this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1339 readers
26 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
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.
He massacred and tortured members of the Iraqi Communist Party.
yea he also gassed kurds but at least was a counter to zionists in the region
Saddam was like one of those smaller predators that hunts in packs but tend to get picked off by bigger predators when isolated. In this case the U.S. was the bigger predator.
"There's always a bigger fish."
Rest in piss, #PACKWATCH, etc. but what came after him was definitely worse. Same with Assad. If Putin falls and a Western lackey replaces him it'll be the same deal.
He was the president of Iraq and he frequently wore hats
And wrote erotic novels
No one is obliged to like him.
However, what I think of him is less relevant than what one should think of the recent US occupation of the country, after years of US intervention, indirect and direct, even according to the Iraqi Communist Party that Saddam's gov't repressed
To quote Rational Revolution, and to borrow what AnarchoBolshevik quoted
With the entry of American and British troops into the center of Baghdad at noon this day, the fascist Baath régime has uttered it last words. Now, [the] régime is ousted, a major obstacle has been rubbed from the way of masses’ liberation in Iraq, but the expense is a gloomy future that the masses encounter in Iraq.
The collapse of this barbaric régime has not been an outcome of the struggle of working masses and toilers who are after welfare, life, freedoms, and happiness, but an outcome of the U.S. missiles and bombs, the most barbaric massacre and the operation of mass annihilation whose victims are thousands of the innocents children, elderly, women and men who all have no guilt in what is happening.
Millions have been displaced and have held their breaths for weeks due to devastating and ghastly horror. The collapse has occurred on the expense of destroying the infrastructure of the society and its economic pillars and edging it toward the whirlpool of chaos and insecurity. Such an outcome will not achieve the noble masses’ expectations which they have shed blood to enjoy for decades.
The USA is not the “liberator” of masses in Iraq. It is not the masses’ “savior”. The collapse of the Baath régime is a yield of a reactionary war waged by America to enthrall the world and impose its hegemony on it. This collapse can not be considered a victory for the masses in Iraq.
The USA and its allies have brought this régime to stand against communism and workers, freedom and equality, left and radicalism, and the efforts for a better life during the Cold War. They had backed him and strengthened his espionage and suppressive institutions. They had trained his criminal gangs. They had disregarded his crimes, operations of annihilation and bloodbaths. They have aligned in the régime’s trenches against the struggle of the masses in Iraq for liberation and equality. They had helped it live longer by imposing the economic sanction on the masses in Iraq, fettered their will and blown all their struggle efforts to present them handcuffed to the teeth of this barbaric régime.
The USA is responsible of the death of more than a million of peoples in Iraq due to the oppressive sanctions. Getting rid of the USA, its ominous rôle, its existence and the total of its plans and projects are an obvious goal declared by emancipatory masses in Iraq and all over the world for decades.
Because of its excessive recklessness, the USA blatantly talks about a military interim government to rule Iraq and openly deny the masses’ right of determining their political destiny and their expected political rule. America does not refrain from supporting nationalist, religious tribal and sectarian militias and groups, ex-hirelings of the fascist Baath régime and its ex-generals such as Al khazrajy, Al Samerrae and Al Jobory and nominates them as the bases of future government in Iraq disregarding the masses’ opinions and against their will.
The USA has no problem in handing the responsibility of ruling Basra and Amara to sheikhs whom society had swept since decades. The government, the pentagon is after, is not the representative of masses in Iraq as much as the case with the Baath régime. It enjoys no legitimacy and must unconditionally and immediately withdraw.
(Source.)
Saddam sucked, he was way better than what came after him and did unite Iraq, but he was deeply involved with the US and the West in sabotaging Iran and regional left-wing movements. He is a bit like the Manuel Noriega of the Middle East, though Saddam was more genuine about his own ideology than Noriega.
For how he is viewed in LatAm, he was seen as a good president in the 1980s because he was "fighting radicals" and because he was one of the few leaders to give aid and trade with us during a time the US and Europe pulled out all money from here. After his fall, his position was mostly replaced by Iran and Erdogan, both still shares a good relation with the Latin American Left. Gaddafi still is seen positively to this day, unlike Saddam.
I think he sucked probably (i'm not a saddam head i haven't gone out of my way to educate but i haven't heard things that have left an overall positive impression like with Gaddafi) but also i found it super interesting when I learned that Saddam's Ba'ath Party was the ARAB SOCIALIST Ba'ath Party and iirc was actually the same organization as Assad's Ba'ath Party. Since i can't remember ever hearing "Arab socialist" in reference to that party ever during the 2000s
Iirc the party is just opposed to western capitalism and not capitalism in general but still its like OH THAT'S WHY THE U.S. INVADED
The Iraqi Ba'ath is not the same as the Syrian Ba'ath, they almost act like a left-right split. The Syrian Bathists were significantly more charitable to Communists, (though there's definitely a rough history) even bringing them into coalition with Hafez Asaad's "National Progressive Front" which was the ruling coalition until Bashar's fall.
The Syrian government's official name until Jolani was actually "The Syrian Arab Socialist Republic" as well. Many people conflate the two Bathist parties together, and it's a useful comparison in a lot of ways, however I think it should be noted that Syrian and Iraqi Bathism both had various factions and tendencies. And, if one is to describe the manifestation of each Bathist party in either country, it's important to recognize their expirements were extremely different.
Oh sorry i thought it was
I thought it was too until a month or so ago and asked, probably in this magazine.
I come from a half Iranian family so obviously my opinion is going to be very biased, but I view Sadaam quite negatively. I'll preface and say he undeniably was a thorn in the West's side by the end if his government, and had it survived, I suspect it would have become less egregious in its brutality. Life in Iraq is undeniably materially worse than it was before, and the US murdered millions more Iraqis then Sadaam ever could.
With that being said, he still acted as a bulwark of Western imperialism in the Iran-Iraq war, and set the country back decades. His use of chemical weapons was only possible due to Western support, and it's well known his ascension to power was orchestrated by the US, who made sure a more left wing Bathist didn't come to power. His righist Ba'ath faction persecuted Communists and made what was once one if the largest communist parties in the Arab world irrelevant.
I know Comrade Hakim of The Deprogram likes to bring up the point that the majority of Iraq's weapons during the Iran-Iraq war were of Soveit Irgin, as well as the fact that their will clerics in Iraq who want to do an Island revolution of their own who were connected to Iran, however I find both these points moot.
For one, Iran received nothing from any world power besides what they could smuggle in, or like 7 missiles from Ghadaffi that they had to reverse engineer. So it's not as if Iraq was propped up by the USSR and Iran by the US, the Iraqis were just using the weapons they had already obtained decades prior, or for which they could secure.
Secondly, the West demonstrated its support for Sadaam in the war through West Germany being allowed to sell chemical weapons to him, as well as the US supporting Iraq in the UN.
Finally, Sadaam may not have been installed in a complete color revolution, but his coup was largely able to succeed because of CIA intervention. The Islamic Revolution in Iran, though not a socialist one, was still a popular revolution supported by the masses. It inspired many of the masses of other regional powers, as can be seen with Lebanon. Sadaam suppressing that popular uprising in Iran and potentially his own country isn't justified due to them being Islamic rather than socialist. I'm not saying it should have succeeded in Iraq, or that I think a socialist revolution in the region wouldn't be more effective. However I'd say it's arguable that those uprising had a closer seal of legitimacy as popular mass movements then Sadaam's own coup, which further makes his invasion unjustified.
I usually don't like to poke Iraqi comrades on the war, but too often I find that the disdain put upon Iran (in some respects justified) is a little misplaced. It's not as simple a conflict as is often described, but I think it's fair to say that Iraq was acting as a tool for imperialism unnecessarily.
I respect Comrade Hakim immensely, but this is probably the one point I diverge with him more significantly on.
That's, a general overview on Sadaam, though it could be much more expensive.
Had a Iraqi colleague who mentioned getting a subsidised/free tertiary education there before heading overseas for work. She didn't have any love for Saddam's group, but definitely lamented the current state of her home country as one would expect...
Other comrades have said it pretty well. If you want more detail and enjoy podcasts, the first season of Blowback covers Saddam and the Iraq War.
Was America's ally for years. Used chemical weapons against Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war. The moment he decided to step out of the US' influence, they got rid of him along with the destruction of Iraq.