Can somebody remind me why we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein? I seem to have forgotten.
"He tried to kill ma daddy" ~ George W. Bush
Because he sold oil for something other than petrodollars.
Oh, I'm sorry? Was it the real reason you wanted? Or the excuse? Mythical yellowcake uranium, which existed only in the minds of the yellowcake mythical 'journalists' over at Fox, if I recall...
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
You were involved in that mess?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
The CIA no longer needed his services.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
I came to this thread to post that.
Unfortunately it's probably true. I've always thought it had something to do with HW not getting Saddam in the first gulf war when Colin Powell didn't want to go all the way to Baghdad. W wanted to do it for his dad or something.
I never believed any of that WMD nonsense or connection to 9/11 terrorists. Iraq was the biggest mistake W ever made.
Start at the 14:00 mark and listen carefully to former CIA-DIA asset Susan Lindauer:
The American Dream, Wake Up People, This is our country! <===click
"All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man, let the annual return of this day(July 4th), forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
Thomas Jefferson June 1826
Rock The World!
USAF Veteran
The U.S. government is just doing their best to maintain stability in the region and all of this war, all of the death and destruction, all of the constant turmoil is how we have achieved the stability that we all crave! We had to get rid of Saddam so we could transform Iraq into the model of a stable democracy in the arab world. Don't you get it?
Citizen of Arizona
@cleaner4d4
I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.
Well, that's certainly succinct, to the point ..............and accurate.
Is it? And if he had not been trying to go off the petrodollar yet again, would it have even happened? Or would he still be knocking Shiite and Kurdish heads together to this day?Well, that's certainly succinct, to the point ..............and accurate.
We removed him so the MIC will continually make money for the next 100 years "cleaning" up the mess we made. It's convenient how each attempt to clean up 1 mess leads bigger messes.
Rid Iraq of ISIS (the new "Imminent Threat") and our problems will be solved. When have we heard that before?
The CIA keep setting up tin-pot dictators to use them and dispose of them when they do not cooperate. Aren't these bad guys wise to this yet?
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
Hey, I'm still just trying to figure out how so much of our oil got under his sand.
Well, Saddam did finally cooperate, his government in 2000-01 promised to give the US Fascist state all kinds of deals... oil contracts, construction, auto purchases, FBI free reign to track down and rendition of suspects/terrorists, etc... PNAC/AIPAC/Military Industry Complex set this disaster up. It will always be like squeezing a balloon, there will always be threats for the profiteers and blood thirsty conquerors.
Even when their puppet dictators/brutal totalitarians cooperate, and are maintained empowered by the CIA/DIA/US/Mi6... they are usually assassinated after the mission is accomplished to "tie up loose ends"(seal illegal activities). Always remember...
--Dead men tell no tales
The American Dream, Wake Up People, This is our country! <===click
"All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man, let the annual return of this day(July 4th), forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
Thomas Jefferson June 1826
Rock The World!
USAF Veteran
This is an interesting question. Hussein was an oppressor, no doubt, but he was oppressing a people whose main goal is to oppress the world. Deposing him has led directly to the expansion of the Islamist empire.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
Exactly. That was the point of my sarcastic post. I like when they always use the word "unique" to describe the threat. If it's unique why are there so many?
Saddam was critical of Israel, he fired missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War, and in the years prior to 9/11, he paid large sums of money to the family of any Palestinian suicide bomber.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
cause terrorist gotts to terrorize
Neoconservatism cannot exist without an enemy. 'Victory' in Afghanistan was too nebulous, we needed something more concrete.
Yup pretty much you nailed it. And oil,,stargates of Iraq according to some.
I forget now who said it, but on 9/11 that was reportedly one of the first things GW was asking his National Security advisors- "Was it Saddam? Could we tie this to Saddam?"
The issue with Saddam had been slowly building during the Clinton years since Desert Storm. Every 6 months or so, he would kick out the UN weapons inspectors because they wanted to go to areas where he wouldn't let them. Then after some threats/sanctions back and forth, he would let them back in. I suspect there were other things going on, regarding the weapons inspections. The whole time, the weapons inspectors were not finding anything, so after the last time he put them out, instead of threatening with sanctions, Colin Powell went to the UN and started pitching them on WMDs.
Last edited by CPUd; 08-31-2014 at 08:34 PM.
http://www.ihr.org/news/040716_hollings.shtmlINSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
'Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel,' Says Senator Hollings
By Mark Weber
July 16, 2004
When a prominent American political figure speaks boldly about Jewish-Zionist power, that's news. So the remarks by South Carolina's senior Senator in May 2004 that...
"Iraq was invaded to secure Israel;
everybody in Washington knows it"
are indeed remarkable. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, a Democrat who has represented his state in the US Senate since 1966, is now serving his final term in Washington. That fact may also help explain why he's now willing to defy the pro-Israel lobby and speak candidly about its power.
Last edited by presence; 08-31-2014 at 08:43 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Sadam invaded Kuwait. G Bush Sr. sent over forces to drive him out which they did. HW Bush said "OK- I think he learned his lesson not to mess with the US- we are going home". It was a quick war and basically free for us cost-wise- the "coalition" members paid for all the costs. But some thought we quit too soon- should have gone all the way to Baghdad. GHW didn't think so. Reportedly, there was an assassination attempt on GHW while he was in Kuwait.
GW Junior gets elected. 9/11 hits. We gotta get them terrorists. Either you are for us or you are for the terrorists. Let's get Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. We won't stop until we get him. But that went nowhere. Speculation OBL is hiding in caves near Torra Borra. Economy struggling. Afghanistan going nowhere. We need another distraction. What about Saddam? The last war was quick and easy and cheap plus he wasn't nice to Daddy. Go to Baghdad in a few days, declare victory and the country will be joyous and the economy will be saved because folks will be happy and want to spend money again.
So they trumped up some charges about Weapons of Mass Destruction and sent thousands of soldiers to get ready. Problem is it wasn't quick and easy and even once they did take Baghdad they made a bunch of more serious mistakes (like firing all of the police and military so there was no security and lots of unemployed, angry people with guns). It got ugly and ran for years costing not pennies but billions.
So we got rid of Saddam. Then the Taliban got stronger because Saddam was not keeping things in the region under control (which Bush SR recognized and was one of the reasons he did NOT want to get rid of Saddam). So we tried to get rid of the Taliban. Killed thousands including knocking off "moderate" leaders of the Taliban who might have been willing to talk. It was dangerous to say you were part of their leadership. That has since led to an even more extreme element now called ISIS. Each level you knock off leads to a more extreme element to replace them. So what will come after ISIS? Is this the final layer or is there another even worse bunch behind that one?
Obviously much more to it than that but this is not the History of the 21st Century textbook but the Cliff's Notes so maybe you can get that C- in history and pass the class and move on to more important things.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-31-2014 at 10:03 PM.
Could you repeat that in English?
Ugh. Thats quite incorrect.So we got rid of Saddam. Then the Taliban got stronger because Saddam was not keeping things in the region under control (which Bush SR recognized and was one of the reasons he did NOT want to get rid of Saddam). So we tried to get rid of the Taliban. Killed thousands including knocking off "moderate" leaders of the Taliban who might have been willing to talk. It was dangerous to say you were part of their leadership. That has since led to an even more extreme element now called ISIS. Each level you knock off leads to a more extreme element to replace them. So what will come after ISIS? Is this the final layer or is there another even worse bunch behind that one?
What is your version?
With the Bush Administration's express permission, as was announced at the time (I distinctly remember) and then hushed up. The cable where it was done has since been released, and a copy of it is on this very site somewhere.
So, didn't read the rest of that novella. I didn't decide not to read it because it was too long, although it was. It's just that when it starts out all Paul Harvey I'm Not Going To Tell You The Rest Of The Story, I tend to get discouraged. I tend to assume, when it starts out with the false narrative, that the whole thing is an attempt to hoodwink me.
And even without reading anything but the first sentence, I'm willing to bet money on it, too.
Last edited by acptulsa; 09-01-2014 at 07:02 AM.
I think "expressed permission" is a bit more overt than the actual course of events; but certainly a discussion point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942) is a former American diplomat and senior member of the Foreign Service, best known for her role in the events leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
Contents
Early life and career
Glaspie was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, and graduated from Mills College in Oakland, California, in 1963, and from Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in 1965.
In 1966 Glaspie entered the United States foreign service, where she became an expert on the Middle East. After postings in Kuwait, Syria, and Egypt, Glaspie was appointed ambassador to Iraq in 1989. She was the first woman to be appointed an American ambassador to an Arab country. She had a reputation as a respected Arabist, and her instructions were to broaden cultural and commercial contacts with the Iraqi regime.
Subsequently, Glaspie was posted to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York. She was later posted to South Africa as Consul general in Cape Town. She held this post until her retirement in 2002.
United States Ambassador to Iraq
Meetings with Saddam Hussein
See also: Saddam Hussein - United States relations
April Glaspie's first meeting with Saddam Hussein, accompanied by Hussein's translator, Sadoun al-Zubaydi
Glaspie's appointment as U.S. ambassador to Iraq followed a period from 1980 to 1988 during which the United States had given covert support to Iraq during its war with Iran.
Glaspie had her first meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, on July 25, 1990. In her telegram from July 25, 1990, to the Department of State, Glaspie summarized the meeting as follows:
Saddam told the ambassador July 25 that Mubarak has arranged for Kuwaiti and Iraqi delegations to meet in Riyadh, and then on July 28, 29 or 30, the Kuwaiti crown prince will come to Baghdad for serious negotiations. "Nothing serious will happen" before then, Saddam had promised Mubarak.[1] At least two transcripts of the meeting have been published. The State Department has not confirmed the accuracy of these transcripts, but Glaspie's cable has been released at the Bush Library and placed online by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.
One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:
Later the transcript has Glaspie saying:
“ We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders? ”
Another version of the transcript (the one published in The New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying:
“ We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. ”
When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.[2][3] Journalist Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990:
“ But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 1960s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. ”
In September 1990, a pair of British journalists confronted Glaspie with the transcript of her meeting with Saddam Hussein, to which she replied that "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."[4]
“ It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law. ”
In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid." In July 1991 State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said at a press briefing:[5]
The cables that Glaspie sent from Iraq about her meeting with Saddam are no longer classified.[4] Glaspie's cable on her meeting with Saddam reports that President George H.W. Bush "had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq." Saddam, in turn, offered "warm greetings" to Bush and was "surely sincere" about not wanting war, the cable said.[6]
“ We have faith in Ambassador Glaspie's reporting. She sent us cables on her meetings based on notes that were made after the meeting. She also provided five hours or more of testimony in front of the Committee about the series of meetings that she had, including this meeting with Saddam Hussein. ”
Glaspie herself for years remained silent on the subject of her actions in Iraq. But in March 2008 she gave an interview to the Lebanese newspaper Dar Al-Hayat.[7] In the interview, she said she has no regrets. "It is over," Glaspie said. "Nobody wants to take the blame. I am quite happy to take the blame. Perhaps I was not able to make Saddam Hussein believe that we would do what we said we would do, but in all honesty, I don't think anybody in the world could have persuaded him."
In the interview, Glaspie recalled that her meeting with Saddam was interrupted when the Iraqi president received a phone call from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Saddam told her he had assured Mubarak that he would try to settle the dispute, she said. Her cable backs up this version of events; the Iraqi transcript, prepared by Saddam's official English language translator, Sadoun al-Zubaydi, records Saddam saying that Mubarak called before he met with Glaspie.
Retrospective views
In 2002, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs published a new account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting by Andrew Kilgore, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. Kilgore summarized the meeting as follows:[8]
The points referenced in the second and third paragraphs do not appear in the purported transcripts of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting that were released by Iraq, and on which most of the subsequent criticism of Glaspie is based. If there is a full transcript of the meeting in existence, or if the State Department declassifies Glaspie's cables about the meeting, a different assessment might be reached on her performance.
“ At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts, such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means. Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.
In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)”
James Akins, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, offered a somewhat different perspective in a 2000 interview on PBS:[9]
Joseph C. Wilson, Glaspie's Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."
“ [Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you always say. You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. ”
Wilson's and Akins' views on this question are in line with those of former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention. Similarly, in a 2000 Frontline interview, Aziz declared, "There were no mixed signals", and further elaborated:
Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, writing in the New York Times on February 21, 2003, disagreed with the views (previously cited) of observers like Edward Mortimer:
“ ...it was a routine meeting. ... She didn't say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government. She did not ask for an audience with the president [Saddam]. She was summoned by the president. ... She was not prepared.... People in Washington were asleep, so she needed a half-hour to contact anybody in Washington and seek instructions. So, what she said were routine, classical comments on what the president was asking her to convey to President Bush.[10] ”
Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write in the January/February 2003 edition of Foreign Policy that Saddam approached the U.S. to find out how it would react to an invasion into Kuwait. Along with Glaspie's comment that
“ In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest. ”
"'[W]e have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.'
The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had
'no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.'
The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."[11]
Last edited by presence; 09-01-2014 at 07:49 AM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
Ding! Ding! Thread winner!
So now we've got to topple both Russia AND China?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us