he left them to get cleaned as the sea salts rubbed the grease off, i think

It wasn't to dry. The salt water would help clean the pans, if I'm not mistaken, but then most of them got swept away by the tide.

Dios mio, the poor man. How he can still laugh despite that is beyond me

Jesus Christ are you like a relative of Saddam trying to defend him from beyond the grave? Saddam Hussein was a warlord who used brute force to obtain land and resources. As an opportunist, he invaded Iran directly after their own revolution and annexed slivers of territory along the border, he used chemical weapons as an aggressor, not as a defensive measure ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack ). You also so happened to leave out the fact that Middle Eastern nations backed Iran out of fear of an Iraqi invasion, and you also fail to mention that Saddam Hussein was backed by the U.S. at this point in time, a far better ally, if I do say so myself. He invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, then proceeded to dump it into the ocean just to spite U.S. Allied Forces ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill ), causing one of largest oil spills in history. Immediately after the coalition sent him into retreat, the public opinion of him was SO LOW that SEVERAL factions began to revolt against his suppression of ethnic and religious groups ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq ). Saddam Hussein was a brute, and by no means a "savior" of Iraq. To even paint him as a victim rather than what he actually was, a warlord who brought destruction on himself for him terrible decisions, is honestly more confusing than anything else.

do you have any idea why the Kurds were on Iran's side? Iraq has been trying to commit genocide against the kurds for decades.

Commit genocide by granting them semi-autonomy in 1970? Commited genocide by letting their schools teaching Kurdish language and culture, rights they never dreamed of having in Syria, Iran, and Turkey? Lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of pro-government Kurds who fought extensively against the Peshmerga, both in the National Defense Battalions and in the military.

Saddam fought terrorism, and many terrorists happened to be kurds.

Jesus Christ are you like a relative of Saddam trying to defend him from beyond the grave? Saddam Hussein was a warlord who used brute force to obtain land and resources. As an opportunist, he invaded Iran directly after their own revolution and annexed slivers of territory along the border, he used chemical weapons as an aggressor, not as a defensive measure ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack ). You also so happened to leave out the fact that Middle Eastern nations backed Iran out of fear of an Iraqi invasion, and you also fail to mention that Saddam Hussein was backed by the U.S. at this point in time, a far better ally, if I do say so myself. He invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, then proceeded to dump it into the ocean just to spite U.S. Allied Forces ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill ), causing one of largest oil spills in history. Immediately after the coalition sent him into retreat, the public opinion of him was SO LOW that SEVERAL factions began to revolt against his suppression of ethnic and religious groups ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq ). Saddam Hussein was a brute, and by no means a "savior" of Iraq. To even paint him as a victim rather than what he actually was, a warlord who brought destruction on himself for him terrible decisions, is honestly more confusing than anything else.

Iraq wasnt in war when Saddam gassed his own people. He was attempted assasinated, and then punished a whole city by gassing Them. It is scary that idiots like you are defending Saddam in any way!

How the fuck can you justify the use of chemical weapons? They aren't quick like nuclear weapons.

If you're outside of ground zero of a nuke have fun dying of radiation extremely slowly. Emptying all fluids in your body in a futile attempt to expel it.

I will argue that the use of chemical weapons is by far worse than nuclear. Yes, radiation sickness is terrible, but I would rather have radiation poisoning than get hit by a scud missile carrying mustard gas.

The use of chemical weapons was excessive, but you have to understand what they were up against. They were fighting a war with Iran, who was funded by half of the middle east, along with internal terrorism

do you have any idea why the Kurds were on Iran's side? Iraq has been trying to commit genocide against the kurds for decades.

Commit genocide by granting them semi-autonomy in 1970? Commited genocide by letting their schools teaching Kurdish language and culture, rights they never dreamed of having in Syria, Iran, and Turkey? Lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of pro-government Kurds who fought extensively against the Peshmerga, both in the National Defense Battalions and in the military.

Saddam fought terrorism, and many terrorists happened to be kurds.

Jesus Christ are you like a relative of Saddam trying to defend him from beyond the grave? Saddam Hussein was a warlord who used brute force to obtain land and resources. As an opportunist, he invaded Iran directly after their own revolution and annexed slivers of territory along the border, he used chemical weapons as an aggressor, not as a defensive measure ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack ). You also so happened to leave out the fact that Middle Eastern nations backed Iran out of fear of an Iraqi invasion, and you also fail to mention that Saddam Hussein was backed by the U.S. at this point in time, a far better ally, if I do say so myself. He invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, then proceeded to dump it into the ocean just to spite U.S. Allied Forces ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill ), causing one of largest oil spills in history. Immediately after the coalition sent him into retreat, the public opinion of him was SO LOW that SEVERAL factions began to revolt against his suppression of ethnic and religious groups ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq ). Saddam Hussein was a brute, and by no means a "savior" of Iraq. To even paint him as a victim rather than what he actually was, a warlord who brought destruction on himself for him terrible decisions, is honestly more confusing than anything else.

What terrorists? He used mustard gas on civilians
news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

When the U.S. bombed Japan, did they care about the civilian casualties compared to the military victory they achieved? Many kurds, either paid off by Iran or by sheer hate for a stable government, fought with Iran against Iraq. They were fighting with an enemy against Iraq, so they were an enemy.

Iraq wasnt in war when Saddam gassed his own people. He was attempted assasinated, and then punished a whole city by gassing Them. It is scary that idiots like you are defending Saddam in any way!

How the fuck can you justify the use of chemical weapons? They aren't quick like nuclear weapons.

If you're outside of ground zero of a nuke have fun dying of radiation extremely slowly. Emptying all fluids in your body in a futile attempt to expel it.

I will argue that the use of chemical weapons is by far worse than nuclear. Yes, radiation sickness is terrible, but I would rather have radiation poisoning than get hit by a scud missile carrying mustard gas.

The use of chemical weapons was excessive, but you have to understand what they were up against. They were fighting a war with Iran, who was funded by half of the middle east, along with internal terrorism

do you have any idea why the Kurds were on Iran's side? Iraq has been trying to commit genocide against the kurds for decades.

Commit genocide by granting them semi-autonomy in 1970? Commited genocide by letting their schools teaching Kurdish language and culture, rights they never dreamed of having in Syria, Iran, and Turkey? Lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of pro-government Kurds who fought extensively against the Peshmerga, both in the National Defense Battalions and in the military.

Saddam fought terrorism, and many terrorists happened to be kurds.

Jesus Christ are you like a relative of Saddam trying to defend him from beyond the grave? Saddam Hussein was a warlord who used brute force to obtain land and resources. As an opportunist, he invaded Iran directly after their own revolution and annexed slivers of territory along the border, he used chemical weapons as an aggressor, not as a defensive measure ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack ). You also so happened to leave out the fact that Middle Eastern nations backed Iran out of fear of an Iraqi invasion, and you also fail to mention that Saddam Hussein was backed by the U.S. at this point in time, a far better ally, if I do say so myself. He invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, then proceeded to dump it into the ocean just to spite U.S. Allied Forces ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill ), causing one of largest oil spills in history. Immediately after the coalition sent him into retreat, the public opinion of him was SO LOW that SEVERAL factions began to revolt against his suppression of ethnic and religious groups ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq ). Saddam Hussein was a brute, and by no means a "savior" of Iraq. To even paint him as a victim rather than what he actually was, a warlord who brought destruction on himself for him terrible decisions, is honestly more confusing than anything else.