 |
| |
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
Hey when we are at it this is another interesting part of the article for those that are not bothered to read
quote:
Speaking of Saddam's difficult childhood, Stanley Rothchild, a British diplomat based in Cyprus, told WorldNetDaily, "There have been more than a few rumors in the intelligence community that Saddam was raped by a gang of homosexuals when he was a young boy. So I don't discount the fact that the plot of gay sex in the 'South Park' movie was somehow influenced or used by the powers that be as a psychological weapon to punish Saddam. I can't just believe that it's a coincidence. We are talking about one of the top-grossing films in America in 1999, a movie which has a plot that is, by far, the most psychologically cruel scenario imaginable to America's number one bogeyman."
Tracey Kinchen, a former MI6 agent who has worked in Cambodia, Hong Kong, and South Africa told WorldNetDaily, "Wouldn't it be ironic if it was the 'South Park' movie which really proved to be the proverbial 'straw that broke the camel's back' and pushed Saddam over the edge and into launching a nuclear or biological attack against the West? The people who made that film -- either they were guided by the CIA or they are incredibly stupid."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
Well they claim so , and it is not a pro-Iraq or whatever,
The article is from August 2000, so long before current Iraq frenzy.
I'll try to find more.
here is one which mentiones early CIA/ Saddam involvement
http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqhist.html
there is another one which goes into some details
http://www.newsbatch.com/iraq.htm
quote:
Hussein soon became active in the Baath party as a gun man, and he participated in the assassination attempt on the country's strong man, General Kassem, in 1959. Then he went into exile in Cairo. There is evidence that his cooperation with the CIA began at that time as he made numerous trips to the American embassy while in exile. He returned to Iraq after 1963 when Kassem was ousted by the Baaths and was elected to the National Command. There is some basis to believe that General Kassem's ouster was assisted by the CIA which was motivated by a fear of Kassem's increased ties to the Soviet Union.
When the Baath party assumed power in 1968, again with the assistance of the CIA, Saddam Hussein emerged as the primary deputy leader to Muhammad Bakr, a general who became President. Very soon, because of his hard work, most of the actual control of the government was assumed by Saddam Hussein. He surrendered everything to Saddam, because Saddam worked an eighteen-hour day. In no time at all, Saddam was head of Security, he was head of the Peasants Department, he was head of Relations with the Kurds, he was head of the Committee that controlled the oil. He was head of the committee that controlled relations with the Arab countries. He was head of the Workers Syndicate.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
Re: Taliban:
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2...92001112433.asp
Direct involvement by the U.S. in bringing them to power is not proven, and the situation is at least as much the fault of the USSR as it is the U.S.
However, we did support them for a time:
quote:
The Taliban was basically a group of politically inexperienced young students. Analysts, including Rashid, believe the group never would have achieved its dramatic rise to power without the guidance of more mature governments, namely Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, who offered training and initial financial support. Ironically, the Taliban was also endorsed by the United States.
Rashid says the U.S. initially perceived the Taliban as a stabilizing force, one that could ensure the flow of Middle Eastern oil to the West.
"The U.S. didn't provide arms or anything to them, but the U.S. was very sympathetic to them because they were anti-Iran, anti-Shiite. And the U.S. at that time was looking for allies in its confrontation with Iran. The U.S. at that time was also looking for pipeline routes out of the Gulf, which would be under the control of U.S. allies. And they hoped [it would be] through Pakistan to the Gulf. So that was their other objective."
|
I remember receiving countless human rights updates and petitions against the Taliban from American rights orgs. like NOW, Amnesty Int'l, HRW, etc back in college in 97-98.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
CIA helped Saddam to power. So what? If the guy betrayed us and the world, then it's our duty to take him out.
In 1979, Saddam seemed to be a better choice than Ayatollahs. I still think he is better than OBL, Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar.
Everybody makes mistakes. But everybody can CORRECT their past mistakes.
Silly masochist(it must be my fault) lefties.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jac de Molay
|
 |
Detroit
Sep 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
Who betrayed who? Our country conveniently looked the other way when he was gassing the Kurds and the Iranians. The fact that we turn around now and say he's the scourge of the region with those same weapons is absolute hypocrisy.
Call it realpolitik. Call it whatever. But it's exactly these situations that make for ample incentive in the Al-qaeda membership drive.
edit
Last edited by Jac de Molay on 17-10-2002 at 23:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Ever notice how the Left always claims the US supported someone when the right wants to remove them?
Seems this happens EVERY time.
BTW, for the record, there is NO proof that Saddam EVER even heard of the CIA, let alone worked for them.  |
I know that I cannot ask you to post a link as there can hardly be one that debates the issue, however how come you are so certain?
The fact is that US supported the people at the time when it suited them and ditched them accordingly, and it just so happens that people who US supported for long become the national enemy no. 1. Current ones Osama and Saddam, have both been on the US side at times according to these little reports we can read that are available publicly. - hey at least Saddam was not an outright commie like his oppositin than, and that should have guarentted support from the US if nothing else + proven support against Iran etc... Now what made Saddam to invade Kuwait there is no way of knowing, but if that was not the case he would still be under US protection and noone would ask if the old dictator was making nukes or not, as he is a good pet like Pakistan is at the moment, who cares about them even though the Taliban was sponsored from there!
Ah well enough ranting, we kinda all know our positions on the topic and have one thing in mind, and that is to live well, and we will see what happens with this war... One thing is certaing and that is dead Iraqis, for they are definitley between a rock and a hard place, and for the rest of us, hopefully life as normal.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-10-2002 20:12
|