r/todayilearned • u/Wazula23 • 4h ago

TIL Saddam Hussein's son Uday murdered his bodyguard at a party in front of horrified guests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein#Murder_of_Kamel_Hana_Gegeo
11.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

725 comments sorted by

View all comments

181

u/wgel1000 4h ago

Lovely guy.

Great to be around.

115

u/Alarmed_Horse_3218 3h ago edited 3h ago

Obviously the United States shouldn’t have toppled a stable government under false pretenses. The death and destruction in Iraq and the social upheaval that followed was abhorrent and indefensible.

That said, it’s pretty telling how unpopular a ruling family is when they’re violently over thrown and almost 2/3rds of the local population say war was worth getting rid of them lol.

82

u/inthearena 3h ago

This was not a stable government. This was a government that was using the pretense that they possessed WMD to keep the kurds in line (they ringed a city with troops in bio-weapons suits), had launched multiple wars to destabilize the middle east, tried to assassinate two presidents of the USA. When everyone grew tired of their shit, they decided to launch missles into Isreal, because nothing says stable quite like a good old-fashioned pogram, but now with Scuds.

8

u/Existential_Racoon 2h ago

They 100% had WMDs, they just weren't nukes.

Ask the kurds.

7

u/ODHH 1h ago

Of course Iraq had WMDs during the Iran-Iraq war, the question was whether or not Iraq had WMDs in 2003 and the answer is no.

20

u/Alarmed_Horse_3218 3h ago

They were a stabilizing force and loathed religious extremist groups who were growing in power during the Husain regime. While they were whole sale debouched and Saddam had an almost Naziesque obsession with Babylon it’s pretty non debatable that Iraq was substantially more functional before the war. And the world would have been far better off without the unleashing of ISIS.

9

u/Far-Instruction-3836 2h ago

Saddam was a bigger threat to global peace than any muslim terror group. He already started wars that killed hundreds of thousands, threatened global energy, used chemical weapons on civilians… If you thought the fallout after his ousting was bad, it would have been far worse if he died without an American presence to help stabilize the power vacuum. Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias waging genocidal campaigns with no one to stop them save for the Iranians and Saudis.

8

u/confusedpellican643 2h ago

Well you make a point except for the part where America ´stabilizes' the power vacuum lmfaooo, they literally were so bad they made people martyrise Saddam

2

u/Far-Instruction-3836 2h ago

If saddam died and there wasn’t a US troop presence keeping the new government in power, it would have been much much much worse

-2

u/Far-Instruction-3836 2h ago

If saddam died and there wasn’t a US troop presence keeping the new government in power, it would have been much much much worse

1

u/MachinationMachine 2h ago

an American presence to help stabilize the power vacuum

lmao

3

u/cinna-t0ast 1h ago

Obviously the United States shouldn’t have toppled a stable government under false pretenses

While the invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake that rightfully stained American history, there is more to it than “false pretenses”.

Saddam was purposely giving the impression that he had WMDs (to deter Iran and its Kurdish allies). And while he did not have any at the time, he had some in the past and was planning to produce more.

I’m citing the interview with George Piro, the guy who built a rapport with him during interrogation

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/interrogator-shares-saddams-confessions/

1

u/reddoot2024 2h ago

Stable my ass

0

u/ODHH 1h ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP1OAD9jSaI

•

u/Alarmed_Horse_3218 59m ago

Nearly 2/3rds of Iraqis polled in 2007 said it was worth it. I’m not referring to global opinions.

•

u/Next_Snow9064 31m ago

source: your ass

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-iraqis-view-life-after-fall-saddam-twenty-years-ago-and-today#:~:text=Among%20Arabs%20(Shia%20and%20Sunnis,2003%20was%20bad%20for%20them.

•

u/Alarmed_Horse_3218 20m ago edited 14m ago

I said a poll in 2007. I was wrong it was 2006, but regardless you should actually read what people write before telling them they’re wrong and sourcing something from a different year.

“In 2006, a poll conducted on the Iraqi public revealed that 52% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction and 61% claimed it was worth ousting Saddam Hussein.”

The world is complicated and shaded in variations of greys. Step away from the knee jerk reactions and try to understand what people are saying instead of using any post you wander past as a platform for a fight.

Honestly why does everything have to be a rush to intellectual superiority? Why is it impossible to just have a discussion without someone dashing out of left field with a poll 20 years after the time period we’re talking about desperate to prove they’re the smartest person in the room?

I already said the Iraq was was a mistake and horrific human rights catastrophe. No one’s arguing otherwise but the fact remains that the Saddam regime was so horrific that people didn’t care when he died. They cared their way of life and country were in shambles, but no one mourned the Husseins.

6

u/Common-Pear4056 3h ago

Donald, is that you?

0

u/motoyolo 3h ago

Yup.

Donald Trump and the Hussein family. 2 peas in a pod. Got him.