208 replies to this topic

[Agent J.Bond]

I can't believe it, they actually caught him
and I never thought they could find him.

I think Saddam looks worse and when I saw
the news report, I wouldn't stop laughing.

I was running outside and shouting with joy!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jriv71

the gassing of his own people, ignore what 9/11 taught us about rogue governments allowing terrorist training camps in their country, just read this.

But, see, when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, Donald Rumsfeld was shaking his hand on TV. This is why the Bush administration's claiming of the moral high ground right now seems more than a bit rich. At the time, America was helping Iraq, and enabling him to commit his terrible crimes. America was Saddam's buddy when he was at his most dangerous, selling him those chemical weapons.

And in case you think I'm simply being anti-American (which is something a lot of people appear to believe equates with being pro-Saddam), let me point out that Britain (my own country) did exactly as America did. Foreign Office bigwigs visited Iraq throughout the 1980s to try and interest Saddam in British missile systems and the like. While Saddam ordered the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988, he was entertaining Foreign Office minister David Mellor. The British government then tried to censor news of the massacre. In the months following the Halabja killings, it was business as usual between the UK and Iraq, with Mrs Thatcher's Trade Secretary visiting Saddam on at least two occasions to do various deals (such as selling machine tools that could be used in the manufacture of weapons).

From The New Rulers of the World by John Pilger:

'Saddam has a great deal to thank the CIA for,' Said Arburish, his biographer, told me. 'He can thank them for bringing the Ba'ath Party to power, for helping him personally, for providing him with financial aid during the war with Iran, for protecting him against internal coups d'etat. It's a continuing relationship from the early 1960s until now, and it's a love/hate relationship.'
So enduring was America's ardour, or rather its gratitude to Iraq for protecting its client Arab states from Iran's revolutionary virus, that Saddam Hussein was given everything he wanted, almost up to the day he invaded Kuwait in August 1990. When John Kelly, the US Assistant Secretary of State, visited Baghdad in 1989, he told him: 'You are a force for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq.' The 'force for moderation' had just claimed victory in a war against Iran, which resulted in more than a million casualties on both sides, dead and wounded. When human rights groups presented evidence that Saddam Hussein had used mustard gas and nerve gas against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians, the State Department refused to condemn him. As Saddam Hussein was preparing his forces for the attack on his southern neighbour, a US Department of Energy official discovered that advanced nuclear reactors were being shipped to Iraq. When he alerted his superiors, he was moved to another job. 'We knew about their bomb program,' said a former member of the Bush administration, 'but Saddam was our ally...'

[Jriv71]

Fine. We *** up. We should've done thirty years ago what we just did. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have done it, just because we erroneously supported him thirty years ago. (Maybe it wasn't just a mistake, maybe we knew all along he'd massacre a million people or so, and we are that bad.) As I said, I'm not excusing what we've done in the past. (Don't get me started on Vietnam, I'm just glad I wasn't around for that.)

And as far as the high moral ground issue, helping out the Iraqi people, yes, that is secondary in this whole thing. I admit that. We're not just being great humanitarians. We're doing something to help ourselves first, and the fact that the majority of Iraqis are thrilled that this guy is gone, does make me feel good also. Even if I wanted to question our motivation, I can't question the result.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jriv71

We should've done thirty years ago what we just did.  But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have done it, just because we erroneously supported him thirty years ago.  

Well, we were still supporting him 13 years ago. So whenever I hear Dubya or Rumsfeld or Blair or someone banging on about Saddam's gassing of his own people I just feel like going like this . (Blair refuses to open an inquiry into the British government's past supply of weapons to Saddam in the full knowledge that they would be used to murder thousands of civilians).

Originally posted by Jriv71

And as far as the high moral ground issue, helping out the Iraqi people, yes, that is secondary in this whole thing.  I admit that.  We're not just being great humanitarians.  We're doing something to help ourselves first, and the fact that the majority of Iraqis are thrilled that this guy is gone, does make me feel good also.  Even if I wanted to question our motivation, I can't question the result.  

Agreed with all that.

[Sensualist]

Ohhh...I told myself not to get involved in this thread but can't seem to help myself.

Originally posted by Jriv71
Fine.  We *** up.  We should've done thirty years ago what we just did.  But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have done it, just because we erroneously supported him thirty years ago.  

Why even begin to try and second guess this? It's all about something called "crisis management", people.

Do you really feel you erroneously supported him thirty years ago?
So you really mean it would have been ok to let the Ayatola in Iran spread his fanaticism across the Arab world without "checks and balances"?

"Least of all evils" at the time, old boy. Just remember your James Bond.

The policemen of the world are perpetually destined to manage one crisis after another. Just remember that. Solving one problem merely creates another and do not be naive or foolish enough to forget that.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Sensualist

Why even begin to try and second guess this? It's all about something called "crisis management", people.

Yes, and something called "weapons exports".

Originally posted by Sensualist

Do you really feel you erroneously supported him thirty years ago?
So you really mean it would have been ok to let the Ayatola in Iran spread his fanaticism across the Arab world without "checks and balances"?

Sure, states act in their own interests, and follow courses of action that are seen as the best available means of serving those interests. 'Twas ever thus. But don't forget that there was a time when the United States and Britain gave even Hitler the benefit of the doubt, and that period is nowadays looked back on with nothing other than deep shame. So the "it seemed like a good idea at the time" defence is no defence at all, IMO.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Loomis

But don't forget that there was a time when the United States and Britain gave even Hitler the benefit of the doubt, and that period is nowadays looked back on with nothing other than deep shame.

Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Suddam....North, South, East, West. All points on a compass each as stupid and (evil) as the other.

(*ECHO....ECho...echo.....cho...o.....o*)

[Jriv71]

Right, right and right again. Saddam or Ayatolah, the lesser of two evils. The Soviets or the Afghan resistance who became Al Qaeda. Same story. Hitler or Stalin...That's why I said with sarcasm earlier, maybe we knew all along that Saddam'd massacre a million people or so, and that we are that screwed up. We did what we thought was best at the time, and if all the revisionist historians don't like it...well, I agree, it would've been great if things had turned out differently. But I'll stand on what I said earlier; question the motivation if you want to, but the result is Saddam is out, the Iraqi people (except for the lunatics with the car bombs) are happy, and there is hope that their new government as a whole in the future will not support terrorist groups and their training camps any longer, in the way that Saddam's regime and the Taliban did.

And yes, there are others, and NO, I don't know what to do about those...

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Jriv71
And yes, there are others, and NO, I don't know what to do about those...

Send in the OOs of this world to do the dirty work.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Sensualist

North, South, East, West. All points on a compass each as stupid and (evil) as the other.

Indeed.

In 1919, Winston Churchill, then British Secretary of State for War, was asked for permission by the Royal Air Force to use chemical weapons against uprisings by the Kurds in areas of Iraq that had come under British control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. Churchill granted permission, saying: "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Loomis
Churchill granted permission, saying: "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

Savages!

Did Campion Bond fly the sortie?

[MrDraco]

You who ever that was i forget who said it was just as much as america's fault for saddam gasing the Kurds...show me your proof your documents from the Department of Defense or any other American agency that would have this on file....
We didn't supply him with chemical weapons, nor biological, we did though bring his troops over here and train them we also helped his special forces train with CIA units, now durging the gulf war, we pulled out and left the kurds as well as the the other Anti-Saddam tribes in Iraq doesn't mean we gave him the ammuntions to do this....
I want some proof....(waves hands like Rumsfeld) I wanna see these documents or proof...
(hits podium)
"

[Loomis]

Originally posted by MrDraco

You who ever  that was i forget who said it was just as much as america's fault for saddam gasing the Kurds...show me your proof your documents from the Department of Defense or any other American agency that would have this on file....
We didn't supply him with chemical weapons, nor biological....

Well, here's one article, for starters. I'm sure there are very many like it on the internet. I'm not expecting it to impress you, and, no, it doesn't amount to cast iron proof of anything, but remember that professional journalists and websites are putting their reputations on the line over this sort of piece.

From http://www.counterpu...g/blum0820.html

August 20, 2002

Chemical Weapons, the US and Iraq
What the New York Times Left Out
by William Blum

It was page one of the New York Times Sunday (August 18), picked up extensively by the international media, a featured story on America On Line. "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas", shouted the headline. Senior military officers revealed that the Reagan administration had provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance in waging decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The assistance was given at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraq had already employed chemical weapons and would likely continue to do so.

This of course raises obvious questions about the current Bush administration's near-frenzied demonization of Saddam Hussein, particularly for his alleged chemical and biological weapons (CBW) threat. Readers can be forgiven if they think this is a revelation of some sort. It isn't.

The story may add a new detail or two about the precise nature of US tactical assistance to the Iraqis, but the basic story has long been known. Strangely, the Times story leaves out the most significant part -- the furnishing of chemical and biological materials by the United States to Iraq which markedly enhanced Iraq's CBW capability. (There is one isolated line in the Times piece, almost at the very end, hinting at something of the sort: "Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq.")

At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own horn, I must point out that I wrote a story on this very subject in 1998, which was published in several "alternative" magazines, distributed widely on the Internet to this day, and won a Project Censored award in 1999. As far as I know, the American mainstream media has never covered this story, and if the Times article is any guide, the censorship will continue.

Following is the crux of my article as published in 1998:

In his recent State of the Union address, President Clinton, in the context of Iraq, spoke of how we must "confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them." He castigated Saddam Hussein for "developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons" and called for strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention.

Who among his listeners knew, who among the media reported, that the United States had been the supplier to Iraq of much of the source biological materials Saddam's scientists would require to create a biological warfare program?

According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 [1]: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were: Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart. Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic. Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s.

The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." [2] "It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[3]

These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s.

NOTES

[1] "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994.

[2] Ibid., May 25 report, pp. 36-47

[3] Ibid., October 7 report, p. 3

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power. and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir.

[MrDraco]

I stand corrected:
(Waves hands again and acts like Rummy when he's defeated)
"I'd rather not talk about these things at the moment-It simply makes my tummy hurt (waves at media guy)."

Nah good call...(Pats loomis on the shoulder) I want this man for my research team on my next novel

[Jriv71]

I still think the main issue is not the choice of weapons he used, it's the fact that he used them against him own people, and could've used them against us, or supplied them to terrorist groups to do the same. Now he can't. Period.

The nuclear weapons we still possess are far more dispicable than any chemical weapons, but I like to think that we (the only ones in the world so far who've used them) are above what he is capable of. Let's say we don't like the stench coming from New Jersey, I know we wouldn't just level it.

[TGO]

He could have...could being the operative word. He gassed his own people yes, but he couldnt have had the balls to do such a thing to America. Whats a nuclear warhead compared to botulism? Most of the arguments for Saddam's capture have been based on "He could have...". He could have supplied weapons, he could have used WMD against us. Then why in the hell would he wait so long? Saddam should have been deposed long ago while the fire was still hot. This time, I dont think the ends justify the means.

[Jriv71]

After 9/11 the "could-haves" have a bit more weight. If before 9/11 Bush wanted to take out the Taliban because they "could be" supporting terrorists who "might" hijack 4 airplanes, blah blah blah, we all might have thought he was crazy. We'll never know what Saddam was capable of in a post-9/11 world. Thank goodness we never found out. And yes, he was supporting terrorist organizations who themselves had an eye on the U.S., that's the point, more so than what he would do himself.

And just because he "should have" been deposed a long time ago, doesn't make it wrong to take him out now. It's not a matter of how long he waited, the fear is that 9/11 could be a blueprint of how to hit us, for somebody like him. Or at least, to show how vulnerable we are.

Fine. There's no easy answer when someone "may" be a threat, following 9/11. But I'll leave it at this, I'm happy with Saddam out of the picture, even if he's not sentenced to death. I don't want to talk about him anymore. I'm off to browse the Timothy Dalton forum.

[MrDraco]

I agree if Bush had tried to take out any of the targets were hitting now, america would have freaked...called him the american stalin or something....but yeah, everyones taking these little guys seriously anymore in the brave new world

[Prav_007]

Well 9/11 had stuck in most Americans, and Bush has been campaigning against terrorism. Which leaves Americans to say " I agree with him, I don't want another 9/11 to happen here, get rid of the Taliban, get rid of the Iraqi regime", which rallied full support for the administration. I still feel a little edgy about Saddam captured. So far from Bush, we heard "Reconstructing Iraq" and "Free the Iraqi People". This is B.S, while Bush annonouces this on his weekly or annual radio presidential address. This is only for his campaign. To be honest, it kinda pees me off, like Bush's propaganda, getting the dark side out of every American. Its sounds rite what he says, but do Americans REALLY know who and what they are supporting? I KNOW that many forum members will protest and protect Bush on acting on his beliefs and doing the RIGHT thing. All i haf to say, eh?

[Bondian]

Whatever anyone thinks of anyone in any country, or what we think of your president, or what you think of our prime minister etc, no one can even comprehend what happened in New York in 2001, known now as 9/11.

This world we live in was totally shocked with what happened that day. What those innocent people of New York had to go through was totally horrific and being there on that day and seeing what was going on would of been shocking.

We where lucky that day. We where 'sunning' ourselves at the 'Valais Hotel' in Zakynthos Greece when we heard that something terrible had happened. The owner of the apartments increased the volume of the television so that we all could hear it. I said to my Family, "there's something going on". It's only until I ran into the restaurant I actually found out what had happened.

Feeling so attached to America after visiting your marvellous country in 1992, and having the pleasure of seeing this building for real, and knowing how big these buildings are, I almost fell to my knee's seeing a loop of that first plane being directed straight into the first WTC. I was stunned, I wanted to be sick, I was in disbelief with what I was viewing. Then later that other plane surged into the building, and by this time the restaurant was packed with panic stricken people.

All George ( the owner's Son ) could say to us is "I'm sorry Guy's". Everyone was too stunned to really talk when we headed off to get our suitcases for our journey home.

Reason for my post is to say this awful thing has happened and we're all darn lucky that we were not involved ( although some of you may know someone who was ). Also it makes me feel that we should be more humble to our fellow man or women.


All the best,

Cheers,


Ian

[Prav_007]

I agree with your post Bondian, if it weren't for 9/11, I probably wouldn't have given my say of the way the world has turned. It has been an interest of mine, but to see many people like us in North America to go through a tragedy like 9/11 is terrible and horrific, and lest us not forget parallel to 9/11, many events that happened around the world, and how much neglection their is to the other side of the world.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by prav_007
....but to see many people like us in North America to go through a tragedy like 9/11 is terrible and horrific,....

And not just in America too, and it's still affecting people directly even to this day.

Only last weekend I found out that an old school mate of mine was killed in the colapses. He was on holiday and it appears that he arranged to call into the NY office of the insurance company he worked for that day to call his parents who stayed up late for the call.

The tragedy happened not long after he hung up.

[Jriv71]

I work in a government building 2 blocks away, and my building shook, like a 'what-the-Hell-was-that' kind of thing when the first plane hit. We went outside and saw paper, debris, (we joked that it was the next Yankees ticker tape parade already) but didn't realize it was the towers until we went back inside and turned on a TV. Then when the second plane hit, the vibration almost literally dropped me to my knees. I thought we were hit and that we were going down. It was then that we realized that it was not an accident (though I was in denial) and we saw that it was the other tower.

Then I took to the streets, and between the people walking around like zombies, people running from the direction of the towers, people running towards them because of loved ones inside, other things that I wish I could unsee, and the heat that I could literally feel on my face, I really didn't know if I'd ever see my wife and kids again.

Ah, but you've all heard this kind of stuff before.

But, perhaps I'm the wrong one to suggest that we should do whatever we can to stop another 9/11 from happening.....sorry.

[Brandon Steves]

All I have to say on the matter is Saddam is a coward. He said he would go down with a fight butn in the end he didn't even fire a shot. All he did was say "I'm still the president of Iraq."

[Xenobia]

Bondian I appreciate what you are saying, and BC, I am really sorry for you loss. What a horrible thing to find out at this point.

I was blessed that no one I loved was hurt or killed in the attack, although a friend of my father's was killed and one acquaintance of mine was out of her apartment for three months in the aftermath.

I think 9/11 changed a lot of people's thinking about a lot of things. Now the question is...what do we do with those changes?

-- Xenobia

[MrDraco]

I just wonder what will get out of him... i mean now there saying that Bin Laden's next and all the ****s going to hit the fan yatyayta and this and that but are we really able to do that?
Its weird, its like they know where he is they just like to tease him or something like Saddam..My adivse to the troops in afganistan is to start checking more holes..Nah..I know there going to get a cache of inteligence out of this capture but will it be al'quada related, surely bin laden wouldn't be fullish enough to give his location or locations to Saddam...from what i hear they only used each other and weren't much for each other..only business my friends only business.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Xenobia
I think 9/11 changed a lot of people's thinking about a lot of things.  Now the question is...what do we do with those changes?

-- Xenobia

What you do is use commandos to engage in covert/clandestine assassinations of everyone in ANY proven terrorist training camp ANYWHERE in the world. Put the fear of God into them. Hit them in the mouth, put them on their back heels and into positions where they simply cannot respond.

It's likely already occuring. It need not be reported to the media or the the general population.

AND you continue to carry out these assassinations over and over again and ONLY vis-a-vis known terrorist training facilities.

(The problem occurs when women and children are used as shields in these camps, and when innocent life gets blown to oblivion then God will not look too kindly upon that sort of activity.)

[MrDraco]

Think you've read Tom Clancy's Teeth of the tiger to many times LOL j/k
Yeah leave a calling card say hit a leader kill him with something that makes it look like a car crash, and the second in charge always has a heart attack, hell why go to all that trouble...just pop'em off and leave a US flag pin..or scare the **** out of them and just start taking everyone of them out one at a time with out giving credit to anyone...

your absalutely right, we need to start getting serious about this stuff...well we already are but taking it to the next level...
(Hums Rainbow Six theme)

[CommanderBond]

HOW DID I MISS THIS THREAD?!?!?! I hope he gets the death penalty!!