Saddam feared getting AIDS in prison.....

[DRUNK]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080506/ap_on_...Pzc1KVIV_us0NUE

When Saddam found out his U.S. military guards were also using his laundry line to dry clothes, he wrote that he demanded they stop, according to the excerpts.

"I explained to them that they are young and they could have young people's diseases," Saddam wrote. "My main concern was to not catch a venereal disease, an HIV disease, in this place." He said some soldiers ignored his request.

Above is an excellent example showing how backwards even the TOP leaders of the Arab world are, and were.

Saddam, the former leader of Iraq, still did not know the details of how to contract HIV. Amazing. This is the kind of leadership we are trying to work and bargain with in the middle east. I hoep it makes you all feel better.

For the record, I now understand Saddam after serving in Iraq. Saddam was no lunatic, no madman. Saddam, as brutal as he was, was only doing what he HAD to do in order to keep the Iraqi people in line.

[SteveAJones]

Saddam actually had a life long fear and aversion to germs, this is simply a manifestation of that fear. He often bathed at least twice a day (unusual among Arabs in that region)

and always presented himself to his public meticulously groomed and dressed.

[Alessandra]

Whoa! I never realized that Saddam was a meticulous guy

[Hermit]

For the record, I now understand Saddam after serving in Iraq. Saddam was no lunatic, no madman. Saddam, as brutal as he was, was only doing what he HAD to do in order to keep the Iraqi people in line.

Dude,.. thanks for your sevice to the country.. [to you! ]..

but.. uhh.. we've been telling you that for 5 years here on this board.

hippy:

[DRUNK]

I don't what about this thread would warrant further thanks for my service. Possibly the recognition that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy after all. Who knows.

No one besides you and maybe 2 other people have thanked me. That is nice, I guess, but rather empty. Manners and words only mean so much.

What would be more appreciated is an interest in the knowledge I gained, as well as an openminded approach towards understanding it.

[Hermit]

I don't what about this thread would warrant further thanks for my service. Possibly the recognition that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy after all. Who knows.

No one besides you and maybe 2 other people have thanked me. That is nice, I guess, but rather empty. Manners and words only mean so much.

What would be more appreciated is an interest in the knowledge I gained, as well as an openminded approach towards understanding it.

I do have an interest in what you learned from your experience, friend. But so far the only 'meaningful knowledge' you've shared is your conclusions that Muslims are violent people who want to destroy us (your generalization, not mine) and "violence is the only way to deal with these people",.. and therefore you "condone all torture for the enemy".

My gratitude for your service is genuine and sincere, DRUNK. You risked life and limb to fight for a cause you believed in and I do respect you for that. [i'm sorry to hear that that you consider my thanks "empty". Oh well. The sincerity of my gratitude remains undiminished]. The fact that I respect you for stepping up and serving doesn't mean I necessarily respect your points of view. I do respect your right to your points of view, but I don't necessarily respect your points of view. I certainly don't respect a point of view that condones torture.

Oh, btw.. don't kid yourself, bud,.. Saddam WAS very much a bad guy.

He was ruthless, as were his brothers and those who served his regime.

He was a thug, a rapist, and a murderer. He was a dictatorial tyrant.

Are the Iraqi people better off now that he's gone? Who knows.

[Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Bechtel, and ExxonMobile

are way better off.. we do know that much though, huh? ]

peace.

[Pb Derigable]

I wonder if he asked for the rope to be sanitized before they put it around his neck and pulled the lever.

It's amazing how people make excuses for a man who killed his own people, order the rape of his own people who spoke against him, by saying he had to do it to keep control. But at the same time a man who is protecting his own people, is vilified as a war criminal by his own people whom have the right to say such things, which is protected by him.

[Hermit]

I wonder if he asked for the rope to be sanitized before they put it around his neck and pulled the lever.

It's amazing how people make excuses for a man who killed his own people, order the rape of his own people who spoke against him, by saying he had to do it to keep control. But at the same time a man who is protecting his own people, is vilified as a war criminal by his own people whom have the right to say such things, which is protected by him.

If you're referring to George Waterboarder Bush.. "his own peoples'" right to free speech is not protected by him, it's protected by the US Constitution. It's worth noting, I think, that GWB has been willing to infringe upon "his own peoples'" Constitutional right to privacy. And although he's a stockpiler of WMD who started an unnecessary war with Iraq based on false accusations that Saddam was stockpiling WMD,.. a war that's resulted in the needless deaths of over 4,000 US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.. and has resulted in the displacement of millions of Iraqis..I think we should give him his due credit: at least he's not a rapist.

[electricmage]

I don't what about this thread would warrant further thanks for my service. Possibly the recognition that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy after all. Who knows.

No one besides you and maybe 2 other people have thanked me. That is nice, I guess, but rather empty. Manners and words only mean so much.

What would be more appreciated is an interest in the knowledge I gained, as well as an openminded approach towards understanding it.

Wasn't a bad guy? Are you that fucking delusional? He was convicted of torturing women and children. Who educated you?

[Electrophile]

Wasn't a bad guy? Are you that fucking delusional? He was convicted of torturing women and children. Who educated you?

He's got a few screws loose.

[electricmage]

He's got a few screws loose.

I'm astonished that the government would give a gun to such a person.

[Pb Derigable]

If you're referring to George Waterboarder Bush.. "his own peoples'" right to free speech is not protected by him, it's protected by the US Constitution. It's worth noting, I think, that GWB has been willing to infringe upon "his own peoples'" Constitutional right to privacy. And although he's a stockpiler of WMD who started an unnecessary war with Iraq based on false accusations that Saddam was stockpiling WMD,.. a war that's resulted in the needless deaths of over 4,000 US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.. and has resulted in the displacement of millions of Iraqis..I think we should give him his due credit: at least he's not a rapist.

It's amazing how people make excuses for a man who killed his own people, order the rape of his own people who spoke against him, by saying he had to do it to keep control. But at the same time a man who is protecting his own people, is vilified as a war criminal by his own people whom have the right to say such things, which is protected by him.

[DRUNK]

Wasn't a bad guy? Are you that fucking delusional? He was convicted of torturing women and children. Who educated you?

Stop acting like a stalker or you're going on the ignore list. You'll get no responses from me.

However, if anyone else would like to ask similar questions, feel free.

[BIGDAN]

Hi Drunk.

Total respect for you and all of yours for fighting for the cause, and putting your ass on the line. I know what you and your family went through as I have a son out in Afghanistan on his second tour, he told us last night that two of his friends have been sent home injured. An IED hit the other side of their vehicle, lucky or what?

Thats the pleasantries over.

Not only was Saddam a evil butcher that would make Satan's blood freeze, so are Bush and Blair, maybe for different reasons but still evil.

"Both sent our boy's in to an unlawful conflict that we can .never win, history has shown us that.

Britan lost an empire due to so called "Terrorists".

The USA has learnt nothing from the way it dealt with the Red Indians, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and all the other little wars the CIA has you got involved in.

These people, like we do, value their freedom above every thing else and they will give their very lives to achieve this. However wrong we think they are, we cannot deny the fact that in a war of attrition we will give up long before they do.

Do you also not realize how much the world hates the US, and the UK for joining you.

Your politician's seem to think that the worlds resources are there for their use only, and walk roughshod over any one who disagrees with them.

You also have no idea how to treat the indigenous people whom you control. This is not a swipe at just your government but also at your soldiers. From the Indian wars to Iraq, you have treated these people worse that animals, and thats why you will never win their "hearts and minds", because you just don't know how to. Just look at it this way, you liberate a country like IRAQ from a dictator like Saddam, only to find that the people hate you more than they did him. Please smell the coffee!!!

And if there is anything to learn from your experience it is this.

Quote. "Keep out of other peoples affairs".

Regards, Danny

[wanna be drummer]

How was Sadaam not a bad guy? Nothin he did benefitted the country, or anyone around him. Look at his wars with Kuqait (and us) as well as Iran. He didn't keep his people in line. He simply killed them off. That's like saying Stalin kept Russia in line.

[DRUNK]

Not only was Saddam a evil butcher that would make Satan's blood freeze, so are Bush and Blair, maybe for different reasons but still evil.

"Both sent our boy's in to an unlawful conflict that we can .never win, history has shown us that.

Britan lost an empire due to so called "Terrorists".

The USA has learnt nothing from the way it dealt with the Red Indians, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and all the other little wars the CIA has you got involved in.

These people, like we do, value their freedom above every thing else and they will give their very lives to achieve this. However wrong we think they are, we cannot deny the fact that in a war of attrition we will give up long before they do.

Do you also not realize how much the world hates the US, and the UK for joining you.

Your politician's seem to think that the worlds resources are there for their use only, and walk roughshod over any one who disagrees with them.

You also have no idea how to treat the indigenous people whom you control. This is not a swipe at just your government but also at your soldiers. From the Indian wars to Iraq, you have treated these people worse that animals, and thats why you will never win their "hearts and minds", because you just don't know how to. Just look at it this way, you liberate a country like IRAQ from a dictator like Saddam, only to find that the people hate you more than they did him. Please smell the coffee!!!

And if there is anything to learn from your experience it is this.

Quote. "Keep out of other peoples affairs".

Regards, Danny

I have my doubts about how evil Saddam actually was. After dealing with the Iraqi's for 15 months, I have to say I don't understand how he could have controlled them otherwise. I think he did what he had to do in order to keep the people in line, and unfortunately, I can now be more sympathetic and understanding towards some of the "evil" figures in history. I am not sure Saddam did what he did to get pleasure, or if he did these things for fun. I think he did them for survival of Iraq as a nation, and survival of himself.

We cannot be mistaken, that Saddam had successful control over Iraq, something we have been unable to do. By trying to win the hearts and minds, by trying to be the nice guys, we basically got shit on. They didn't respect our generosity, nor our kindness. Instead, we were perceived as being weak because of it, and we were then attacked.

I disagree about us giving up before they will in a war of attrition. In my own personal experience, we arrived in our area as the "win the hearts and minds" Americans, and made every effort at establishing relationships and doing whatever we could too help. Had they of taken us up on our offer, they would be sitting in a beautiful, secure city. Instead what happened, was we were getting attacked, and killed. We continued on this mindless hearts and minds strategy, and it continued to not work.

When we finally had enough of the situation, we took matters into our own hands. When they attacked, we unleashed the fury. We beat that city into submission. When my unit left the city, the next unit that came in has not suffered a single casualty during their whole time there.

I was in the most dangerous hotspot in Iraq at the time, and now, it is not a hotspot any more. There has been progress in Iraq, and these people are starting to give up, and work with us, because they have realized we are not leaving, and we have drained them of their morale. They know they cannot win, and slowly but surely, they are coming over to our side. We are winning the war in Iraq. We turned Anbar Province, which was the most deadly area in the world, into a place that is self governed, self policed, and where US forces can walk around and not immediately assume somebody will try and kill them. It is amazing to me, and I almost can't believe it, but it is true. In Baghdad, Al Sadr declared a ceasefire, and Baghdad has made a huge turnaround. The sectarian violence has dropped significantly, big time. Baghdad, besides a few bad areas, is relatively calm, and is rebuilding.

We have made significant progress in Iraq, and we are winning the war there my friend. We are outlasting the Iraqi's, and they are giving up. They are finally seeing the light, and the ones that have, are kicking themselves in the ass for not seeing it sooner, because we are there to help them, if they accept it. And we have been helping them.

Iraqi's are not "normal people", and so they are hard to understand. Trying to go there and understand them with a western thinking mind is a mistake, because we are dealing with people that are maybe 500-1000 years behind us in terms of thinking. When we come there to help, they are too stupid to realize it.

I can say that we treated the Iraqi's extremely well. In fact, that measures that we took to protect the Iraqi people, and win their hearts and minds, were actually a little ridiculous, and put US troops in jeopardy.

I think we finally got this one right, and I believe we can win.

We are there now, regardless of why we went in, or what mistakes were made, we are there, and we have to continue the mission. To leave now would be a tragic mistake.

[Gainsbarre]

Stop acting like a stalker or you're going on the ignore list. You'll get no responses from me.

However, if anyone else would like to ask similar questions, feel free.

It makes sense to me why someone like you has developed an appreciation of Saddam...

I know people who still idolise Hitler. It's a psychological thing, they're people who lack empathy, and relish power and control, and believe authority is the key to everything.

You go to Iraq, you see the 'chaos' of the Iraqi people, and you decide that they're just simply unruly and Saddam had to control them...

You don't stop the consider that:

a) Saddam was a violent brutal dictator with absolute power and:

b ) now that he's gone, he's left a terrible power vacuum, and a legacy to the Iraqi people who have grown up, educated in his mentality that politics is non-existent, and that government and power means power struggles, bloodshed and brutality

Look at Iraq's history: in 1932 they gained idependece from Britain, they had autocratic monarchies and dictatorial political parties. Each one over-thrown by a coup or revolution...that means for 50 years, all changes in government were violent. And before that, there was occupation...

And then after the demise of the bloodiest one of them all, Saddam, you think after the 6th violent revoltion, and the 3rd military occupation in 80 years, that everyone was just going to be nice and relaxed? In a country that's never had democracy or proper politics, that everyone in the country would just get through it peacefully?

Yugoslavia's Tito managed to keep the whole country together hardly any violence or brutality at all...

And we saw what happened to Yugoslavia after he died, it was destroyed by horrible ethnic tensions. How come Tito was able to keep it all together and come out of it a reasonably respected leader, yet Saddam had to be hanged?

How about, for once in your life, you look a bit deeper than just the obvious surface?

I don't know if you served in the military in Iraq or not...but i guess if you have, then it makes sense, because your job is to go there with a gun and kill people, and the military really doesn't pay you to think, they pay you to obey orders unquestionably, but not to have brains.

[Gainsbarre]

Iraqi's are not "normal people", and so they are hard to understand. Trying to go there and understand them with a western thinking mind is a mistake, because we are dealing with people that are maybe 500-1000 years behind us in terms of thinking. When we come there to help, they are too stupid to realize it.

Would you be kissing the feet of the Chinese if they invaded America to liberate you from Bush?

No, you know what's stupid? Thinking that you were going to invade Iraq and be loved...

At least the Iraqi's have an excuse. They were not lucky enough to live in a country with 250 years of education, democracy, freedom of press, high standard of living...

You have...and that's what you think...now that's really stupid, there is no excuse for that.

And they're not 500 years behind your thinking...

[DRUNK]

It's a psychological thing, they're people who lack empathy, and relish power and control, and believe authority is the key to everything.

You go to Iraq, you see the 'chaos' of the Iraqi people, and you decide that they're just simply unruly and Saddam had to control them...

You don't stop the consider that:

a) Saddam was a violent brutal dictator with absolute power and:

b ) now that he's gone, he's left a terrible power vacuum, and a legacy to the Iraqi people who have grown up, educated in his mentality that politics is non-existent, and that government and power means power struggles, bloodshed and brutality

Look at Iraq's history: in 1932 they gained idependece from Britain, they had autocratic monarchies and dictatorial political parties. Each one over-thrown by a coup or revolution...that means for 50 years, all changes in government were violent. And before that, there was occupation...

And then after the demise of the bloodiest one of them all, Saddam, you think after the 6th violent revoltion, and the 3rd military occupation in 80 years, that everyone was just going to be nice and relaxed? In a country that's never had democracy or proper politics, that everyone in the country would just get through it peacefully?

Yugoslavia's Tito managed to keep the whole country together hardly any violence or brutality at all...

And we saw what happened to Yugoslavia after he died, it was destroyed by horrible ethnic tensions. How come Tito was able to keep it all together and come out of it a reasonably respected leader, yet Saddam had to be hanged?

How about, for once in your life, you look a bit deeper than just the obvious surface?

I don't know if you served in the military in Iraq or not...but i guess if you have, then it makes sense, because your job is to go there with a gun and kill people, and the military really doesn't pay you to think, they pay you to obey orders unquestionably, but not to have brains.

No my friend, I have to disagree with you. I understand Saddam and what he had to do after dealing with the Iraqi people. I hate to admit this, trust me, but I will.

I'm a rebel and I hate authority, nor do I give a fuck about control or power. Just to clear things up.

Excuses can be made for the way the Iraqi people are, but it seems wherever Islam is, there are problems and violence. So, it is likely a combination of the two. The bottomline is that once we got there, we went out of our way to help them in any way possible. If they would have welcomed us and gave us a chance, Iraq would be a hppy and successful nation today. Unfortunately, they are still living about 1000 years behind, and still fighting battles with each other that have existed for the same amount of time.

You would think it would be common human sense to accept help from generous well doers.

[Gainsbarre]

How about, for once in your life, you look a bit deeper than just the obvious surface?

the Comment about the military is something a history professor of mine said who served 32 years in the Army...

If I could give you the finger, Steve, I would

[Gainsbarre]

No my friend, I have to disagree with you. I understand Saddam and what he had to do after dealing with the Iraqi people. I hate to admit this, trust me, but I will.

You would think it would be common human sense to accept help from generous well doers.

Unless you can explain to me how Tito succeeded in Yugoslavia using methods much more humane than Saddam, then you can't prove it to me...

And you can't make comments about the Iraqi people and how they perceive as what is happening to them unless you are them...

[DRUNK]

Unless you can explain to me how Tito succeeded in Yugoslavia using methods much more humane than Saddam, then you can't prove it to me...

And you can't make comments about the Iraqi people and how they perceive as what is happening to them unless you are them...

By using your logic I can say that Tito and Yugoslavia are irrelevant because we are talking about Saddam and Iraq.

I can make comments because I spent 15 months of my life in Iraq, around Iraqi's, everyday. The things I say involve my own opinions as well as the opinions of those on the ground who I have spoken to and worked with. So, I think I'm on the right page here.

[Gainsbarre]

By using your logic I can say that Tito and Yugoslavia are irrelevant because we are talking about Saddam and Iraq.

I can make comments because I spent 15 months of my life in Iraq, around Iraqi's, everyday. The things I say involve my own opinions as well as the opinions of those on the ground who I have spoken to and worked with. So, I think I'm on the right page here.

You might be on the right page as far as understanding what other Americans may think and feel in Iraq

But to say that the Iraqi people are stupid and their thinking is 500 to 1000 years behind yours, and that Saddams actions were justified as being the only way to keep Iraq unified and the Iraqi people subdued, they are the most ridiculous, illogical, poorly thought conclusions that anybody has come to and frankly you should be embarassed...

And the reason why they are the most embarrasing thoughts I've encountered is because you're actually there, right where it's happening and you could be learning so much more, but you've put the blinkers on, you've shut off your brain and are viewing the situation from the most biased point imaginable.

You're not serving my country, so I don't have to thank you or bow down to your service in Iraq, but you've gone for sweeping generalisations of Iraqi people, and you've dehumanized them. Probably because you're over there fighting, which is a common thing in the military, is to dehumanize the enemy

And by dehumanizing them, taking the view point that they're stupid or as you said "not normal" or sub-human, it probably gives you the moral justification and the feeling of superiority that you need to feel to carry on doing what you're doing over there...

Very similar to when the Europeans and Americans were dealing with 'the savages' (the Asians and Pacific Islanders) in the 19th Century.

[BIGDAN]

I have my doubts about how evil Saddam actually was. After dealing with the Iraqi's for 15 months, I have to say I don't understand how he could have controlled them otherwise. I think he did what he had to do in order to keep the people in line, and unfortunately, I can now be more sympathetic and understanding towards some of the "evil" figures in history. I am not sure Saddam did what he did to get pleasure, or if he did these things for fun. I think he did them for survival of Iraq as a nation, and survival of himself.

We cannot be mistaken, that Saddam had successful control over Iraq, something we have been unable to do. By trying to win the hearts and minds, by trying to be the nice guys, we basically got shit on. They didn't respect our generosity, nor our kindness. Instead, we were perceived as being weak because of it, and we were then attacked.

I disagree about us giving up before they will in a war of attrition. In my own personal experience, we arrived in our area as the "win the hearts and minds" Americans, and made every effort at establishing relationships and doing whatever we could too help. Had they of taken us up on our offer, they would be sitting in a beautiful, secure city. Instead what happened, was we were getting attacked, and killed. We continued on this mindless hearts and minds strategy, and it continued to not work.

When we finally had enough of the situation, we took matters into our own hands. When they attacked, we unleashed the fury. We beat that city into submission. When my unit left the city, the next unit that came in has not suffered a single casualty during their whole time there.

I was in the most dangerous hotspot in Iraq at the time, and now, it is not a hotspot any more. There has been progress in Iraq, and these people are starting to give up, and work with us, because they have realized we are not leaving, and we have drained them of their morale. They know they cannot win, and slowly but surely, they are coming over to our side. We are winning the war in Iraq. We turned Anbar Province, which was the most deadly area in the world, into a place that is self governed, self policed, and where US forces can walk around and not immediately assume somebody will try and kill them. It is amazing to me, and I almost can't believe it, but it is true. In Baghdad, Al Sadr declared a ceasefire, and Baghdad has made a huge turnaround. The sectarian violence has dropped significantly, big time. Baghdad, besides a few bad areas, is relatively calm, and is rebuilding.

We have made significant progress in Iraq, and we are winning the war there my friend. We are outlasting the Iraqi's, and they are giving up. They are finally seeing the light, and the ones that have, are kicking themselves in the ass for not seeing it sooner, because we are there to help them, if they accept it. And we have been helping them.

Iraqi's are not "normal people", and so they are hard to understand. Trying to go there and understand them with a western thinking mind is a mistake, because we are dealing with people that are maybe 500-1000 years behind us in terms of thinking. When we come there to help, they are too stupid to realize it.

I can say that we treated the Iraqi's extremely well. In fact, that measures that we took to protect the Iraqi people, and win their hearts and minds, were actually a little ridiculous, and put US troops in jeopardy.

I think we finally got this one right, and I believe we can win.

We are there now, regardless of why we went in, or what mistakes were made, we are there, and we have to continue the mission. To leave now would be a tragic mistake.

Hi Drunk.

Good for you mate, and for them and us as well. And I am beginning to understand what you have achieved out there. So talking on here about your experience's has at least helped me.

I do agree with you about the Iraqi people, they are like many other Arab's and people in general who are from the third world. What we do in kindness they take the wrong way and so hatred is born. But don't forget, these people have never lived life as we have, they have only known conquers. They have had to put up with the Turks, then the British, then Saddam and now the USA-UK alliance in the last hundred years. They don't trust anyone, and who can blame them.

The real trouble will come from the outsiders, Al-Qaeda and the Shia and Sunni militia. Why didnt we shut the Iraqi borders right at the start and at least try to disarm the people first.

I think the guy who was sent over by Bush and the first thing he did was to disband the Army and the Police force is to blame. Bush went about it all wrong in the first place, so did Blair.

Glad you didn't take my attack on the US-UK alliance personal, as it wasn't ment to be.

Keep the posts comming.

Regards, Danny

PS, please post a name as with "DRUNK" we might get the wrong impression!!!

[DRUNK]

Ok, whatever. I've been there and you haven't.

This is where it ends, because for someone who has never been there to assume ANYTHING about a person who has been there, is quite ridiculous.