Is/Was Saddam Hussein a "madman?"

[Mattforclark]

Bush seems to have taken to this term recently as a description of Saddam Hussein. Is it true?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=madman

mad·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mdmn, -mn)
n.
A man who is or seems to be mentally ill.

madman

\Mad"man\, n.; pl. Madmen. A man who is mad; lunatic; a crazy person.

[codegreen]

1. so is Bush

[Bombtrack]

6. It's really assinine and extreme to equate Bush to Saddam

or say Bush is even in the same realm as how bad Saddam is.

We disagree with the republicans parties politics and most of us acknowledge that they are more or less corrupt. But they believe in basic human rights and basic democracy, even if the vast majority of believe the propaganda about Florida etc. It's not even close to being in the same category of wrongness

[Goldmund]

13. I totally disagree.

Bush is of course from a different world, heading a different government in a region with a different history. But what is the criterium to establish the "badness" of someone? I'm sure both are equaly unscrupulous and live by the "ends justify the means" maxim, and would do anything at all to further their personal interests, no matter whom else that may harm. I'm also sure that history will view Bush as much more dangerous for the PLANET that Saddam, simply by the virtue of weilding much more power. As far as the number of people that each has killed or made miserable by his policies, it's probably a close race -- again, Saddam had much less population over which he wielded power.

This, though, really grates on me: "But they believe in basic human rights and basic democracy.". That's really funny. Pure quasi-patriotic propaganda. They implement policies that make the world miserable, that kill, maim and enslave humans on a huge unprecedented scale, and tell sheeple they're all about human rights.

[arcane1]

15. put Bush in an Iraqi palace with absolute power

and see how "compassionate" he is

[GreenArrow]

33. Bing-O

The dude would go hog wild.

And put Saddam in the White House with our system of checks and balances, etc. and see how many pre-emptive oil wars he'd start.

Cut from the same cloth.

[aquart]

2. Crazy like a fox. A damned canny survivor.

He ruled like an ancient Assyrian, but take a look: it worked for the neighborhood.

[bigwillq]

3. I voted yes

He was a "madman" for what he did to his own people. You have to be crazy to do that to other human beings. As much as I am sorry for what happened to those people I don't think Saddam was any threat to the US or our people. This is why I never supported the war. We know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and now we know he had no WMD's.
Saddam became a threat to our country when the shrub and co sent our troops to Iraq.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

Saddam is a madman

But what does that make us for giving him weapons to use against his own people?
Most people in the Middle East want the same things we do (peace and freedom) except the U.S. keeps supporting brutal dictators and "madmen" like him; so we, as a nation, lose our credibility. Another example is the U.S. government supporting the Shah of Iran while he brutalized his people with bands of secret police.
Our hands are covered in blood and it must stop.

[rucky]

4. psychopaths tend to seek positions of power

you'll always see more of 'em at the top.

[JasonBerry]

Can't argue with Iraqi History - and the video tape!

Anybody who has read any history of 20th century Iraq would have to give an unqualified yes. His behavior at the Baath Party conference, recorded on video tape, where he calls out opponents and talks of their being killed in the back room is just plain sick. Yes, Bush is not the sharpest blade in the knife drawer either, but we can't use the old ploy of justifying bad by pointing to worse - and vice versa. In this case, yes, I believe Saddam Hussein is mad.

[killbotfactory]

22. Yeah, and then we sold him weapons and helped him with a war on Iran

Brilliant!

[IrateCitizen]

28. I disagree. He's ruthless and murderous, but not insane.

According to the definition provided, he would have to be insane to be a madman. While he is obviously a psychopath consumed with his own power, that does not necessarily equate with insanity.

[Mattforclark]

5. Oops... this should be in GD, not GD 2004...

[Bombtrack]

7. It's really sad to see this tied. Saddam was a soulless madman

.

[sandnsea]

12. Absolutely unbelievable

Mind boggling, isn't it?

[JasonBerry]

17. Making me wonder

What is happening to DU? Everything is a conspiracy, Saddam isn't a nut, unless ____ wins the nomination, on and on.

[killbotfactory]

20. For f***s sake, It's not like people think he's an nice guy...

But he wasn't slobbering at the mouth, talking to Jesus, or taking orders from his pet dog.

[Terwilliger]

19. who the US supported wholly up until Kuwait

we just LURVE soulless madmen

[IrateCitizen]

26. But that's not the question, Terwilliger

The question is quite simply, "Is he a madman?" Yes or no.

For the record, I voted no -- but only because I don't believe being a power-hungry, despotic, murderous thug necessarily equates insanity.

[IrateCitizen]

27. Saddam was a murderous thug, yes. But he wasn't insane.

Therefore, he wasn't a "madman".

Definitions matter.

[GalleryGod]

8. At the time-A Hardworking Novelist ,I thought.

:smoke: Wasn't he working on his 4th Novel after 3 Bestsellers?:silly:

[killbotfactory]

9. He was evil, but not insane

Insane people generally don't end up running a country with an iron fist.

[Terwilliger]

10. if he was a madman, he never would have controlled Iraq for 35 years

[MAlibdem]

11. I don't think so

Tho he definitely had a skewed view of reality (more than the rest of us), I doubt he was "mad." Though his values were just drastically different than most people's, I think his brain was functioning "correctly."

Not that a few sessions of psychoanalysis wouldn't have helped.

[Monte Carlo]

14. His portrait should be in the dictionary. Crazy, but not stupid.

Even if Bush is coincidentally right, Saddam was a madman. He was a ganster. He was not quite right in the head.

[On the Road]

16. Was Attila Insane?

Julius Caesar? Attila? Ghengis? Cortez? Ruthlessness does not equal insanity.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Exactly, ribofunk! Bloodthirsty doesn't equal insane

Was SH a despotic tyrant? Was he a murderous thug? Was he a soulless dictator who took pleasure in the pain and death of others? Would he do anything to consolidate his own power, and eliminate anyone who got in his way?

Yes to all of the above. But he was not certifiably insane. Hence, he was not a "madman".

[Tinoire]

18. Not at all. The only definition by which Saddaam could be classified

a madman is the one where reluctance to hand your resources over to the Anglo-Teutonic empire is considered madness.

[SOS]

21. The leader

of Equatorial Guinea tortures dissidents. The people live in poverty while the leader stashes billions in US banks.
There are no elections. People who dare speak out are tortured or killed. Yet he is greeted by the Bush Administration with open arms and treated to lavish Washington dinners.
Why? Because Exxon/Mobil is drilling the oil.
Going to war to oust one "madman" while having the other over for cocktails shows the moral bankruptcy of the Administration.
The "madman" reasoning for war is empty BS.

[mohc]

23. Why of course

Just like any unelected leader that invades another country just for their oil is....oh wait are we talking about Bush or Hussein?

[Mattforclark]

24. kick

[DU GrovelBot]

29. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[hellhathnofury]

36. Go away!

Quit being so greedy, some of us need money too.

Disruptor!

[corporatewhore]

30. Hes the madman our madmen put in power

[beanball]

31. Madmen

if anyone knows its the Smirk,takes one to know one.

[Djinn]

32. No

it's always tempting to go the "you have to be mad to do that" theory but you don't you need to have no conscience you need to be power hungry, otherwise everyone who committs a violent act could claim "madness" as an extenuating circumstance. He was vile, evil, murderous and paranoid NOT mad, after all if you run a country where you don't let people vote you kind of have to be brutal - the only country in which "OK I'm not who you voted for but just go along with it would you" has worked is the USA.

by the way for those who think he's mad - do you have to torture and kill close up to be mad? is it just as mad to drop a bomb that boils women and children alive or sucks out all the oxygen in the atmosphere? if we give the bushists the same amount of killing time as Saddam got they'll be WAAAAY ahead of Saddam on the dead Iraqi scoreboard. Is there a certain number of people you have to kill before you're mad?

[thelocalkgb]

34. I read the title as madam

It made me chuckle in this night full of tears.

[arewethereyet]

35. of course. he was a goon who attained too much power.

He wasn't bright to begin with, just ruthless.

Then when ultimate power was achieved there was nothing to hold him in check.

Is it sane to shred a man alive ? Is it sane to bring a war on your country to avoid the inconvenience of some inspectors running around your "palace".

[Dr Fate]

37. Mad enough to use WMDs on the troops???

If he's as crazy as they say he is, then the WMDs must not have existed- he would have used them to keep from being captured- I mean, he was crazy enough to "gas his own people"- what was stopping this "madman" from gassing the troops???

[IranianDemocrat]

38. This poll confirms how far DU is off from mainstream America.

HOW CAN YOU VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!


Jesus Christ...

[Dr Fate]

39. I did not vote at all- it's a silly question...

Of COURSE he is a "madman" or whatever the TV people call him.

Whether he was a "madman" or not is not the most important consideration- now a "madman" threatening us with WMDs, that is one thing, but he did not even have those...