 |
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
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?
|
Saddam has been a US enemy for 12 years now, if there was even a remote possibility that was true, it would have been blasted all over the press, who LOVE such stories.
What it is, quite frankly, is the anti-war movement grasping at straws, since they know they can't prevent Bush from acting on his threats to Saddam.
It's an old trick, throw as much muck as you can, and see what sticks.
No sale, we didn't create Saddam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Saddam has been a US enemy for 12 years now, if there was even a remote possibility that was true, it would have been blasted all over the press, who LOVE such stories.
What it is, quite frankly, is the anti-war movement grasping at straws, since they know they can't prevent Bush from acting on his threats to Saddam.
It's an old trick, throw as much muck as you can, and see what sticks.
No sale, we didn't create Saddam. |
That makes sense what you say, however didn't Osama had proven CIA links from the past during anti-USSR war, and the press didn't butcher that either?
Here looking around this is an interesting article by one of his former associates
quote:
There is a whole generation of people like me. We are about the same age as Saddam--I'm two years older actually--who believe that is where the Arab dream was--in Iraq. Iraq had wealth, it had population, it had prospects, it had a strong army. They were not backward. And I will use the word backward like some of the oil producing countries. They offered us a future. And we took that chance. We were enamored with what Saddam was doing. Make no mistake about it. Anybody who tells you otherwise didn't know what Saddam was about. He's not telling the truth.
We knew Saddam was tough. But the balance was completely different then. He was also delivering. The Iraqi people were getting a great deal of things that they needed and wanted and he was popular. He eliminated people here and there. With time, as with all dictators, the balance switched. And all we saw of Saddam was elimination and very little benefit to the people.
|
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ws/aburish.html
and this is about CIA link from this guy:
quote:
While he was in Cairo, there's some belief that he may have had contact with Americans, with the CIA. What can you tell us about that?
There is very good reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was in contact with the American embassy in Cairo when he was in exile. This is not strange, because alliances of convenience were taking place every day. And the United States was afraid that Iraq, under Kassem, might be going communist. So was the Ba'ath Party. So they had a common enemy, a common target--the possibility of a communist take-over of Iraq.
So there is a record of Saddam visiting the American embassy frequently, and there is a record of the Egyptian security people telling him not to do that. However, one must remember that at that time, Saddam was a minor official of the Ba'ath Party. He was not terribly important. And he was really following in the footsteps of other people who are much more important.
And what would be the idea behind all this?
The visits to the American embassy by Saddam Hussein and other members of the Ba'ath Party had one purpose, and one purpose only. To co-operate with the Americans towards the overthrow of General Kassem in Iraq. Kassem was slightly pro-communist and the Americans wanted to get rid of that danger. Allen Dulles described Iraq as the most dangerous part of the earth in front of a congressional committee. The Ba'ath thought Kassem was their enemy, so there was a mutuality there. And whether a conspiracy transpired or not, the evidence is actually in favor of it having taken place. But the conspiracy was for the duration of getting rid of Kassem. It was not an alliance of permanent nature.
There was a coup in Iraq in 1963. What do we know about the U.S. involvement in that coup?
The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. There is evidence that CIA agents were in touch with army officers who were involved in the coup. There is evidence that an electronic command center was set up in Kuwait to guide the forces who were fighting Kassem. There is evidence that they supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed. And that continued for some time after the coup. And there was an exchange of information between the two sides. For example it was one of the first times that the United States was able to get certain models of Mig fighters and certain tanks made in the Soviet Union. That was the bribe. That was what the Ba'ath had to offer the United States in return for their help in eliminating Kassem.
Do we know to what extent Saddam Hussein was involved in the killings when he came back from Cairo?
I have documented over seven hundred people who were eliminated, mostly on an individual basis, after the 1963 coup. And they were eliminated based on lists supplied by the CIA to the Ba'ath Party. So the CIA and the Ba'ath were in the business of eliminating communists and leftists who were dangerous to the Ba'ath's take-over.
The coup took place in April, Saddam Hussein did not return to Iraq until May. But he went to work immediately. He became an interrogator in the Fellaheen and Muthaqafeen detention camps. They are camps where they kept communists and fellow travellers, after they took power. And in interrogating people in those camps, he used torture, and undoubtedly like everybody else involved in this activity, eliminated people. In 1963 he was still one of the party's toughs, one of the party's thugs if you wish.
|
So  actually it doesn't change much, just proves a point, it's not like this wasn't US way of doing business. Still it is an interesting article for those of you that want to read up about Saddam and the past of Iraq, the article is really long.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
and a bit more about the alliance being forged again and desintegrating later
quote:
Jumping forward a few years to 1967 and the Arab-Israeli conflict, we've heard that the Soviets then looked to Baghdad in terms of gaining influence in the Middle East. And the Ba'ath Party also wants to get back into power. Describe in the run-up to the 1968 coup, the Cold War dynamics of what was going on in the Middle East, and in particular Iraq, and how the Ba'ath Party was able to use those dynamics to help them get back into power.
In 1968, Iraq had a weak president who was beholden to Nasser. A follower of Nasser. But the defeat of [the Arabs by Israel] in 1967 meant that whatever government was in power when that defeat took place had to go. So the Ba'ath saw an opportunity in this and they thought the time has come for them to take over the country again. The background was extremely interesting. There were two things happening within Iraq at that time. They were developing their own oil and very close to giving the concessions for huge new oil fields, to the USSR and France. And the price of sulpher had shot up so greatly that they were about to mine the sulpher mines in the north and sell it in the world market.
The United States didn't want either to happen. The United States wanted the oil for American oil companies; they wanted the sulpher for themselves. They thought that if Iraq went to the Soviet Union or France, Iraq would be lost to them. In this they were joined by the Ba'ath Party. The Party used the concessions for oil and sulpher as a bargaining point to endear itself once again to America. And they arrived once again at some kind of an agreement of collaboration between the two sides. On the American side negotiating for both the oil and sulpher was a well-known personality, Robert Anderson, the former Secretary of Treasury under Eisenhower. He met secretly with the Ba'ath and they agreed that if they took over power these concessions will be given to the United States.
And so once again the United States was in the business of supporting the Ba'ath office for the government of Iraq. The Ba'ath was successful. This time Saddam Hussein played a key role. He was one of the people who donned a military uniform--though he's not a military man--and attacked the presidential palace. And occupied it. The President being weak, surrendered immediately. Two weeks after they took over power on the 17th of July 1968, there was what they call 'the correction movement.' That meant getting rid of the non-Ba'ath elements in the coup, and Saddam was prominent in that. As a matter of fact he held a gun to the head of the Prime Minister and said 'you're going with me to the airport because you're leaving this country.' And the guy pleaded with him, said 'I have family, I have a wife and kids.' And Saddam said well as long as you behave, they'll be fine. He took him to the airport, he put him in a plane, he deported him, and of course years after, he assassinated him in front of the Intercontinental Hotel in London. The man couldn't escape him in the long run.
However, the communists are hardly thrown out and not long after, they turn to Saddam, and he personally leads a delegation to Moscow, and there's a development of a relationship between the two. What game was he playing?
Well, alliances of convenience don't last very long. The Ba'ath Party was committed to certain things which American foreign policy could not tolerate. In this particular case it lasted a very short time, really a matter of two weeks. And Saddam got rid of all of the pro-American elements in the government and he asserted his authority on the country. He was not the president. He was the second man, after a relation of his from Tikrit, President Ahmed Bakr. But what happened immediately after that is the things they needed, they couldn't get from the United States anymore. They needed help economically. They needed arms. And the United States were not in the business of openly supplying arms to Arab countries to re-equip themselves for another round of fighting. That was the major issue between the two sides. Saddam knew he could get the arms from Russia and he journeyed to Russia--this was his first trip outside Iraq. Outside of exile of course. And he got what he wanted. And the alliance of convenience disintegrated as they always do.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
Furthermore this was in the past, I doubt much has changed today... esp with such power US commands comparing to the rest. Realpolitik.
Another reason to ditch the " oh we are so scared or Iraq PR management class".
still this is the end of the interview:
quote:
What is the most likely way in which Saddam is going to go?
Saddam Hussein will go one way, and one way only--violently--either through a coup d'etat or an assassination. The circle around Saddam Hussein is becoming smaller and smaller. There are fewer people he trusts, and they're his family. But eventually the time will come where some officer, or a person, or an army unit, will be able to move against him and replace him. Saddam Hussein is not still president of Iraq because he's a popular man. Saddam Hussein is president because neither the United States, the UK, the Iraqi opposition or anyone else has discovered an alternative to Saddam Hussein that is not worse than Saddam Hussein as far as Western interests are concerned. If the people within Iraq are led to believe that things will be better, that Iraq will not fragment or be colonized, that Iraq will be allowed to run its oil affairs by itself, that not too many people will be punished, killed or imprisoned after Saddam goes, then that will open the way for Saddam to be removed. There are not many people who are willing to die defending him anymore. That is a critical point that we forget.
The other thing we forget is the people outside calling for the United States to give them air cover and things like that to topple Saddam Hussein--those people are really in the business of asking the United States to do their work for them. If they want to topple him, then they have to establish connections with people within who are near him, and who can remove him. And they're afraid to do that, because that undermines their leadership positions. But that has to be done. After that, it will become easy. He has to go, and he will go. When we will reach this point, it will be a short while after, and Saddam will be done.
Do you think that there are people close to Saddam who would like him out, and they made the calculation in their own minds that for some reason now, either they can't get close enough to him, or something stops them from removing him?
I have no doubt that there are people within the security system, the army, the government of Iraq, and all over Iraq who would like to see Saddam gone, and the situation of Iraq change. But these people have to be assured that they will not suffer for what they do. And we have failed to establish connection with the people inside Iraq who can reach Saddam. We are dealing with outsiders who live in London and Washington and other parts of Europe--people who have no following within Iraq. We have to open the way for people within Iraq itself, people within the system itself, to remove Saddam Hussein. That, beside an act of God, is the only way to remove him.
But the actual act of removing him after that would not be very difficult. He does not have a popular base. He lives there by virtue of the Iraqi people's fear. Once that fear is removed, the Iraqi people will move against him, as they have in the past moved against other dictators successfully, even ones who were very, very closely protected by their followers.
The circle around Saddam Hussein has grown so small, and there are so few people he trusts, that there is the possibility of an implosion, of that circle becoming too small to run the country, and self-destructing. All you have to do is take out one component of that small circle, and that small circle stops working. Saddam has two sons and two or three other people, who are all relations. Each of them is assuming so much responsibility for what happens in the country. All you have to do, for instance is remove his younger son, Qussay, who is now in charge of security. If two security officers are able to replace Qussay, or remove him, or assassinate him, then the road is wide open to move against Saddam himself. No matter where he sleeps--and he sleeps in different places every night--it wouldn't protect him.
The ultimate irony is that he came to power and asserted his control by eliminating rivals and narrowing the people that he relies on. He's done this over the years. And now it's so small, and actually sort of disintegrating.
The group around Saddam is too small to maintain power for a long period of time. He needs to rely on more people, and I doubt whether he has other people he can rely on. I doubt he can trust anyone who is outside the immediate family, outside his sons and his first cousins, and this is an impossible situation. You cannot hold power for a very long period of time that way. Even Stalin had more people around him than Saddam Hussein has. No dictator has been so confined in modern times as Saddam is at this moment. And this will lead to some kind of implosion. The system is not big enough to hold the huge structure behind it: the nine different security organizations, the Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guard, the army, the air force, the various governmental departments, allocation of money, dealing with the Kurds, dealing with the Shias, dealing with the Arab countries. This is a very, very big government. It needs more than about six or seven people. The decision- maker is Saddam, and he's surrounded by a small number of people, six or seven people only, that's it.
The other people are spokesmen who we see on television every day. They have nothing to do with decision-making. There is a joke about Saddam turning to his deputy prime minister, and saying, "What time is it?" and the deputy prime minister says, "Whatever time you want." That is the way Saddam operates. You cannot hold a government together that way.
|
which in short asserts that Saddam does not have popular basis and if US supports some insider who will assasinate the guy, you are done. And moreover in 1996 this was tried and US/UK failed with around 300 associated tortured and murdered. (from another article) Interesting.
Still earlier in the article the guy interviewed thinks if Saddam will see that he is going down for sure he will launch the WOMD as last ditch message "if I am going you are going down with me too" huh...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Saddam has been a US enemy for 12 years now, if there was even a remote possibility that was true, it would have been blasted all over the press, who LOVE such stories.
What it is, quite frankly, is the anti-war movement grasping at straws, since they know they can't prevent Bush from acting on his threats to Saddam.
It's an old trick, throw as much muck as you can, and see what sticks.
No sale, we didn't create Saddam. |
Your thinking is straight out of 1984:
'The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. [...]
But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. [..]
It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a confession of weakness. If, for example, Iraq or Iran (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then that country MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN THE ENEMY. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered. Thus history is continuously rewritten.'
George Orwell, 1984
My emphasis, and my (slight) alterations. Saddam Hussein is our enemy, your thinking goes. Therefore, he has always been our enemy.
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/...es98/saddam.htm
In realpolitik there are no allies or enemies, only 'useful fools', to quote a Russian.
Those of you directing ad hominem attacks on Harrelson because of his profession- is Reagan's presidency solely to be adjudged on his unstellar acting career in B-movies? I had thought that one of America's salutary virtues was that no matter what your station in life (theoretically) anyone could try for public office, or even the presidency- even a simple Kentucky frontiersman, for instance....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
There's a big difference between "always" and "for 12 years". Even you have to admit that he was an enemy when he invaded Kuwait... |
Yes, he was an enemy after he invaded- not before. That's the difference. The quotation from 1984 is not meant to be interpreted literally in this instance, in any case- merely to show the kind of 'thought' that settles in when discussing the 'enemies' and 'allies' of the Unitd States, or any other country, for that matter.
When did Somalia become more of an ally more than an enemy for instance? When Mengistu's neighbouring Ethiopia turned towards the Soviet Bloc, and Somalia turned away.
When Nimeiry's Sudan was carrying out its suppression of Christian and Animist black Africans, it was still a 'friend' of the United States. When the Muslim radicals that Nimeiry was trying to buy off with his more hard line Islamic stance came to power, it rapidly became an enemy.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0209/S00041.htm
The West saw fit to cosy up to Saddam when it looked like he was going to buy arms from the West (in preference to the Soviet Bloc) despite the destruction with chemical and gas weapons of Halabjah, and the slaughter of its Kurdish population. Clearly, Iraqi Kurds were not worth the cost of a lost Super Etendard sale, or several million barrels of crude oil.
And besides which- the Wicked Witch of the East, the Ayatollah Khomeini was still fulminating against the 'Great Satan' and the West had for the time lost a lucrative arms market.
When the USS Vincennes shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, Saddam was still a friend:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html
and after the Lockerbie mass murder, he was still a friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, I believe the old adage goes...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
That's a differnet argument. I was just refuting the Orwellian BS:
|
Actually you weren't refuting it. Failing to understand it as applied to the previous post, possibly. Look at the argument Chris was presenting: because Saddam had been an enemy of the U.S. for x number of years, then he could not have been helped by the C.I.A. in the past, or have been a 'client', stooge or ally of the U.S. , because the leftist/opposition press would have broadcast this, and he, Chris, would have known about it too...
We read selectively, and 'understand' selectively, and what Orwell describes is a process that is apparent in every country, and every political party. It's the airbrushing out of Trotsky from photographs- and the apparent amnesia about 'our' man Saddam.
It's a process that Orwell experienced for himself in Civil War Spain.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 23:39
|