Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven? by Succatash

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven?

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Monday, August 7, 2006 12:47
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2401
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:34 PM

We have extreme chaos in Iraq. Sounds like hell to me. Is it possible that Iraq actually needs someone like Saddam Hussein? Who else could keep order in such chaos? Hell plays by different rules.

Maybe Saddam isn't such a bad guy after all. Ruling in Hell can't be easy.

MISUNDERSTOOD?

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:56 PM

CITIZEN

It's the way it is because the invasion from conception through implementation and occupation till today was ill conceived, mismanaged and planned by people who really did not and do not have a clue about what they are doing.

Although really what does it say? Is George Bush a worse president than Saddam Hussein?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 30, 2006 1:15 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's the way it is because the invasion from conception through implementation and occupation till today was ill conceived, mismanaged and planned by people who really did not and do not have a clue about what they are doing.

I think that the present Isreali conflict explains much of trouble we seem to be having in Iraq.

Its a matter of media coverage and holding Isreal or the US to some sort of enhanced standard of conduct while virtually ignoring the conduct of the enemy.

For example. The Hezbo's launch rockets from behind a building. Isreal warns the residents to flee, waits, more rockets, waits, more rockets, then bombs the crap out of the area and surprise...Isreal just killed a bunch of kids. Same thing happened at a UN outpost the other day (lets not dwell on Hezi's use of the UN Peacekeeps as cover).

The problem is not the US or our failed efforts in Iraq or Isreal's lack of restraint.

The one and only failure here is the inability of the terrorists to assemble peacefully in a large tract of uninhaited wilderness for efficient elimination. Until they agree to take this sensible action, civilian casualties are not only inevitable but reasonable under the circumstances.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 30, 2006 1:37 PM

SUCCATASH

Back to Saddam...

Maybe he was a good leader because he kept all the different factions from blowing each other up.

Stability. What Iraq lacks right now.

Hero says it's a matter of media coverage, but he helps make my point that in Hell the rules are different. Saddam juggled live grenades every day for fun.

Saddam has proved that without him, Iraq would plunge into civil war. The U.S. has not made Iraq a better place since we removed Saddam. Quite the opposite is going on.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 30, 2006 2:00 PM

CITIZEN

Yeah but it has a dictator now. He's just not quite on the same planet as the rest of the Human race.

But Hero has a point on media coverage, much of Western (especially US) media is very much biased toward making Israel and the US look like the good guys at any cost.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 30, 2006 2:32 PM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
much of Western (especially US) media is very much biased toward making Israel and the US look like the good guys at any cost.

So you are implying that Saddam was a good leader, under the circumstances? Unfairly portrayed by western media as the new Hitler?

--

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 30, 2006 4:42 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
much of Western (especially US) media is very much biased toward making Israel and the US look like the good guys at any cost.

So you are implying that Saddam was a good leader, under the circumstances? Unfairly portrayed by western media as the new Hitler?

--

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

A good example of what I think you are suggesting would be Tito in Yugoslavia. While some of his actions were deemed harsh by the outside ( western ) world, he kept apart factions which had been at each other for hundreads of years, and turned the country into the number one GNP on the med at the same time. Mind you he managed to keep out the foreign influences that helped Yugoslavia come apart, Saddam while in power embraced foreign influence, particularly that of the US during the Iran/Iraq war. If you sell your soul, then it stays sold I guess, or there is hell to pay...

As for Saddams actions to maintain power within Iraq, I'll say this.

If your going to condemn Saddam and rip down his statues for using gas to contain the Kurdish people and suppress their rebellion, then all stautes of Winston Churchill should be ripped down and his name spat upon, because he did the very same.

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2006 6:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA

As usual, you make a good and thought provoking point, 'Tash.

I figure yeah, you prolly have to have a bit of an iron fist to keep some countries together, and be both ruthless and willing to go to extremes to keep them that way.

First example would be Castro - he's kept Cuba prettymuch on an even keel for a long time, although not fond of his methods, they do the job, and in spite of interference from us on a regular basis.

Second example (apologists, cue here for the screaming) would be Abraham Lincoln - strip away the veneer of BS that's been laquered on over the years, and you have an iron-fisted dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands in the name of "Order", and he did win, at a cost we're finally realizing, but he did win.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, they all kept an orderly society.. not one a lotta folks here would be so keen on living in mind you, but they kept the peace, sure.

Thing is, a true change of rule never occurs externally, never, ever, ever - if *enough* of the populace had wanted Saddam out, he would have in the end, wound up like Mussolini - but instead we make him a martyr ? stupid, stupid, STUPID.

The harder you press one of these hardcases, the more their own people rally in behind em, even if they hated em in the first place - Castro is a good example of this.

This of course makes it abundantly obvious that whatever puppet regime we set up there, if we do not spend insane resources to support and defend it, will be toppled in short order by pissed off locals who want it gone - which is how ALL governments eventually fall.

So these iron-handed goons, monsters that they were, were still supported by enough of the people for some time, which means that the people preferred them there to the alternatives, cause no matter how good your army, your secret police, your defenses, if *enough* of the population wants you gone... you're gone.

Some folks out on the east coast need to be thinkin about that one themselves, these days.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2006 6:09 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
If your going to condemn Saddam and rip down his statues for using gas to contain the Kurdish people and suppress their rebellion, then all stautes of Winston Churchill should be ripped down and his name spat upon, because he did the very same.

Yes, it has to be said the RAF invented the 'game' of Kurd gassing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2006 6:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yes, it has to be said the RAF invented the 'game' of Kurd gassing.

Oh. I didn't know that.

I wonder what would happen if we let all of those factions separate? The Civil War for example. From what I understand, the South wouldn't have survived very long as an economic power anyway... 9 million population (of which 4 million were slaves) versus a population of 21 million, and total economic output that didn't even match New York State.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2006 9:37 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I wonder what would happen if we let all of those factions separate? The Civil War for example. From what I understand, the South wouldn't have survived very long as an economic power anyway... 9 million population (of which 4 million were slaves) versus a population of 21 million, and total economic output that didn't even match New York State.

I always thought we should have let the south go. They would have collapsed after a few years anyway, suffered international isolation over slavery, sanctions imposed by the Union including probably a cotton boycott, and eventual infrastructure failure. We could have then just walked right in and taken over, no war. They might even welcome it at that point. Outlaw the confederate flag (no longer a romantic symbol of those who fought and died for their 'native state'

), mandate a certain number of educated freed slaves in Congress for a few years, install carpetbaggers in most local offices. Southern 'culture' could have been effectively annihilated without spilling blood. Oh well. As they like to say, 'the south shall rise again!' I hope so, then we can kick its ass again, and this time, no reconstruction.

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2006 10:00 AM

SIMONWHO

It's one thing to argue that some countries need a strong leader. It's quite another to argue that they're not bad guys - they're evil men who have found their niche.

Doubtlessly you could have argued in 1989 that South Africa needed apartheid to keep it from descending into civil war or that a "weak" leader like Nelson Mandela would only lead to bloodshed and chaos. And you'd have been dead wrong.

Check out my Serenity Auctions for Equality Now, including DVDs and Posters signed by all 9 BDHs + Joss!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121002
83
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400120938
86
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121031
71

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2006 2:46 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I wonder what would happen if we let all of those factions separate? The Civil War for example. From what I understand, the South wouldn't have survived very long as an economic power anyway... 9 million population (of which 4 million were slaves) versus a population of 21 million, and total economic output that didn't even match New York State.

I always thought we should have let the south go. They would have collapsed after a few years anyway, suffered international isolation over slavery, sanctions imposed by the Union including probably a cotton boycott, and eventual infrastructure failure. We could have then just walked right in and taken over, no war. They might even welcome it at that point. Outlaw the confederate flag (no longer a romantic symbol of those who fought and died for their 'native state' ), mandate a certain number of educated freed slaves in Congress for a few years, install carpetbaggers in most local offices. Southern 'culture' could have been effectively annihilated without spilling blood. Oh well. As they like to say, 'the south shall rise again!' I hope so, then we can kick its ass again, and this time, no reconstruction.

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

One thing I would like to point out, is that the civil war didn't benefit the former slaves

many were tossed out and found themselves homeless, and jobless...

From reading some of the pre-war literature, my feeling is rather than abolishing slavery as Lincoln tried to do, there was room for considerable negotiation.

If they had agreed to phase out slavery over ten to twenty years, with an increase in rights, work and living conditions, education, etc going towards the slaves... perhaps history would have turned out quite differently.

Instead we had a bloody and costly war, segeration, all manner or racial problems.

An investment back then to help those people find a place in the society they were forced into would still be paying dividends today.

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2006 2:53 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Yes, it has to be said the RAF invented the 'game' of Kurd gassing.
Oh. I didn't know that.

I wonder what would happen if we let all of those factions separate? The Civil War for example. From what I understand, the South wouldn't have survived very long as an economic power anyway... 9 million population (of which 4 million were slaves) versus a population of 21 million, and total economic output that didn't even match New York State.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

Apparently he wanted to use even more gas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

I have also read in some of his pre-WW2 writings he suggested that a system of forced labour camps be establish throughout India in order to work to death any troublemakers there.

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 31, 2006 11:51 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

*erupts randomly into thread, bringing all the little demons with her*

Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:13 PM

ANTIMASON

just an opinion of course, but i think the reason Iraq has gone to Hell is because the Iraqis fear a democracy put in place by a nation which they cannot trust, due to inherint conflicts of interest within our own political structure; especially in post 9/11 fascist/socialist America.

maybe they fear a pro-western puppet regime being installed, which can be as easily manuplated as our system. is it better than a dicatorship? were the Iraqis glad when Saddam was taken from power? it seemed so...so what happened?

we must have lost their trust, by exposing our true colors. i dont deny that their are honost, sincere, genuinely good hearted soldiers in Iraq, doing the Iraqis a good service; and i thank them for their service to this country, in light of the fact that our government has been less then straighforward and forthcoming with them. but they are overshadowed by men behind the scenes, who see Iraq as a strategic launching pad to tame the middle east into accepting global governance. and their motives are less then palatable, and given that we are technically an occupying force, even more threatening.

i dont condone murder, or violence in any shape or form..i want a democracy for the Iraqis too, they deserve every freedom we have...but a legitimate one, of their own making, based on truth and love, that doesnt come at the expense of the lives of thousands of innocent people.

no one in their right mind would be opposed to a free democracy, especially not the Iraqis. so why do the insurgents? its not as if theyre rebels fighting for liberty, according to the Media they hate freedom..so what is their motivation? maybe they dont see our presence and benevolent

i realize you cant have your cake, and eat it too..maybe my "everybody love one another" hope is just a fantasy, like i said its just an opinion, but i believe the legitimate cause of creating a democracy in Iraq has become a front for a more insidious alterior motive of creating a NWO, which has compromised the stability of the region beyond all measure

and our CIA helped put Saddam in to begin with...so the whole thing is just a mess, either way you look at it

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 7, 2006 11:39 AM

PLOTTWIST2

george bush is worse than saddam.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 7, 2006 11:44 AM

PAGANPAUL

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 7, 2006 12:47 PM

DUKKATI

yeah

your right he would make a good leader in Iraq...because that's all those people seem to want.

I wouldn't doubt one bit that he gets turned lose and put back in power after we get done rebuilding that country...

I've been through the system.
It dont work.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE