Reply
Tue 4 May, 2004 05:11 am
Reading some of the posts here I see that some posts tend to represent some events in a grossly wrong way. The history of the middle east conflicts and saddams iraq are not as many see it to be. Some misconceptions and corrections....
1. Saddams mass murders. First of all the biggest mass murder committed by saddam was the 8 year war with iran. After the iranian revolution in 1979 the west and the gulf countries felt that iran posed a threat to regional stability and had to be dealt with. They urged saddam to attack iran, which he did and the west along with the gulf states more or less financed the iraqi war effort. Therefore before we started hating him he was a close ally, the bulkwork of defence against islamic fundemantalism etc. etc. The war lasted 8 years and cost over a million lives. So it was the US and the gulf states that made saddam a strong dictator.
2. WMDs: Saddam was developing a nuclear wepons program, but it came to an abrupt end when the israeli airforce bombed his reactor before it became operational, I may be wrong but I think it was back in 86. He did however posess chemical agents (biological agents are claimed also) and used them extensively in the war against iran, and also to put down a kurdish revolt in the north. But once again these weapons were supplied to him by the UK and US.
3. Murdering of civilians. Yes he was a tyrant and did kill many of his own citizens, some were political purges but many were results of revolts against his rule. The most famous eppisode often cited is however a bit more complex. During the 91 gulf war the then president bush sr. urged the iraqis to take up arms and rise against their dictator, implying that they would be supported. As a result of this call the shiite in the south and the kurds in the north revolted against saddam. The US did not in any way support these uprisings and Saddam re-organized his army and entered the shiite areas killed almost a 100.000 shiites and put down the revolt litteraly right in front of americans eyes. Another incident took place in 1996. The CIA it is claimed promised the kurds that the US would provide them with air support and gave them the green light to attack a couple of towns in northern iraq. Saddam sent his tanks in, the US didn't give air support to the kurds and saddam whooped their ass. As a result the US ended up airlifting upwards of 50.000 kurds out of northern iraq and taking them to guam......
Result: The US is as much complicit in saddams war crimes, they after all are the ones that provided him with the means by which he committed the most atrocious, use of chemical weapons. In addition the US has at least twice incited revolts against saddam and left its supporters at saddams mercy. Keep these in mind when trying to understand whats going on in iraq. Why the shiite are cautious in their dealings with america, and why there is a lack of general support for the governing couincil set up by america..
Good post Yilmaz.
You obviously know some history. The trouble is most Americans have their heads filled with trash from tv shows, films and porn, they are incapable of understanding the world. Of course the American government likes to keep it that way, for if the people really understood what was being done in their name, they would reject it.
Great post and accurate to my limited knowledge.
I can't wait for the spin. There are about 3 or 4 people you are going to hear from. It will be interesting reading.
Setanta, how 'bout chiming in?
Nothing to add to that, although i believe the Israelis attacked the Iraqi reactor much earlier than 1986.
What is hilarious to me is that this was such common knowledge to the rest of the world that Warren Zevon (may his tortured soul rest in peace), then living in Merry Old, wrote and recorded a song long, long ago:
Nuclear arms in the Middle East
Israel's attackin' the Iraquis
The Syrians are mad at the Lebanese
And Baghdad do whatever she please . . .
What amuses me even more, in an "ain't you pathetic" sort of way, is that conservatives here continually accuse those opposed to Bush and his dirty little war of having their heads buried in the sand.
thanks
Thanks for posting that brief history.
If the American people knew what this Regime in the WH has done in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan and is still doing, many would still support them because they believe that America is always right and just and that the American democracy should be forced on other nations. Of course, what most Americans don't know is that the USA is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy. The USA has directly and indirectly overthrown Democracies of other nations. As far as I know most US Govt.'s have never cared if other nations are Democracies or not,as long as these nations are compliant with Capitalists of the US.
Yes I know, the very reason why I posted this
. Like I have said in a few previous post I hate self-righteousness. The biggotry of the west just makes me blow my lid. I mean yes we the people of the middle east, or the muslims may not be as strong as we once were in the theatre of world events. There has always been the weak and the strong but also in history you often find that mankind in general were more civilised, more honorable in their dealings with the weak. It all changed with the renaissance and the wests rise. The judeo-christian morality of europe, and its offspring america leaves much to be desired. The rooted civilizations of the chinese, the japanese, muslims and indians were much more tolerant of other peoples ways.
Gunaydin yilmaz - just to let you know that I find yr posts very informative and well written !
It is certainly interesting to see someone actually defend Saddam the butcher.
I remember 20 years ago, Mrs. Thatcher, our favourite daughter of a shopkeeper, yammering on in her inimitable way, about Saddam Hussein being the "great hope of the middle east," and so forth.
What 'Lady' Thatcher intentionally left out of her oratories was the fact the UK was arming Saddam, along with the Americans, each nation giddy to believe that at last, they had a stooge in Iraq to fight their regional proxy wars.
What neither the UK or the USA has learned in all their years of existence is a critical lesson: choose your friends carefully because one day, they may become your enemy.
...and if they do become our enemy, we will remove them.
and if they do become our enemy, we will remove them.
Unless it comes to light they possess a nuclear bomb, as both Iran and North Korea do, then the number of nations in the so-called "Axis of Evil" shrinks, and plans to invade are reconsidered.
Fear of a nuclear holocaust appears to be the single thing capable of reeling in the great neocon adventure.
I don't recall the US supporting N. Korea or Iran.
McGentrix wrote:...and if they do become our enemy, we will remove them.
Defend arming them, defend using them, defend removing them when they become enemies, and then moralize about blowjobs.
You are one hell of a piece of work.
The only moralizing I have ever done about blowjobs is to encourage everyone to get one.
Maybe you mean moralizing about lying to the American people directly and then getting caught with the blue dress on, so to speak? Is that what you are referring to?
McGentrix wrote:It is certainly interesting to see someone actually defend Saddam the butcher.
It has been pointed out, rightly and accurately, and I'm sorry it's distasteful to you but the truth obviously is, that the US and the UK, by their actions over the years been compliant directly or indirectly in aiding Saddam with his butchering.
It is typical of your thinking that this equals the poster supporting Saddam.
Get real.
I am surprised you didn't include the picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands...
Foreign relations change with the times. What was happening in the world then required the US to take the actions it did. What is happening in the world today requires the US to act the way it is now. What happens in the world tommorrow will influence how the US responds tomorrow.
McGentrix wrote:I am surprised you didn't include the picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands...
Foreign relations change with the times. What was happening in the world then required the US to take the actions it did. What is happening in the world today requires the US to act the way it is now. What happens in the world tommorrow will influence how the US responds tomorrow.
It seems though that the only constant is the US, or more rightly the US when being handled by this particular group in one form or another is screwing anything and anyone for self interest sake, and then reneging on their deals and switching allegiances. God must truly be on our side then, for this type of behavior must truly be outlined in Scripture as the standard by which ethical behavior is measured, no?
I don't believe God writes our foreign policy.
Is the idea that a government "is screwing anything and anyone for self interest sake" surprising? I have yet to see a government do anything different in any country in the history of the world.
McGentrix wrote:I don't believe God writes our foreign policy.
Is the idea that a government "is screwing anything and anyone for self interest sake" surprising? I have yet to see a government do anything different in any country in the history of the world.
To condone our doing of it and to condemn the same behavior in others while claiming the moral high ground is certainly an interesting approach.
As far as God not being involved in our foreign policy, you got that right.
God, as used by this administration, should be kept in a bottle with a hammer attached and a sign that says "If it becomes convenient, break glass".
No one claims (at least I don't) that the American government is perfect or moral. It is, however, one of the best in the world at doing what it does and I would rather live under the oppression of the US government than any other.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace