/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Political discussion of ideology, history, and [current] events.

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom


PLEASE USE THE STICKIES + CATALOG
Where everyone with an ounce of jew blood and traitors are public toilets
Logs can be found here: https://endchan.net/logs.js
Insulting National Socialism or Hitler or promoting jews will be banned immediately.

Expand All Images


(86.51 KB 460x651 aWYnqL3_460s.jpg)
SADAM HUSSEIN Anonymous 04/01/2021 (Thu) 17:16:59 Id: e552b0 [Preview] No. 84353
Wanted to get to know more about Sadam Hussein but...
I have been hearing alot of bs in the medias , people , and other sources of information from both sides so i can't come with a final conlusion and form a proper opinion .
Both over-sensualize things and never come with real proofs .
Can you guys do a greater job and pill me on him ?


Anonymous 04/02/2021 (Fri) 00:13:29 Id: 43b32c [Preview] No.84356 del
>>84353
1)He worked for the U.S against Iran, then they backstabbed him and had him killed, which is what normally happens to anyone who allies with North America, even going back to the country's masonic inception

2) The incubators meme and "nerve gassings" were fake as ashit

3) Anime is bad


Anonymous 05/03/2021 (Mon) 04:03:12 Id: b67db9 [Preview] No.84576 del
The answer is always the same: read the primary sources.
Saddam spelled out his theories in the "little green book", which was written to be accessible to ordinary people.
Whether this reflects the reality of Saddam's views is far easier to judge in hindsight than when the book was published and you can judge for yourself.

Saddam is often considered to be an "Arab socialist" or a "third position" figure- but both exist in the context of the wave of Arab socialism that culminated in the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Saddam, Ghadaffi, Assad- all were arab socialists and all were independently invaded by foreign powers.

Saddam emphasized modernization, infrastructure, non-oil cooperation of gulf states, nationalization of primary resources and national banking.
He believed the oil resources of Iraq must be held by the state because they would give private entities undue domestic power, and must be protected from foreign powers.
He saw peace coming only when gulf states had enough to gain cooperating in the non-oil trade that they were no longer motivated to enter zero-sum conflicts over oil export, and to this ends started a massive infrastructure boom.

He was a brutal man, responsible for mass killings, assassinations and a range of atrocities- but saw this as a purge of imperialists.
In the context of rolling coups, foreign hegemony and general lawlessness he saw this as a necessary evil, development could not come without stability, stability could not come without violence.

Domestically he battled with the realpolitik of ethnic and religious divides in Iraq that blurred the lines of state control and national borders, sectarianism was a constant source of conflict between neighbor states.
Saddam was a Sunni, and his government was a fairly elitist group of Arabs who were a minority in Iraq- but his rule was secular; this was a considerable achievement by any standards and would have made attaturk proud.
Shi'ite radicalism was growing at this time, with non-state millitaries like the kurds openly attacking the state- the Kurds have long been used as a proxy for various foreign powers.
Eventually the radical shiites overthrew the Iranian government and this conflict quickly spread along sectarian lines to Iraq.
Saddam sought support from Arab states, but this only drew his government into deeper sectarian conflict and his campaign against Kurdish rebels led to an invasion by the new Iranian Shi'ite republic which triggered the Iran-Iraq war.
Much is contested about this period with ever side accusing the other of being in league with the CIA.

The Iran-Iraq war crippled both countries and left Iraq heavily endebted to Arab states who funded their war effort when Iran succeeded in destroying most of Iraq's oil infrastructure- Instead of unifying as Arabs, or as socialists there was disunity and anger, which opened the door for the same foreign imperialist interventions that the Shi'ites threw out the Shah in their revolution to stop, and that Saddam ultimately opposed.


Anonymous 05/03/2021 (Mon) 23:30:57 Id: 43b32c [Preview] No.84581 del
>>84576
More on your posts.

With the majority of Arab states stuck in civil war, major debt, or as failed states, a (((certain country))) can easily control them via proxy terrorists. They can also do more land annexations easier thanks to this (i.e the recent one in Golan Heights thanks to trumpie)



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply