 |
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] [SIZE=1]
Not from the begining. Hussein helped overthrow General Abdul Karim Kassem, who had pulled Iraq out of the Bagdad Pact (America's alliance in the ME), threatened to invade Kuwait when Britain relinquished its control in 1960, and had allowed Communists in the government. While Hussein was in Cairo, after a failed assassination attempt against Kassem, he became aquainted with the CIA, who gave him money. When the Ba'ath overthrew Kassem in 1963, the CIA gave Hussein a list of communists, whom were then murdered by Hussein and his people.
|
If he were the darling of the CIA, then why would Soviets support him? Your theory is interesting, but contradictory.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless
If he were the darling of the CIA, then why would Soviets support him? Your theory is interesting, but contradictory. |
Why did Noreiga and bin Laden turn against us? They were both helped and funded by the CIA? You think it's impossible for our allies one day to be our enemies the next?
However, to directly answer your question, what major event in the ME happened between 1963, when Hussein was first in power (not at the top) and 1969, when the Baathists returned to power? I'll give you a hint, it happened in six days in 1967.
Anyway, my "theory" isn't a theory. It's what actually happened. There's no interpretation of events needed. Hussein was a regular visitor to the American embassy in Cairo until he returned to Iraq. The CIA did give him money and a list of people who turned up dead.
This catapulted Hussein into the leadership of the Ba'athist party, and when they returned to power, Hussein was made cheif of internal security. Within a year or two he was the real power in Iraq, only openly assuming the presidency in 1979. Had the CIA not helped him prior to 1963, we may not have had to deal with him today.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why did Noreiga and bin Laden turn against us? They were both helped and funded by the CIA? You think it's impossible for our allies one day to be our enemies the next?
However, to directly answer your question, what major event in the ME happened between 1963, when Hussein was first in power (not at the top) and 1969, when the Baathists returned to power? I'll give you a hint, it happened in six days in 1967.
Anyway, my "theory" isn't a theory. It's what actually happened. There's no interpretation of events needed. Hussein was a regular visitor to the American embassy in Cairo until he returned to Iraq. The CIA did give him money and a list of people who turned up dead.
This catapulted Hussein into the leadership of the Ba'athist party, and when they returned to power, Hussein was made cheif of internal security. Within a year or two he was the real power in Iraq, only openly assuming the presidency in 1979. Had the CIA not helped him prior to 1963, we may not have had to deal with him today. |
Stop circumventing my question and continuing promoting your theory. And where did your get your evidence? 60 Greatest Conpiracies? 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:27
|
|
Many Germans seem to have badly taken being compared with Lybia. The Germans' goodwill towards the US was huge a short time ago, and seems to have decreased at huge speed. Also, most of the damage done to the French American relationship could have been avoided if Rummy hadn't insulted France with his old Europe crap (I'm the first to admit France should have behaved much better too).
Before the diplomatic barking -that I admit France and Germany have begun- the opposition to war wasn't as clear. In fact, Chirac had warned his troops and his diplomats very shortly before it that they should "be ready for anything" (i.e taking part in the war). Hadn't Rummy opened his mouth, and had he let diplomats do their jobs, the whole UN charade could have been avoided yet. Well, if Chirac hadn't opened his mouth too.
Currently, Syria has shown a 'very cautious' neutrality, to say the least (they are against the US, but didn't enter clear hostility yet). If Rummy openly threatens it, you can be sure his speeches will serve as propaganda-fodder against America. It will also make the diplomatic relations between US and Syria much more awkward. Same with Iran, and same with Jordan if Jordan cooperates less than Rummy needs due.
Edit : In short, Rummy has the skill to turn a "somehow against" country or population into a "completely against" country or population.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Like Germany and Japan?
What are you talking about? What democracies have we set up? |
no, im talking about countries that arent predisposed to democracy or republics...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Germany and Japan had both had actual working important democratically eelcted governments before the ones that took them to war came into power. Germans knew how to vote and how to abide by the results when the US took over.
Iraq, on the other hand, has never, in its entire history, had a single cohesive democratic government. |
GePap, true. But the very same thing could be said of Russia. But it made a seemingly successful transition to democracy.
I hardly believe that people of Iraq are so "undereducated," and "tribal" as to be incapable of democracy. This is almost like saying that only certain people on earth are entitled to human rights. This is ridiculous.
The real problem I see in Iraq and, indeed, throughout the world of Islam is the rising influence of the clerics who are demanding that they have a larger role in the government. This trend largely began after the fall the Shah of Iran and the rise of Khomeini.
I believe that in the postwar Iraq that we need to ban two parties from political power in order to give democracy chance: the first is the Ba'atist party. The second will be Islamic fundamentalist parties that call for giving the clerics real political power, ala Iran.
The problem I see in any UN control of Iraq is that they just may permit these parties to operate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
The Viceroy
|
 |
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000 time: 05:27
|
|
I think it was a mistake to have used megaphone diplomacy on this, It just means that now we have both the Iranians and Syrians on Al Jazeera spouting more anti-american rubish, which could have been avoided.
Iran is not in a position to invade Iraq, to do so would be to invite retaliation, and all its nuclear research would be destroyed (even if they won Iraq) .. better to let the Americans have their bone, and for Iran to get its bomb (in their eyes).
Syria shouts a lot, and makes a noise, but the reality of it is it would not be able to take Iraq, and I can assure you, Turkey would not sit there, and let them take the oil fields in Kurdistan .. no chance .. they prefer the Iraqi authorities to control it.
So in my mind, this is all bluff, and it should have been done via the backdoor ..
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The Viceroy
I think it was a mistake to have used megaphone diplomacy on this, It just means that now we have both the Iranians and Syrians on Al Jazeera spouting more anti-american rubish, which could have been avoided.
Iran is not in a position to invade Iraq, to do so would be to invite retaliation, and all its nuclear research would be destroyed (even if they won Iraq) .. better to let the Americans have their bone, and for Iran to get its bomb (in their eyes).
Syria shouts a lot, and makes a noise, but the reality of it is it would not be able to take Iraq, and I can assure you, Turkey would not sit there, and let them take the oil fields in Kurdistan .. no chance .. they prefer the Iraqi authorities to control it.
So in my mind, this is all bluff, and it should have been done via the backdoor .. |
Sorry, Syria started this by shipping night vision goggles to the Saddam regime. Had they stayed out of the conflict, quiet diplomacy on terrorism would have been the order of the day. But, instead, they deliberately chose the path of confrontation. This can only escallate unless Syria backs off.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|