> > > I didn't say he was a bad leader, in fact I think he is an excellent one. He has (somehow) made his (let's call them subjects) like him and believe in him. Everyone voted for him for fear that anyone who didn't would be "punished." There was no way for anyone to get 50% of the people to vote against Hussein, so they all voted for him. I doubt all Iraqis honestly like their leader, or wouldn't rather have a different one. Just because they can't speak their ideas doesn't mean they can't think them. However, the fact that he is so powerful and feared only reflects how great, charismatic, and influential of a dictator he really is.
> > >
> > > MA"Ok, so I made some mistakes in my last post. Oh well."NGO
> >
> > What! NO.
> >
> > Saddam Hussein is RUTHLESS. He's not great. He's not charismatic. He's not influential. The guy is not Hitler. He is a BRUTE. Everyone votes for him because to do otherwise is to sign your own execution order. And that has NOTHING to do with charisma, greatness, convincing people, etc. These people fear for their lives. The only thing they want less than Saddam to remain in power is to die. Coercing people into "voting" for you by threatening their deaths has *absolutely* nothing to do with "great" leadership qualities.
> >
> > The Other Matthew
>
> Two fine examples of information differences. I read what I stated in a newspaper. I assume The Other Matthew got his information from a reliable source too.
>
> Which source do you trust, or better yet, which can you trust at all?
>
> MA"Now do you get my point?"NGO

This has little to nothing to do with information differences, and everything to do with the conclusions one is drawing from that information. What you read in the newspaper and repeated here is not a fact, but is an opinion, a conclusion, being drawn from the facts available to anyone. It is a fact that Saddam Hussein kills people who oppose him. It is a fact that he wins elections in which 100% of the voters turnout and give him 100% of the vote. It is a fact that Hussein's control of the police/military in Iraq is complete, and he makes sure to use it to suit his will.

It is not a fact that anybody was convinced to vote for him because Saddam "influenced" someone with his wild charisma. It IS a fact that every Iraqi went to the polls with the knowledge that a vote for Saddam was a vote to keep themselves and their families alive. It is not a fact that Saddam is a "great" leader. It IS a fact that he is a brute, meaning that he is willing to kill anyone for his own gain. Your newspaper, and consequently yourself it would seem, drew a conclusion that makes little to no sense, despite having the same facts available as I. The only conclusion I *did* draw was that forcing people's vote through threats of torture/rape/death/probablyallthree has nothing to do with great leadership. Everything else I said is a rather well-established fact.

The Other Matthew