition. There's nearly always going to be some resistance to change, but that change is often for the better in the long term. I mean, the UK could still be under an absolutist monarch ruling with 'divine right', but thanks to Cromwell and his pals the country's more democratic!
Yes I agree.

[Jordy]

It was a pile of junk thats what it was. It was very dangerous you couldn't even leave the house when you felt like it. You had to be very careful and left only for important things ie restocking food, school etc.

I only went to Iraq twice under Saddam. That shows how bad it was. I haven't been to Iraq yet since Saddam fell however family go and come there often and tell me what has changed for the better and what has changed for the worse.You say Iraq is better now, but you admitted you went twice under Saddam and never under the fall of Saddam? So it is a lot worse now than it used to be.

When Iraq sorted out any 'Rebels' and who's boss I'm sure they would of then fixed the phone line's and power etc, but they where still in the process of bringing peace & security, they needed more time for their radical middle eastern plan to work.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It was a pile of junk thats what it was. It was very dangerous you couldn't even leave the house when you felt like it. You had to be very careful and left only for important things ie restocking food, school etc.

I only went to Iraq twice under Saddam. That shows how bad it was. I haven't been to Iraq yet since Saddam fell however family go and come there often and tell me what has changed for the better and what has changed for the worse.

Mate, under Saddam family members were killed too. Now its just far more public. Under Saddam you would be put in prison for life and could not say a thing about it. You would get torchered etc for no valid reason.

Undertaker, roads are easy to repair, buildings are easy to replace. At least theres freedom where Iraqs can demonstrate, they can celebrate, they can get on with their religious activities. Fair enough terrorists try to stop this but the killings are far lower than under Saddam. Living under the fear of Saddam was far, far worse. Terrorist attacks happen all over the world, even in stable countries like the USA and UK. Its just that the region itself is unstable because of the neighbours too scared to tackle Al Q and other terrorist groups.

Let the americans take the oil, its not like they can take it all. Its sort of a pay back for what they have done for Iraq :). I don't even think theres actual proof of them doing it although they probably are.

Like I said earlier, electric and water have been a problem for decades. Saddam never repaired the lines. Same for telephones. Now at least people can easily contact family without having to try get through operator for hours on end.

Yes I agree.

Saddam did repair the infastructure in Iraq, more to the point it never really needed replacing because Iraq had no terrorists/bombs destroying it all. Yeah let Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld and others take their blood oil from Iraq. Can I also ask what muslims are your family? If they are sunni they will most likely of supported Saddam and more freedom, if not then they will be Shiite muslims who normally prefer women covered up, women not allowed top jobs.

Terrosist never existed in Iraq under Saddam and you know it. Saddams security kept that country together. You mentioned no cinemas, well to be honest I would rather no cinemas and security rather than sitting in a cinema having my head blown off. Full Freedom in Iraq will never work as proven in Kenya and Pakistan, and if the Shiites continue to rule then Iraq will have less freedom than it had with Saddam Hussein. Yes bridges and roads can be repaired, but that costs money and that's something Iraq no longer has.

See below for the build up if Iraqs services that never before existed.



Modernization program
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, formally the al-Bakr's second-in-command, Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, effective politician.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#_note-10) At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.
Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.
At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_1), 1972 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972), Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_energy_crisis), and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Saddam1970s.jpg/180px-Saddam1970s.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam1970s.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam1970s.jpg)
Promoting women's literacy and education in the 1970s


Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Educational%2C_Scientific_and_Cultu ral_Organization) (UNESCO).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#_note-11)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#_note-12)
To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq), Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining), and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised, and roughly two-thirds were peasants. But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as the country invested much of its oil profits into industrial expansion.
Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#_note-ref6) The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative), in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agricultural development in 1974-1975. Moreover, agrarian reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_reform) in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.[attribution needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)]
Saddam became personally associated with Ba'athist welfare and economic development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_development) programs in the eyes of many Iraqis, widening his appeal both within his traditional base and among new sectors of the population. These programs were part of a combination of "carrot and stick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick)" tactics to enhance support in the working class, the peasantry, and within the party and the government bureaucracy.
Saddam's organizational prowess was credited with Iraq's rapid pace of development in the 1970s; development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million persons from other Arab countries and Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia) worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for labor.

[PaintYourTarget]

Also if you have done History Hitler was good for the majority of Germans at the start, he brought them back wealth and pride. The difference between Hitler and Saddam is that Hitler invaded numerous countrys to build an Empire, whereas Saddams Iran and Kuwait wars were disputes between the countrys. Saddam and the Ba'ath party never sought to build a empire.
I have done History, and I did say Hitler was good for Germany, at what point did I say he wasn't? And, Saddam sought to invade Kuwait because he believed it was his nation's land... Now, where have I heard that before?

[---MAD---]

Can I also ask what muslims are your family? If they are sunni they will most likely of supported Saddam and more freedom, if not then they will be Shiite muslims who normally prefer women covered up, women not allowed top jobs.
That is totally incorrect. Suni and Shiite have no differences in regards to women. The only difference between the 2 groups is who they thought was meant to be prophet (I won't get into that here).

I am telling you what I experianced when I went there. Electricity was avalible a few hours a day. Water was barely ever avalible, we had to collect it in buckets etc. And telephone lines were a mess. This is in Baghdad - the capital city.

The whole cinema thing was aimed at the Saudi arabia thing not Iraq :).


Saddam did repair the infastructure in Iraq, more to the point it never really needed replacing because Iraq had no terrorists/bombs destroying it all.
Yes but he did start wars with Kuwait and Iran which lead to a lot of infrustracture damages.

The whole thing about amazing health system is totally not true. People used to (and still do) leave the country for operations.

I also never suggested "full freedom".


Full Freedom in Iraq will never work as proven in Kenya and Pakistan
People in Iraq were scared to talk to their neighbour about politics because of how controlling the government was.

Also, if people really like Saddam, why were they so happy when his statue was taken down when he no longer had control? They even got slippers and shoes and hit the statue with it. Proves how much they had respect for him eh ;)? Why do you think 5 million people left Iraq during his regime?


Saddams security kept that country together.
By killing millions of innocent citizens. Anyone could do that. If the USA wanted, they could do just the same. Kill anyone who speaks against them etc.

I think all the deaths in the past few years in Iraq doesn't sum up to even half of the number of people he killed/torchered in 1 year.

The country is no where near as bad as it sounds. Sure some areas are far too dangerous to be in but some areas are much better off.

[Frodo13.]

That is totally incorrect. Suni and Shiite have no differences in regards to women. The only difference between the 2 groups is who they thought was meant to be prophet (I won't get into that here).

I am telling you what I experianced when I went there. Electricity was avalible a few hours a day. Water was barely ever avalible, we had to collect it in buckets etc. And telephone lines were a mess. This is in Baghdad - the capital city.

The whole cinema thing was aimed at the Saudi arabia thing not Iraq :).


Yes but he did start wars with Kuwait and Iran which lead to a lot of infrustracture damages.

The whole thing about amazing health system is totally not true. People used to (and still do) leave the country for operations.

I also never suggested "full freedom".


People in Iraq were scared to talk to their neighbour about politics because of how controlling the government was.

Also, if people really like Saddam, why were they so happy when his statue was taken down when he no longer had control? They even got slippers and shoes and hit the statue with it. Proves how much they had respect for him eh ;)? Why do you think 5 million people left Iraq during his regime?


By killing millions of innocent citizens. Anyone could do that. If the USA wanted, they could do just the same. Kill anyone who speaks against them etc.

I think all the deaths in the past few years in Iraq doesn't sum up to even half of the number of people he killed/torchered in 1 year.

The country is no where near as bad as it sounds. Sure some areas are far too dangerous to be in but some areas are much better off.

:eusa_clap
Finally we get someone with first hand experiance, rather then someone who gets his facts off the internet.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That is totally incorrect. Suni and Shiite have no differences in regards to women. The only difference between the 2 groups is who they thought was meant to be prophet (I won't get into that here).

I am telling you what I experianced when I went there. Electricity was avalible a few hours a day. Water was barely ever avalible, we had to collect it in buckets etc. And telephone lines were a mess. This is in Baghdad - the capital city.

The whole cinema thing was aimed at the Saudi arabia thing not Iraq :).


Yes but he did start wars with Kuwait and Iran which lead to a lot of infrustracture damages.

The whole thing about amazing health system is totally not true. People used to (and still do) leave the country for operations.

I also never suggested "full freedom".


People in Iraq were scared to talk to their neighbour about politics because of how controlling the government was.

Also, if people really like Saddam, why were they so happy when his statue was taken down when he no longer had control? They even got slippers and shoes and hit the statue with it. Proves how much they had respect for him eh ;)? Why do you think 5 million people left Iraq during his regime?


By killing millions of innocent citizens. Anyone could do that. If the USA wanted, they could do just the same. Kill anyone who speaks against them etc.

I think all the deaths in the past few years in Iraq doesn't sum up to even half of the number of people he killed/torchered in 1 year.

The country is no where near as bad as it sounds. Sure some areas are far too dangerous to be in but some areas are much better off.

Actually Sunni and Shiite do have differences, it has been mentioned on various programmes/newspaper/news programmes, if there was no difference in their beliefs then they wouldn't be fighting for power would they. The Health Service is true, as Iraq was one of the leading nations in the Arab world along with Saudi Arabia., again that's why Saddam recieved that award from the UN. 'They' as in Shiites were happy because he was against their beliefs, it's the same here were certain people support Socialism and some support Capitalism.

Them people were targeted because they were trying to destabilise the country by rioting. As Jordy and I have said you have to rule with a iron fist. The country is far worse off, just look at the country, roads falling apart, kiddnapping of children, terrorism, anararchy in a breaking down society.


:eusa_clap
Finally we get someone with first hand experiance, rather then someone who gets his facts off the internet.

In that case you surely can't comment on the Nazi rule because you weren't there :rolleyes:

[alexxxxx]

I've seriously had enough of the Undertaker spreading his conservative HATE towards whatever the government does. The conservatives would probably have gone to war too. They were influenced HEAVILY by the Americans. And MUCH less British forces are in Iraq than the Americans, and they control Baghdad and the North, where much of the fighting, civil unrest takes place, not Basra (which we no longer take full responsibility for, as mentioned before hand). When the conservatives come to power in a couple of years time (cause they will - they'll start spreading crap about the EU Treaty soon, where there is nothing particularly WRONG with it, just the fact that labor hadn't bothered telling the public anything about it) they'll come to power promising things which they can't deliver.

There's my 2 (euro) cents. =P (Euro is much stronger than the pound and dollar, and still rising)

Do you read the Daily (Hate-)Mail by the way?

[-:Undertaker:-]

;4395189']I've seriously had enough of the Undertaker spreading his conservative HATE towards whatever the government does. The conservatives would probably have gone to war too. They were influenced HEAVILY by the Americans. And MUCH less British forces are in Iraq than the Americans, and they control Baghdad and the North, where much of the fighting, civil unrest takes place, not Basra (which we no longer take full responsibility for, as mentioned before hand). When the conservatives come to power in a couple of years time (cause they will - they'll start spreading crap about the EU Treaty soon, where there is nothing particularly WRONG with it, just the fact that labor hadn't bothered telling the public anything about it) they'll come to power promising things which they can't deliver.

There's my 2 (euro) cents. =P (Euro is much stronger than the pound and dollar, and still rising)

Do you read the Daily (Hate-)Mail by the way?

The Labour party promised us a vote, they denied it, as her majestys opposition they have a duty to oppose it and rightly should. Personally I think David Cameron is a tossbag so I know your trying to offended me but I agree with you, he's another Blair. The Pound is stronger than the Euro and Dollar by the way.

Yeah I do, what do you read, the sun :rolleyes:

[alexxxxx]

The Labour party promised us a vote, they denied it, as her majestys opposition they have a duty to oppose it and rightly should. Personally I think David Cameron is a tossbag so I know your trying to offended me but I agree with you, he's another Blair. The Pound is stronger than the Euro and Dollar by the way.

Yeah I do, what do you read, the sun :rolleyes:

the news on sunday for the football on my paper round on sunday morning haha (y) It worries me every sunday morning when i see the truely anti-government, almost hate-writing daily mail and how many i deliver. =/

And yeah, it is bad they aren't offering a refferendum, but it'll be the media (which is too right-wing imo) who'll twist public opinion away from the treaty.

[-:Undertaker:-]

;4395406']the news on sunday for the football on my paper round on sunday morning haha (y) It worries me every sunday morning when i see the truely anti-government, almost hate-writing daily mail and how many i deliver. =/

And yeah, it is bad they aren't offering a refferendum, but it'll be the media (which is too right-wing imo) who'll twist public opinion away from the treaty.

It's called freedom of speech, the Newspapers can say what they want, and incase you haven't noticed the massive majority of England is right wing, therefore printing right-wing ideas would make sence :rolleyes: The reason why there is a lot of anti government writing is because this Government has been a failure.

Also were you the one who -repped?

[Frodo13.]

In that case you surely can't comment on the Nazi rule because you weren't there :rolleyes:

I havn't commented on Nazi rule :rolleyes:

[alexxxxx]

It's called freedom of speech, the Newspapers can say what they want, and incase you haven't noticed the massive majority of England is right wing, therefore printing right-wing ideas would make sence :rolleyes: The reason why there is a lot of anti government writing is because this Government has been a failure.

Also were you the one who -repped?

nah, i wouldn't -rep for someone's political views (no matter how much I am against them).

Yeah, but the media holds tremendous amounts of power and in some cases is abused. If the media doesn't want the eu treaty to be voted for in a refferendum, it won't be - as the info shared with the public will be only against, if a conservative MP does something bad, it might not be reported on - and the public wouldn't know about it.

Some press is pro-labor, but the largest ones are not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I havn't commented on Nazi rule :rolleyes:

I am using it as an example.


;4395547']nah, i wouldn't -rep for someone's political views (no matter how much I am against them).

Yeah, but the media holds tremendous amounts of power and in some cases is abused. If the media doesn't want the eu treaty to be voted for in a refferendum, it won't be - as the info shared with the public will be only against, if a conservative MP does something bad, it might not be reported on - and the public wouldn't know about it.

Some press is pro-labor, but the largest ones are not.

Yeah but we live in a democracy, as I have said before the majority of England is right-wing and wants to hear right-wing news.

[Frodo13.]

The majority of England may want right-wing news, but the majority of Britain doesn't. :rolleyes:

[PaintYourTarget]

Yeah but we live in a democracy, as I have said before the majority of England is right-wing and wants to hear right-wing news.
Since when? Tbh, in my little, Middle Class, Middle England life, I have barely heard anyone who's strongly against the war. Infact, the percentage of people I talk to are sick of people constantly bashing the Government and just want news.
I'd much rather pick up my newspaper and read of a success in Afghanistan or Iraq, but unfortunately these get relegated to a short paragraph on page 2 and the rest is dedicated to whatever scandals and whatever is happening.

Watch any political satire on the Tv - Mock the Week, Have I Got News For You? - and even some of the older ones - Whose Line Is It Anyway? - and they will all bash Daily Mail and Guardian readers. They insult them with a passion.

[Jordy]

;4395189']I've seriously had enough of the Undertaker spreading his conservative HATE towards whatever the government does. The conservatives would probably have gone to war too. They were influenced HEAVILY by the Americans. And MUCH less British forces are in Iraq than the Americans, and they control Baghdad and the North, where much of the fighting, civil unrest takes place, not Basra (which we no longer take full responsibility for, as mentioned before hand). When the conservatives come to power in a couple of years time (cause they will - they'll start spreading crap about the EU Treaty soon, where there is nothing particularly WRONG with it, just the fact that labor hadn't bothered telling the public anything about it) they'll come to power promising things which they can't deliver.

There's my 2 (euro) cents. =P (Euro is much stronger than the pound and dollar, and still rising)The pound is a hell of a lot strong than the Euro, and considerably more than the Dollar. If he wishes to express his conservative views then so be it, if you want to express socialist views go ahead, I'll listen, I just won't agree. I wouldn't make assumptions about the next election yet, it's a while ahead and it will only be called when the Tories are in trouble and Labour are doing well.

It was mostly a Blair thing being influenced by the American's, as you can see Brown isn't pro-American and it isn't a Tory thing either. It is true the Conservatives agreed to the War in Iraq too, there was full support by the Conservatives and Labour for the second Gulf war, clearly the Tories aren't perfect and do too make mistakes.

You have no evidence the Tories won't do what they say when they come to power, they haven't done that much in the past, unlike the Labour who promised a referendum on any new EU Constituencies, but says we simply don't need one... However it looks like after all we could get one due to a large amount of Labour MPs rebelling, it'll most probably take months and then our stupid public would vote for it anyway. If the public is silly enough to vote for Labour, then they could be silly enough to vote for this to go ahead.


Yeah I do, what do you read, the sun :rolleyes:Judging by his intellect he's probably more a Star or Daily Sport reader, The Sun would be considered a challenging read.

[alexxxxx]

I am using it as an example.



Yeah but we live in a democracy, as I have said before the majority of England is right-wing and wants to hear right-wing news.

so we get to vote who runs our newspapers yeah? er - no.

to be a democracy, the public need to know both sides of the story so the public can make an informed decision, right?

have you ever watched Euronews, it's so unbiased (Except pro-EU) it's untrue.

ps. Daily Sport ftw.

[Dan2nd]

The Labour party promised us a vote, they denied it, as her majestys opposition they have a duty to oppose it and rightly should. Personally I think David Cameron is a tossbag so I know your trying to offended me but I agree with you, he's another Blair. The Pound is stronger than the Euro and Dollar by the way.

Yeah I do, what do you read, the sun :rolleyes:

Yeah I agree Gordon Brown has waited all these years for the top job and he gets it and well.. I dunno what to say really it's like you're parents coming home after trusting you to look after the house and it's burnt down.. to sum Gordon Brown's efforts up erm I don't know why but the word disaster keeps coming to mind.

Concerning the flag ... well if they changed the union jack I'd be mad as I'm a very patriotic person and am proud to be british I guess the iraqis are feeling the same way.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The majority of England may want right-wing news, but the majority of Britain doesn't. :rolleyes:

Then read another Newspaper, Scotland seem to hate us so much surely they have their own papers by now?


Since when? Tbh, in my little, Middle Class, Middle England life, I have barely heard anyone who's strongly against the war. Infact, the percentage of people I talk to are sick of people constantly bashing the Government and just want news.
I'd much rather pick up my newspaper and read of a success in Afghanistan or Iraq, but unfortunately these get relegated to a short paragraph on page 2 and the rest is dedicated to whatever scandals and whatever is happening.

Watch any political satire on the Tv - Mock the Week, Have I Got News For You? - and even some of the older ones - Whose Line Is It Anyway? - and they will all bash Daily Mail and Guardian readers. They insult them with a passion.

Scandels have always been top of the news no matter what Government is in, if we want to talk biased then I could say i'm fed up of the left wing BBC. Yeha I do watch them both and unlike some people on here, I can take insults without going 'OMG UR A LIER -REPP'


The pound is a hell of a lot strong than the Euro, and considerably more than the Dollar. If he wishes to express his conservative views then so be it, if you want to express socialist views go ahead, I'll listen, I just won't agree. I wouldn't make assumptions about the next election yet, it's a while ahead and it will only be called when the Tories are in trouble and Labour are doing well.

It was mostly a Blair thing being influenced by the American's, as you can see Brown isn't pro-American and it isn't a Tory thing either. It is true the Conservatives agreed to the War in Iraq too, there was full support by the Conservatives and Labour for the second Gulf war, clearly the Tories aren't perfect and do too make mistakes.

You have no evidence the Tories won't do what they say when they come to power, they haven't done that much in the past, unlike the Labour who promised a referendum on any new EU Constituencies, but says we simply don't need one... However it looks like after all we could get one due to a large amount of Labour MPs rebelling, it'll most probably take months and then our stupid public would vote for it anyway. If the public is silly enough to vote for Labour, then they could be silly enough to vote for this to go ahead.

Judging by his intellect he's probably more a Star or Daily Sport reader, The Sun would be considered a challenging read.

Thank you :)


;4395601']so we get to vote who runs our newspapers yeah? er - no.

to be a democracy, the public need to know both sides of the story so the public can make an informed decision, right?

have you ever watched Euronews, it's so unbiased (Except pro-EU) it's untrue.

ps. Daily Sport ftw.

It wouldn't be a democracy if the state decided to buy up the newspapers now would it? Anyway when buying a newspaper it is like a democracy. You have 3 news papers facing you, Daily Mail, Sun and Star, you pick whichever you think prints the best news.

[Jordy]

well if they changed the union jack I'd be mad as I'm a very patriotic person and am proud to be british I guess the iraqis are feeling the same way.Did you hear on the news a few months ago they're thinking of making the majority of the Union jack green or putting a dragon across the front of it as Wales feels excluded from the flag. It's such a silly suggestion and would wreck Britishness. Besides what do the Welsh ever do for us? If they want to come on our flag, they have to earn their place on it! :P

[Virgin Mary]

Did you hear on the news a few months ago they're thinking of making the majority of the Union jack green or putting a dragon across the front of it as Wales feels excluded from the flag. It's such a silly suggestion and would wreck Britishness. Besides what do the Welsh ever do for us? If they want to come on our flag, they have to earn their place on it! :P
Well obviously they've never been taught that blue and green should never be seen. Furthermore the Welsh flag has red and white on it, as does the union jack =)

[Dan2nd]

Did you hear on the news a few months ago they're thinking of making the majority of the Union jack green or putting a dragon across the front of it as Wales feels excluded from the flag. It's such a silly suggestion and would wreck Britishness. Besides what do the Welsh ever do for us? If they want to come on our flag, they have to earn their place on it! :P

urrg the welsh we don't like them and they don't like us :eusa_hand :P
ha ha only joking i don't want to cause an international inccident :rolleyes:

It's just the princible really I doubt the Iraqis are upset because Saddam put the stars on the flag or w.e like Jordy said if they put a Dragon on the union Jack i'd actually want to punch the queen it's because it's the nations flag I don't know how to explain it , when i see it I'm like 'yup I'm british' and smile I mean look at the americans and their flag they are worse than us british they are sooo passionate .. yeah thats what I think its the Iraqis are passonate about Iraq and that flag represents that passion and their country!

[alexxxxx]

Then read another Newspaper, Scotland seem to hate us so much surely they have their own papers by now?



Scandels have always been top of the news no matter what Government is in, if we want to talk biased then I could say i'm fed up of the left wing BBC. Yeha I do watch them both and unlike some people on here, I can take insults without going 'OMG UR A LIER -REPP'



Thank you :)



It wouldn't be a democracy if the state decided to buy up the newspapers now would it? Anyway when buying a newspaper it is like a democracy. You have 3 news papers facing you, Daily Mail, Sun and Star, you pick whichever you think prints the best news.

that's what i'm worried about, many of these newspapers aren't independant of each other, owned in groups, so infact, they can all print the same news from the same slant, right?

[-:Undertaker:-]

urrg the welsh we don't like them and they don't like us :eusa_hand :P
ha ha only joking i don't want to cause an international inccident :rolleyes:

It's just the princible really I doubt the Iraqis are upset because Saddam put the stars on the flag or w.e like Jordy said if they put a Dragon on the union Jack i'd actually want to punch the queen it's because it's the nations flag I don't know how to explain it , when i see it I'm like 'yup I'm british' and smile I mean look at the americans and their flag they are worse than us british they are sooo passionate .. yeah thats what I think its the Iraqis are passonate about Iraq and that flag represents that passion and their country!

Stars are different from Colours, them three stars were the symbols of the Ba'ath Party and thats what they are upset about.

[Dan2nd]

Stars are different from Colours, them three stars were the symbols of the Ba'ath Party and thats what they are upset about.

What do those colours represent though? our countries !

I guess I see where you're coming from though!

[Frodo13.]

The flag change is just about patrionism in my opinion. We would have the same reaction if our flag got changed. If Iraq loved Saddam, we wouldn't of seen this:


http://www.phonebookoftheworld.com/iraq/saddam-statue.jpg

[Jordy]

The flag change is just about patrionism in my opinion. We would have the same reaction if our flag got changed. If Iraq loved Saddam, we wouldn't of seen this:


http://www.phonebookoftheworld.com/iraq/saddam-statue.jpg
Just because they where happy doesn't mean all Iraq was, lets be realistic here? I bet in all the people there, there isn't one sunni.

There is no evidence suggesting what happened when the statue was brought down was the reaction the majority of Iraqis had..

[-:Undertaker:-]

The flag change is just about patrionism in my opinion. We would have the same reaction if our flag got changed. If Iraq loved Saddam, we wouldn't of seen this:



http://www.phonebookoftheworld.com/iraq/saddam-statue.jpg


I have already explained about the Shiite and Sunni Muslims :)

[Spectate]

The Labour party promised us a vote, they denied it, as her majestys opposition they have a duty to oppose it and rightly should. Personally I think David Cameron is a tossbag so I know your trying to offended me but I agree with you, he's another Blair. The Pound is stronger than the Euro and Dollar by the way.

Yeah I do, what do you read, the sun :rolleyes:

Haha no surprise there (with regard to you reading the Mail). The people of Britain voted to keep the Labour Government in 2005. Yeah the leader has changed, so what? You vote for the party not the person. Technically we don't have to have another general election 'til 2010.

[Jordy]

Haha no surprise there (with regard to you reading the Mail). The people of Britain voted to keep the Labour Government in 2005. Yeah the leader has changed, so what? You vote for the party not the person. Technically we don't have to have another general election 'til 2010.Judging by Mr Brown's cowardly tactics he'll only call an election when the Tories are doing very badly and Labour are doing well. That could happen any time over the next 2 years so you never know when :P

[Frodo13.]

Just because they where happy doesn't mean all Iraq was, lets be realistic here? I bet in all the people there, there isn't one sunni.

There is no evidence suggesting what happened when the statue was brought down was the reaction the majority of Iraqis had..


I have already explained about the Shiite and Sunni Muslims :)

You talk like the Shiite Muslims shouldn't be able to express their views in Iraq. The way Saddam discriminated against the Shiite's made him a bad leader anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Haha no surprise there (with regard to you reading the Mail). The people of Britain voted to keep the Labour Government in 2005. Yeah the leader has changed, so what? You vote for the party not the person. Technically we don't have to have another general election 'til 2010.

Then how come he was going to call an election when he was leading in polls, yet when the Tories took lead he cancelled it.


You talk like the Shiite Muslims shouldn't be able to express their views in Iraq. The way Saddam discriminated against the Shiite's made him a bad leader anyway.

You need to be harsh to keep that country under control, how many times must I say this?

[Frodo13.]

You need to be harsh to keep that country under control, how many times must I say this?

Discriminating someone because of what they believe in makes a good leader then?

[Jordy]

Discriminating someone because of what they believe in makes a good leader then?Perhaps not a 'Good leader' in everyone's eye's, but it makes you a 'Strong leader', and in most people's opinions, strong leaders are good leaders.

[---MAD---]

Then how come he was going to call an election when he was leading in polls, yet when the Tories took lead he cancelled it.



You need to be harsh to keep that country under control, how many times must I say this?
Harsh to 75% of the population? Harsh includes torcher, murder, mass killings etc. That is total discimination.

[lScottl]

Then how come he was going to call an election when he was leading in polls, yet when the Tories took lead he cancelled it.



You need to be harsh to keep that country under control, how many times must I say this?

you say it too many times, noone ******* gives a ****, you talk ********

[-:Undertaker:-]

Discriminating someone because of what they believe in makes a good leader then?

I would rather a strong leader if I lived in the Middle East/Africa than a person who can't control the country.


Harsh to 75% of the population? Harsh includes torcher, murder, mass killings etc. That is total discimination.

Wasn't 75% of the population so don't over do it, the kurds rebellion was crushed because it threatend the stability of the country.


you say it too many times, noone ******* gives a ****, you talk ********

Oh go and cut yourself.

[dannyisnotamazing]

this seems like such an INTERESTING thread

[---MAD---]

Then how come he was going to call an election when he was leading in polls, yet when the Tories took lead he cancelled it.



You need to be harsh to keep that country under control, how many times must I say this?
Also, I think you can be harsh by enforcing laws like crime (which he commited so it wouldn't work in his case) instead of murdering people for their beliefs or conversations they have about the government.

I am pretty sure its 75% that are Shiite. I will have a look on msn.com and see if I can find anything on it.

[Frodo13.]

I think Undertaker's view that 'you have to be harsh to run a country like Iraq is utter rubbish tbh.

Look at Zimbabwe - very harsh leader, but the country is a total mess.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Also, I think you can be harsh by enforcing laws like crime (which he commited so it wouldn't work in his case) instead of murdering people for their beliefs or conversations they have about the government.

I am pretty sure its 75% that are Shiite. I will have a look on msn.com and see if I can find anything on it.

Whether it's 75% or whatever, even a lot of Shiites want him back, it also defies the point of the wests freedom message by bringing down a leader who was more free than shiites and replacing him with them. Saddam also abolished the Shia courts which are notorious for harsh punishments.



I think Undertaker's view that 'you have to be harsh to run a country like Iraq is utter rubbish tbh.

Look at Zimbabwe - very harsh leader, but the country is a total mess.


Zimbabwe isn't like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Kenya. Mugarbe made the country a total mess by destroying the economy by throwing out the white farmers. Zimbarbwe isn't a country about tribes/political fighting tribes, Zimbarbwe is more civilised than the people of Iraq, Pakistan and so on. Also there is no security threat to Zimbarbwe so a harsh leader is not really needed.

[Frodo13.]

Zimbarbwe is more civilised than the people of Iraq, Pakistan and so on. Also there is no security threat to Zimbarbwe so a harsh leader is not really needed.

A very small ammount of people are uncivilised in Iraq, those being the terrorists. You only hear about them because it's the only thing you hear about - Your totally blindfolded by what you see on TV and read in the newspapers.

[---MAD---]

It turns out its 60-65% Shiites of the 97% Muslims in the country.

I don't get why you are so supportive to Saddam. Everything wrong hes done and yet hes still good, makes no sense. He ran the country for 20 years and did a horrible job yet the West have been in there for around less than 5 years and yet you expect it to be solved within months. These things take time.

I totally agree with Frodo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A very small ammount of people are uncivilised in Iraq, those being the terrorists. You only hear about them because it's the only thing you hear about - Your totally blindfolded by what you see on TV and read in the newspapers.

There are only terrorists in Iraq because we invaded, the people who wanted to rule the country and topple the Ba'ath regime and create their own were the kurds who attempted to kill Saddam.


It turns out its 60-65% Shiites of the 97% Muslims in the country.

I don't get why you are so supportive to Saddam. Everything wrong hes done and yet hes still good, makes no sense. He ran the country for 20 years and did a horrible job yet the West have been in there for around less than 5 years and yet you expect it to be solved within months. These things take time.

I totally agree with Frodo.


Saddam did a good job, he modernised the country bringing electric, water and food to the country, built Iraqs army up, created a good police force, gave women rights to have high jobs and the right to be educated, he abolished Shia courts, gave women the choice to wear western clothes and gave the number one important factor to the Iraqi people - security.

[---MAD---]

There are only terrorists in Iraq because we invaded, the people who wanted to rule the country and topple the Ba'ath regime and create their own were the kurds who attempted to kill Saddam.
Not true. Most the terrorists are coming in from different countries. Terrorists didn't go into Iraq because it was bad as it is with Saddam. They are there now because they don't want it to stabilize. Do you know how much progress would have been made without the terrorists ruining everything?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not true. Most the terrorists are coming in from different countries. Terrorists didn't go into Iraq because it was bad as it is with Saddam. They are there now because they don't want it to stabilize. Do you know how much progress would have been made without the terrorists ruining everything?

Yeah I know the terrosist are flooding in from different countrys, I clearly said there were no terrorists under Saddam because of his good security.

[Frodo13.]

the number one important factor to the Iraqi people - security.

I would of thought freedom was more important :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would of thought freedom was more important :rolleyes:

No because considering the options between family/you dying because of terrorists and crime and security, I would take security.

[---MAD---]

Yeah I know the terrosist are flooding in from different countrys, I clearly said there were no terrorists under Saddam because of his good security.
No, because under Saddam he let them stay in the country and work from there. They would be protected by him that way. Its more of an ally/enemy thing.

I would of thought freedom was more important :rolleyes:
Yes I agree.

No because considering the options between family/you dying because of terrorists and crime and security, I would take security.
So you would rather be in prison for the rest of your life than die? I would much rather die.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, because under Saddam he let them stay in the country and work from there. They would be protected by him that way. Its more of an ally/enemy thing.

Yes I agree.

So you would rather be in prison for the rest of your life than die? I would much rather die.

There were no terrorists under Saddam, George W Bush and Tony Blair may claim he was harbouring them but it was proven Saddam had no links with terrorists. Only the people who wanted to try and destabilise the country were punished. I would call Iraq more of a prison now.

[Frodo13.]

There were no terrorists under Saddam, George W Bush and Tony Blair may claim he was harbouring them but it was proven Saddam had no links with terrorists. Only the people who wanted to try and destabilise the country were punished. I would call Iraq more of a prison now.


Yes, but as we have already established, you havn't been there - MAD has family who has.

[Dan2nd]

No because considering the options between family/you dying because of terrorists and crime and security, I would take security.


correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't Saddam gas out a whole village or something which is alot worse in my opinion as it's something you wouldn't expect from your countries leader? I mean at least people know which areas are at risk from attacks now and can prepare for it instead of worrying Saddam will have a spare canister of gas lying around?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, but as we have already established, you havn't been there - MAD has family who has.

I could say to you that you couldn't call Hitler/Nazi's evil because you weren't there.


correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't Saddam gas out a whole village or something which is alot worse in my opinion as it's something you wouldn't expect from your countries leader? I mean at least people know which areas are at risk from attacks now and can prepare for it instead of worrying Saddam will have a spare canister of gas lying around?

That was done because of the Kudish uprising trying to destabilise the country.

[Frodo13.]

I could say to you that you couldn't call Hitler/Nazi's evil because you weren't there.

Yes, but whats a more reliable source - you who only see's what is portrayed in the media, or MAD, who was in Iraq during the Saddam era and now has family in Iraq, and see all aspects of Iraqi life?

^^ And to that - they tryed to get Saddam out because of his discrimination. It does not matter where you live, that being the Middle East, Europe, Affrica or America...percecuting someone for their political beliefs is wrong. Saddam was a power hungary, insecure leader - that being the only reason why he killed many just to keep his political position.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, but whats a more reliable source - you who only see's what is portrayed in the media, or MAD, who was in Iraq during the Saddam era and now has family in Iraq, and see all aspects of Iraqi life?

^^ And to that - they tryed to get Saddam out because of his discrimination. It does not matter where you live, that being the Middle East, Europe, Affrica or America...percecuting someone for their political beliefs is wrong. Saddam was a power hungary, insecure leader - that being the only reason why he killed many just to keep his political position.

They were trying to bring the country down, it's a whole lot differant from waving flags around chanting. I could say same about Blair and Brown, one killed many people and destroyed a country that was perfectly fine, and on the subject of power hungary people - Gordon Brown who decided not to call an election.

Was Iraq better off with Saddam Hussein in power - yes.

[Frodo13.]

They were trying to bring the country down, it's a whole lot differant from waving flags around chanting. I could say same about Blair and Brown, one killed many people and destroyed a country that was perfectly fine, and on the subject of power hungary people - Gordon Brown who decided not to call an election.

Was Iraq better off with Saddam Hussein in power - yes.

Was Iraq better off with Saddam? - no

And would you called a GE if you were low in opinion polls? Probably not :rolleyes: Just like Major what did.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Was Iraq better off with Saddam? - no

And would you called a GE if you were low in opinion polls? Probably not :rolleyes: Just like Major what did.

Oh right, you'd, rather Iraq run by Shiites with no water, less freedom and no food/electric.

I have no opinion on John Major :)

[Frodo13.]

Oh right, you'd, rather Iraq run by Shiites with no water, less freedom and no food/electric.

I have no opinion on John Major :)

Using Major as an example.

Saddam couldn't of been doing that much of a good job if the majority of Iraq wanted him dead could he now. :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Using Major as an example.

Saddam couldn't of been doing that much of a good job if the majority of Iraq wanted him dead could he now. :rolleyes:

They didn't though that's the whole point, Saddam could of been toppled in the 90's if the Iraqis wanted to, there were enough of them, his army was considerably weaker than it used to be and certainly wouldn't of been able to stop them.

[alexxxxx]

[B][COLOR=orange]That was done because of the Kudish uprising trying to destabilise the country.

and that makes it right? to kill innocent people as well. That's like Gordon Brown gassing parts of LEEDS/BRADFORD because some british-asians blew up the london underground.

"yeah, but that's iraq so it's different" - >_>

[Jordy]

;4397581']and that makes it right? to kill innocent people as well. That's like Gordon Brown gassing parts of LEEDS/BRADFORD because some british-asians blew up the london underground.

"yeah, but that's iraq so it's different" - >_>It is different, you've answered your own question, congratulations.

The Kurds as a WHOLE where a threat as they all threatened to destabilise Saddam's government and Iraq. British Asians as a WHOLE are not terrorists, very very very few British Asian's are radical Muslims who are terrorists. That's the 'Difference'.

In reply to the rest of your post, I think Undertaker has stressed enough that there's no easy and humane way of sorting out a middle-east mess like Iraq. Force, fear and punishment where used to combat anyone who threatened to destabilise Iraq, like the kurds did.

[Spectate]

Then how come he was going to call an election when he was leading in polls, yet when the Tories took lead he cancelled it.



You need to be harsh to keep that country under control, how many times must I say this?

Because he wants to win... And now as leader of the party that was voted in two years ago he can pick any point he pleases over the next 2 years to hold an election.

[Swearwolf]

Im personally extremely glad saddam has gone. He was a murdering and cruel dictator.

[alexxxxx]

It is different, you've answered your own question, congratulations.

The Kurds as a WHOLE where a threat as they all threatened to destabilise Saddam's government and Iraq. British Asians as a WHOLE are not terrorists, very very very few British Asian's are radical Muslims who are terrorists. That's the 'Difference'.

In reply to the rest of your post, I think Undertaker has stressed enough that there's no easy and humane way of sorting out a middle-east mess like Iraq. Force, fear and punishment where used to combat anyone who threatened to destabilise Iraq, like the kurds did.

I'm sure that not every kurd of Northern Iraq wanted to attack and de-stableize the government cause they won't get any autonomy.

The Spanish don't gas the Basque country, where plenty of people would like a new state. And they are radical. What Saddam Hussain('s reigime) has done was wrong, even with plenty of rights - it is well known that they often tortured, executed and targeted groups of people for speaking out against him. If i remember correctly, in the last 'General Election' of Iraq, Saddam had 99% of the vote. He dictated the land in a brutal manner and against international law - nothing you can say can change that, even if it had support from sections of his population - it's still wrong.

[dannyisnotamazing]

can you not move this to the debates forum

[Jordy]

;4398161']I'm sure that not every kurd of Northern Iraq wanted to attack and de-stableize the government cause they won't get any autonomy.

The Spanish don't gas the Basque country, where plenty of people would like a new state. And they are radical. What Saddam Hussain('s reigime) has done was wrong, even with plenty of rights - it is well known that they often tortured, executed and targeted groups of people for speaking out against him. If i remember correctly, in the last 'General Election' of Iraq, Saddam had 99% of the vote. He dictated the land in a brutal manner and against international law - nothing you can say can change that, even if it had support from sections of his population - it's still wrong.We ran our country like this at one time and our empire was ran like this (Hundreds of years ago...) and so has nearly every country in the world ran like this till their politics settled and security and freedom and wealth where accomplished. We have no right to tell them how they should treat people, we where just as bad at one time. So what if it's all history, 1 minute ago is history but history isn't forgotten ;)

It's like we're now telling China to stop it's booming industry because of a so-called thing called 'Global Warming', we where having our industrial resolution about 150 years ago, so let them have theirs...

The method works to bring wealth, security, freedom and settled politics, recent evidence is Saudi Arabia, and if you want more evidence beyond, it's how the UK and it's empire was ran at one time, and now we have 'wealth, security, freedom and settled politics' to a very reasonable extent.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We ran our country like this at one time and our empire was ran like this (Hundreds of years ago...) and so has nearly every country in the world ran like this till their politics settled and security and freedom and wealth where accomplished. We have no right to tell them how they should treat people, we where just as bad at one time. So what if it's all history, 1 minute ago is history but history isn't forgotten ;)

It's like we're now telling China to stop it's booming industry because of a so-called thing called 'Global Warming', we where having our industrial resolution about 150 years ago, so let them have theirs...

The method works to bring wealth, security, freedom and settled politics, recent evidence is Saudi Arabia, and if you want more evidence beyond, it's how the UK and it's empire was ran at one time, and now we have 'wealth, security, freedom and settled politics' to a very reasonable extent.

Jordy has summed it all up right there :)

[lScottl]

I would rather a strong leader if I lived in the Middle East/Africa than a person who can't control the country.



Wasn't 75% of the population so don't over do it, the kurds rebellion was crushed because it threatend the stability of the country.



Oh go and cut yourself.

:S:S:S:S:S

Edited by REDNECK (forum moderator): Do not post pointlessly.

[efq]

Oh great lets provoke the war again...