Tyrant. A good source is the 1st episode of the 1st season of the Blowback podcast.
Tyrant. Removing him was no excuse for what the US and allies did to Iraq and it's people though, especially considering they made him who he was
He was not a good person. He was an american creation. He used assassination and betrayal with american help to become the leader of Iraq and then used that position for personal benefit. I wouldn't say "tyrant" because he was shrewd and didn't give into excesses that would threaten his position in the long term.
He didn't violently repress ethnic/religious groups which is better than average for an american stooge, probably also why usa turned on him. He was anti-zionist in word only but anti-Iranian Republic and anti-communist in action.
I don't think it's fair to say he didn't violently repress ethnic/religious minorities.
He used chemical weapons (obtained through West Germany) on Kurds, along with suppressing Assyrians. Also the suppression of Shia Muslims from entering Karbala and deportation of many Persian people to are things I'd argue fall into that purview.
Though, I'm going to be biased considering my family is Iranian and Syrian. The Iran-Iraq war is an affair that still holds a lot of bad blood between Iranians and some Iraqis.
I suppose what I meant was that he didn't go all the way into the genetic purity shit that full blown nazis or wahhabists do. It was politically motivated which is only slightly better than being idologicaly motivated but it is slightly more reasonable.
He didn't like Assyrian culture for sure but he wanted them to conform to his nationalist project not just exterminate them because he saw them as sub human. He used chemical weapons on the Kurds because they were separatists not because they were Kurdish.
Of course I wouldn't suggest that Sadaam was to the level of an ethnic supremacist. However I'd definitely say he existed on the more chauvinistic end of the Arab Nationalist spectrum.
Although I guess the Kurdish point stands. I'm more criticizing him for using chemical weapons rather than suppressing a separatist movement (that the US had a large hand in orchestrating).
Again I will be bias as I grew up with stories from my mother describing how the Iraqi army treated Iranians, so I've tried to be open about information regarding Sadaam's rule as to better deal with those biases.
Though I think this post has inspired me to ask the same question about Hafez Assad, the other side of the Ba'ath in a sense.
Considering my father speaks of him so highly, it looks like another set up biases for me to interrogate.
He was American creation to fight communists in Iraq. He also did tons of awful shit like war with Iran and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. That said, He was nowhere near as bad as what US did to Iraq in even 1st war and its aftermatch, not to mention the 2nd one (idk how many combined death the wars, sanctions and unrest caused but it's in the millions). Also note that he did his worst with the support of USA, he only went into their hit list when he started to oppose them and the last straw that caused invasion was trying to infringe on the petrodollar.
Even in 1990 and 2003 when i was still succdem i was still 100% Yankee hands off Iraq.
they did awful shit, just for Americans to come and do worse shit, without fixing anything
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest