[Wael El-Manzalawy]

We can't deny that Sadam commited some mistakes but he was the powerful political leader who kept a coherent Iraq. Since the American invasion, all the political leaders in Iraq were weak if not corrupt. Moqtada is the only powerful political leader in Iraq, so the other political leaders hinder him because they know that he will be another Sadam. Will Moqtada rule Iraq? Certainly he will be another Sadam. Will Iraq be divided into three states? The international community opposes this solution but it is possible without a powerful political leader.

[starman2003]

We can't deny that Sadam commited some mistakes but he was the powerful political leader who kept a coherent Iraq.

Right. The US should've negotiated after '91 and stayed out in '03.

Moqtada is the only powerful political leader in Iraq, so the other political leaders hinder him because they know that he will be another Sadam. Will Moqtada rule Iraq?

Many oppose al-sadr because he opposes Iran. Sadrist rule seems hardly likely now that he's pulled his people out of parliament.

Will Iraq be divided into three states? The international community opposes this solution but it is possible without a powerful political leader.

Iran is said to have no problem with lack of a strong central Iraq government inasmuch as that precludes a strong challenge to its influence.

[Wael El-Manzalawy]

Many oppose al-sadr because he opposes Iran. Sadrist rule seems hardly likely now that he's pulled his people out of parliament.

I think that the probable failure of the current government will lead to massive success of Moqtada in the next elections

[starman2003]

I think that the probable failure of the current government will lead to massive success of Moqtada in the next elections

But the voters already handed him a big victory in the last elections and look what happened. He pulled out of politics.

[Wael El-Manzalawy]

But the voters already handed him a big victory in the last elections and look what happened. He pulled out of politics.

The conditions of the other political leaders meant clearly Moqtada's failure in governing Iraq. He saw this clearly. He decided to withdraw as a very powerful leader: he ordered 73 Parilament Members to withdraw from the Parliament and no one histated. He also show them that he can use military power. His option was " I will withdraw. What can they do? They will fail again and the people will ask me to come back."

[starman2003]

….and the people will ask me to come back."

We'll see. He may just end up marginalized.

[Skynet]

We can't deny that Sadam commited some mistakes but he was the powerful political leader who kept a coherent Iraq. Since the American invasion, all the political leaders in Iraq were weak if not corrupt. Moqtada is the only powerful political leader in Iraq, so the other political leaders hinder him because they know that he will be another Sadam. Will Moqtada rule Iraq? Certainly he will be another Sadam. Will Iraq be divided into three states? The international community opposes this solution but it is possible without a powerful political leader.

Saddam was a brilliant economist but a bad military commander.

Moqtada has one problem his forces were brutal to the Sunni population.

I think Iraq should be ruled by Moqtada, but the Sunnis have to get their own autonomous region, like the Kurds, or Iraqi wars will never end and it will forever stay a 3rd world country. It is orginally an idea by Biden as he was senator, to create a Sunni region.


I regret the West did not allow Saddam to conquer the hole Middle-East, every City would look like Dubai.


Here Saddam's birthday song:

[starman2003]

Saddam was a brilliant economist but a bad military commander.

He was effective at keeping Iraq in one piece but should've stayed out of Iran and Kuwait. The worst problem wasn't that he was a poor commander; he just overestimated his power relative to enemies his adventurism spawned--especially in '90-'91 of course….

I think Iraq should be ruled by Moqtada,

It might be too late for that now. The pro-Iran forces appear pretty well-established.

... but the Sunnis have to get their own autonomous region, like the Kurds, or Iraqi wars will never end and it will forever stay a 3rd world country.

Kurds have long wanted independence; dunno about the sunnis…Maybe Iraq can be relatively united and stable if the shiites make certain concessions the sunnis.

[Rich]

We can't deny that Sadam commited some mistakes but he was the powerful political leader who kept a coherent Iraq.

I'm sorry but I have to say I find your respect and faith in western leaders touching. Perhaps you also believe in the idea that the Allies in World War I were fighting a war for "international Law" and a war against racism and religious bigotry.

Iraq was never coherent. In fact not only was not it designed to be coherent, it was in part designed to be incoherent, all the better to aid "White" Christian supremacist control of Africa and Asia. Saddam brought nothing but misery and catastrophe to the peoples of Iraq. Saddam's seizure of power was deliberately made to thwart the union of Iraq and Syria. If the union had gone through then there was a chance for a secular country in which Sunni and Twelver Shia would have been in rough balance. This would almost certainly have led to Hafez Assad coming to power after the death / retirement of Al Bakr. However despite being an Alawite Hafez unlike his son was an ardent Sunnifier.

Instead because of Saddam's handiwork Sunni majority Syria was left with a sectarian regime that would end up dependant on Iran and Iraq, a majority Shia country led by a Sunni Arab clan.

[Skynet]

He was effective at keeping Iraq in one piece but should've stayed out of Iran and Kuwait. The worst problem wasn't that he was a poor commander; he just overestimated his power relative to enemies his adventurism spawned--especially in '90-'91 of course….

He tried to conquer the Arab world, which was and is in misery.

Iran he made the mistake, just to conquer the Arab speaking South (oilfields) instead to march to Teheran. Many Iranians would prefere a secular leader, but just stealing the oilfields was inacceptable for the Iranian population.

Kuwait, instead to fight an urban battle like in Stalingrad, Saddam chose the dessert... BTW the Quwaitis provoked Saddam, they drilled diagonally so they stole Iraqi oil (According a Yugoslavian newspaper "Oslobodjene").





The famous street of death:



But the street of death was a warcrime, it happened 2 days after the peace agreement, therefore Saddam had to ignite Kuwaiti oilfields to hide his army (4th largest on earth).

[starman2003]

Iran he made the mistake, just to conquer the Arab speaking South (oilfields) instead to march to Teheran. Many Iranians would prefere a secular leader, but just stealing the oilfields was inacceptable for the Iranian population.

Saddam couldn't have advanced to Tehran.

Kuwait, instead to fight an urban battle like in Stalingrad, Saddam chose the dessert…

His troops might've had a better chance in Kuwait city but what's the use if he can't retain the oilfields?


Kuwait offered $10 billion in compensation but Saddam wanted the whole country, which he felt was historically part of Iraq; he also wanted better access to the gulf.

[Rich]

The world is not fair. Its not fair on the individual level and its not fair at the collective level. Superficially Arab nationalism looked like it had great potential. In reality it was always doomed, by the nature of Islam. It is not only Arab nationalism that has failed but also Arab nationalisms. So while Slavic nationalism has been a total failure, there have been a number of successful Slavic nationalisms, Poland, Czech, etc. Germanic nationalism failed but, Swedish Dutch and yes even German nationalism has been a success despite its failures in WWI and II.

In the short term dictatorships can be very successful at mobilising a countries resources for war and sustaining the war effort in the face of adversity, but in terms of long term development of a country they're rarely very effective.

[starman2003]

In the short term dictatorships can be very successful at mobilising a countries resources for war and sustaining the war effort in the face of adversity, but in terms of long term development of a country they're rarely very effective.

Depends on the economic system and other factors. Bona fide communist regimes ultimately failed but China has made great strides and still looks OK.