Obviously he was for a long time a brutal and useful tool of the West against communism and against the Islamic Revolution in Iran, so in no way an ally of progressive causes. But objectively it is also true that Iraq was better off before 2003 and especially before 1991. It was more stable, more united, militarily and economically stronger, and most importantly more independent than it is today. To some degree it represented a regional counter-balance against the Zionist entity, alongside Assad’s Syria, Gaddafi’s Libya and (much earlier) Nasser’s Egypt. It is not a coincidence that all of the regional powers that were able to mount a real defense against the Zionist entity’s regional ambitions were targeted and destroyed (by the way this is also why Yemen, South Sudan and Somalia were targeted), regardless whether their governments and leaders were progressive or reactionary. Saddam in particular became more an inconvenience than an asset for the empire once he began to try to trade oil in a currency other than the dollar. Therefore i think it is less important what we think of Saddam himself and more how we should view the existence of any strong and stable regional power that is not fully subservient to the Anglo-Zionist imperialists.
I recall a political cartoon in some US rag that had Dick Cheney saying, "Of course Sadaam has WMD, we sold them to him!” and Sadaam in the background checking a receipt. But those wmd were probably all spent on the Kurds, by then.
Obviously he was for a long time a brutal and useful tool of the West against communism and against the Islamic Revolution in Iran, so in no way an ally of progressive causes. But objectively it is also true that Iraq was better off before 2003 and especially before 1991. It was more stable, more united, militarily and economically stronger, and most importantly more independent than it is today. To some degree it represented a regional counter-balance against the Zionist entity, alongside Assad’s Syria, Gaddafi’s Libya and (much earlier) Nasser’s Egypt. It is not a coincidence that all of the regional powers that were able to mount a real defense against the Zionist entity’s regional ambitions were targeted and destroyed (by the way this is also why Yemen, South Sudan and Somalia were targeted), regardless whether their governments and leaders were progressive or reactionary. Saddam in particular became more an inconvenience than an asset for the empire once he began to try to trade oil in a currency other than the dollar. Therefore i think it is less important what we think of Saddam himself and more how we should view the existence of any strong and stable regional power that is not fully subservient to the Anglo-Zionist imperialists.
I recall a political cartoon in some US rag that had Dick Cheney saying, "Of course Sadaam has WMD, we sold them to him!” and Sadaam in the background checking a receipt. But those wmd were probably all spent on the Kurds, by then.
Ig thats true, but it’s hard asf to have an objective view of his government just because of the atrocities he committed in kurdistan, I agree tho