GQ Interviews Soldiers who guarded Saddam

[{nF}remix]

Its pretty old, but really gives some insight on Saddam's views.

In the July issue of GQ, O'Shea and friends talk to writer Lisa DePaulo and reveal the Saddam Hussein we never knew. (He likes Cheetos, writes poetry, and loved Ronald Reagan!)

Here's an excerpt from the story:

Saddam was not supposed to know anything about current events. One of the interpreters' job was to cut any news items out of the papers before giving them to Saddam each morning, which didn't leave much to read. He was not given any information on the U.S. presidential election, and the boys aren't even sure if he knew that John Kerry was the guy running against Bush, because Saddam never mentioned him. (At the time he was captured, Dean was the front-runner.)

"I told him Jesse Jackson was president, just to screw around," says Jesse. "And he cracked up."

But he had plenty to say about Bush. Both Bushes, actually.

"He'd always be like, 'Bush is no good,' " says Jesse. "And then he'd be like, 'Reagan? Reagan and me, good.' "

Paco: "And Clinton was all right. He'd always say, 'The Cleeenton, he's okay. The Bush father, son, no good.' "

Sean: "But he wanted to be friends with them. Towards the end, he was saying that he doesn't hold any hard feelings and he just wanted to talk to Bush, to make peace with him."

Jesse: "He thought that Bush could forgive and forget about what has happened. 'He knows I have nothing, no mass weapons. He knows he'll never find them.' "

He weighed in on everyone from Dan Rather ("a good guy") to Osama bin Laden ("He said he never had relations with him," according to Paco). But Reagan was his favorite.

"He talked about how Reagan sold him planes and helicopters and stuff," says Jesse. "And basically funded his war against Iran," says Sean. "He said, 'I wish things were like when Ronald Reagan was still president, and I said, 'Yeah, I wish they were, too, because then I wouldn't be here.' "

When Sean told him that Reagan had recently died of Alzheimer's, Saddam got quiet for a minute, then said, "Yes. This happens."

Source

This video is pretty interesting too, in it Saddam says he hates froot loops and loves raisin bran..

[Ahiga]

Yes, Saddam could have been full of BS, but it still humanizes someone who is easily dehumanized (And rightfully so for many of his actions) to hear that kind of simple chatter.

I'm not saying we shouldn't punish him or that he's not a bad guy, but it becomes easy to see anyone who is insidiously cruel (nazis, Saddam, ectera.) as demonic and inhumane, when in cases like this or some nazi's, there are qualities that do make them human. It's the pity that they don't focus on those humane qualities and not give into their malicious actions. The bad definately outweighs the good in these situations.

Though I had heard his life of violence came from a life that was violent in his youth, it makes you figure that like Hitler when he wanted to have been an artist (Before the mein kamph insanity), had he been an obscure middle-class Schmo, Saddam would have been an eccentric funny little man who hates fruit loops and lives in a OCD-state of cleanliness.


His oddity, if real, is intriguing. It seems like a lot of dictators in his style have some sort of critical mental issue.

[Garbarsardar]

Yes, Saddam could have been full of BS, but it still humanizes someone who is easily dehumanized (And rightfully so for many of his actions) to hear that kind of simple chatter.

I think that de-humanizing Saddam will lead to the same mistake as dehumanizing Bin Laden, Hitler and Pol Pot. The point should always be that those were not exceptionnary monsters bur humans capable of terrible acts as most of us.

The concept of monster inevitably creates fascination and myths. From myths derive symbols. Have we ever wondered how Hitler would be viewed if he was not branded as a monster? I really doubt that he would have so many overt or covert "sympathizers" around the world.

Furthermore, de-humanization leads to addressing historical facts under a "leader" perspective, which in turn occludes all other contribuitions to history.

Was Saddam more responsible for the Iran war then the colonial connoction of a country (IRAQ) out of nothing?

Was the nazi party more responsible for WW2 then the Versailles treaty or the 1929 crach?

[danzig]

The concept of monster inevitably creates fascination and myths. From myths derive symbols. Have we ever wondered how Hitler would be viewed if he was not branded as a monster? I really doubt that he would have so many overt or covert "sympathizers" around the world.

Furthermore, de-humanization leads to addressing historical facts under a "leader" perspective, which in turn occludes all other contribuitions to history.

Was Saddam more responsible for the Iran war then the colonial connoction of a country (IRAQ) out of nothing?

Was the nazi party more responsible for WW2 then the Versailles treaty or the 1929 crach?

The Nazis were, at the end of the day the actions we do or not engage in are our responsibility. As unfair and harsh Versailles was its not the direct cause, the people who would form the Nazi party had a choice just like everyone else does and they picked the easy way out of fear mongering (of Jews), violence and military conquest. I know the old saying desperate times call for desperate measures but if we cant respond to 'dark times' in a remotely human and rational matter then there is no one to blame but ourselves.

The problem with dehumanization is there have been so many people in history who have acted in ways that are very unhuman like so I think really its almost nature. You look at a figure like Hitler and you see the sheer number of lives impacted by this man that its very hard to focus on any positive or even neutral with regards to him. The very image of someone like Hitler instantly provokes the thoughts of monster, murderer, butcher..is it helpful to the world to view him that way? Probably not, understanding the reasons why someone like Hitler becomes Hitler is far more useful though probably pointless as its impossible to try and figure what made Hitler commit to the course of action he did...he also had a choice regardless of the situtation.

[{nF}remix]

My opinion was that he just deeply followed his religion and party which led him to decisions that he thought were "right" but in the view of others, wrong.

He did grow up as a troubled youth. Born in the slums of Tikrit, his father dead before he was born and his brother died of cancer while his mom was pregnant with him. His mom went insane and was soo depressed that she even considered aborting him. Then he went on to move with his uncle, who was a deep Ba'ath party supporter who really influenced Saddam alot and sent him to a nationalistic Ba'ath party school which eventually led him to rise to power when the party took over Iraq.

Anywayz, the key question is, Is Saddam just acting like he is because of loneliness and as a broken man? Or is he just acting like that to the soldiers in order to fix up his image to the media?

[removeduser_487563287433]

I am not surprised that people are shocked to find Saddam doesn't eat babies and **** on old ladies, such is the extent that the US has demonised. I personally question whether the whole story of him hiding in a hole is at all true.

Not to say he isn't a brutal man getting what he deserves, though. But if everyone got what they deserve I believe that our own leaders would be in a similar position.