I've been trying to stay impartial here and just read along, taking in the various facts. I asked for a link to another of juan's 'claims', with no response, I was just debating asking for a link to some proof of that very statement.
Bear, This will come as a shock to you, but I don't do your research. You are as capable as most here to find information on the web. You might even like it.
30 December 2006 - a day of infamyQuote has been trimmed, See full post:
Gabriele Zamparini, The cat's dream30 December 2006 will be remembered as a day of infamy. In violation of international law and human decency, the quisling government of occupied Iraq, a puppet, sectarian regime installed by the American occupation and supported by Iran, assassinated the legitimate President of the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Itís been reported that after his execution the assassins shouted: "Long live Muqtada, Long live Muqtada" [Moqtada Al-Sadr] Itís also been reported that Saddam Hussein was tortured before his execution and his body was mutilated afterwards. Another source tells us: "The video shows no blood on Saddamís face and body, TV aired video of the body showed blood, cuts and bruises on the face." (...) After the initial silence on the real scale of the horror in Iraq, when the Iraq Body Count figures were used even by the antiwar movement in spite the apocalypse was already known and after the ongoing silence on the responsibility of the sectarian militias in mass murdering and ethnic cleansing, this other silence on the lynching of Saddam Hussein raises once again fundamental questions on the role of the Western left and the anti-war movement and...
Are you going to tell us that the hand picked puppets that the U.S. has installed in Bagdad are free to do as they like? The orders for the lynching of Hussein came directly from Washington and you know it.
How silly of me.
I guess we can post whatever nonsense we can dream up and provide no real proof or evidence to back it up. But I wouldn't think of doing that. I'll leave that to the weak kneed liberal revisionists and Arab nazi party supporters like yourself.
Hey juan, you missed the opportunity to enlighten someone. I was following along looking to be informed by the varying positions, as I have doen in other threads. Once again my attempt to hold you in a light of respect has been shot out by your own BB gun. Good shot.
That is your personal opinion and nothing more. I would like to add that it is quite arrogant of you to presume the Iraqi's are incapable and or unable to govern themselves. I have seen your posts and you have always supported the United Nations, yet when the United Nations FULLY endorses the Iraqi elections (not to mention the EU and Canada), you don't buy it. May I ask why this double standard?
What is it that the UN, the EU, Canada and a myriad of other countries don't know about the Iraqi elections and you do? Here's the answer; you know nothing. You are expressing your opinion and are incapable of backing up your drivel with any facts.
If the Iraqi government are indeed puppets of the US, those countries who endorsed the elections (including Canada) should bow their heads in shame.
If you think a post is nonsense, or even questionable, you have two choices. One, is to ignore it. Two, is to bring your own proof to refute whatever statement you dissagree with. This is your enlightenment for today. Don't hurt yourself....
So in other words, what you wrote was shyte and baseless nonsence?
I'ld accept that coming from the likes of you.
Well I celebrate your last raving because you have a new subject to gnaw on....other than the old ones you have been using for years....the U.S. late entry into the World Wars, the detonation of the two Atomic Bombs on Japan, the VietNam tragedy, their "foreign policy" which remains unnamed because Clinton was running the show (or pretending to)....the trade imbalance with Canada (softwood/bovine), unpaid bills for energy from Canada, and on and on and on....until the lastest daily death count you report with barely disguised superiority.
What a great patriot you are Juan - a true Canadian.
The very kind of personae you damn the people of the U.S. for.... patriotism.
I have the benefit of up close and personal comparison of the two nations and unfortunately for you they are not so different at all ... which must scare the hell out of you. As you say....
Just a quick question juan...
What is your take on the blatant violation of International law, when Saddam fired SCUD rockets into Israel(a non combatant in that little escapade), during the Persian Gulf War part I?
These countries were the coalition in the first Gulf War. As you can see, that coalition contained a number of Arab states. In a desparate move, Saddam fired SCUDs into Israel hoping to draw Israel into the conflict. Had it worked, the coalition could have lost some or all of the Arab support. In hindsight, we know it didn't work. There is not much left to say about it.Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
I don't hate Americans, or damn them for their patriotiism. If I damn Americans for anything, it would be for their arrogance in thinking they can impose their particular form of democracy on a country where they have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of it's people, and destroyed almost all of the infrastructure. The civil war that has ensued was predicted by many but those predictions were ignored. Tell me you think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.
the Iraq people can look after themselves for all I care. They aren't worth one good U.S. life
What else? Why else would you shoot at a non-combatant while engaged in a war with eight other countries. Saddam should have sued Russia or China for selling him junk like the SCUDs that were only capable of hitting the ground..............somewhere.
Do all Americans think like that? I would have though there would be some compassion for the million odd Iraqis the U.S. have killed, with bombs, bullets, or sanctions.
So, ITN thinks the illegal invasion of Iraq and the killing of over a million Iraqis by bombing or brutal sanctions was completely okay, and that the lynching of saddam Hussein by the puppet government that the U.S. military has installed, was fine too. These latest puppets were installed much like the U.S. helped to install Saddam Hussein years earlier. No matter how many gingoes they invent, like, "Operation Iraq Freedom", it was still an illegal invasion and a lynching. Funny how the world never heard Saddam Hussein's story about his dealings with the U.S, but that would have been an embarrassment, wouldn't it?
The tendency to treat Saddam and Iraq in a historical vacuum, and in isolation from the superpowers, however, has hidden from Americans their own culpability in the horror show that has been Iraq for the past few decades. Initially, the US used the Baath Party as a nationalist foil to the Communists. Then Washington used it against Iran. The welfare of Iraqis themselves appears to have been on no one's mind, either in Washington or in Baghdad.If one visits the title link, or the Juan Cole link, one will find more backtrack links and information to each item listed below:
The British-installed monarchy was overthrown by an officer's coup in 1958, led by Abdul Karim Qasim. The US was extremely upset, and worried that the new regime would not be a reliable oil exporter and that it might leave the Baghdad Pact of 1955, which the US had put together against the Soviet Union (grouping Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Britain and the US). (Qasim did leave the pact in 1959, which according to a US official of that time, deeply alarmed Washington.) Iraq in the 1940s and 1950s had become an extremely unequal society, with a few thousand (mostly Sunni Arab) families owning half of the good land. On their vast haciendas, poor rural Shiites worked for a pittance. In the 1950s, two new mass parties grew like wildfire, the Communist Party of Iraq and the Arab Baath Socialist Party (external - login to view). They attracted first-generation intellectuals, graduates of the rapidly expanding school system, as well as workers and peasants. The crushing inequalities of Iraq under the monarchy produced widespread anger.
1} The first time the US enabled Saddam Hussein came in 1959. In that year, a young Saddam, from the boondock town of Tikrit but living with an uncle in Baghdad, tried to assassinate Qasim. He failed and was wounded in the leg. Saddam had, like many in his generation, joined the Baath Party, which combined socialism, Arab nationalism, and the aspiration for a one-party state.
2} After the failed coup attempt, Saddam fled to Cairo, where he attended law school in between bar brawls, and where it is alleged that he retained his CIA connections there (external - login to view), being put on a stipend by the agency via the Egyptian government. He frequently visited US operatives at the Indiana Cafe. Getting him back on his feet in Cairo was the second episode of US aid to Saddam.
3} In February of 1963 the military wing of the Baath Party, which had infiltrated the officer corps and military academy, made a coup against Qasim, whom they killed. There is evidence from Middle Eastern sources, including interviews conducted at the time by historian Hanna Batatu, that the CIA cooperated in this coup and gave the Baathists lists of Iraqi Communists (who were covert, having infiltrated the government or firms). Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer of the 1960s, alleged that the US played a significant role in this Baath coup and that it was mostly funded "with American money.". Morris's allegation was confirmed to me by an eyewitness with intimate knowledge of the situation, who said that that the CIA station chief in Baghdad gave support to the Baathists in their coup. One other interviewee, who served as a CIA operative in Baghdad in 1964, denied to me the agency's involvement. But he was at the time junior and he was not an eyewitness to the events of 1963, and may not have been told the straight scoop by his colleagues. Note that some high Baathists appear to have been unaware of the CIA involvement, as well. In the murky world of tradecraft, a lot of people, even on the same team, keep each other in the dark. UPI quotes another, or perhaps the same, official, saying that the coup came as a surprise to Langley. In my view, unlikely.
4} In 1968, the civilian wing of the Baath Party came to power in a second coup.
5} The second Baath regime in Iraq disappointed the Nixon and Ford administrations by reaching out to the tiny remnants of the Communist Party and by developing good relations with the Soviet Union. In response, Nixon supported the Shah's Iran in its attempts to use the Iraqi Kurds to stir up trouble for the Baath Party, of which Saddam Hussein was a behind the scenes leader. As supporting the Kurdish struggle became increasingly expensive, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlevi of Iran decided to abandon the Kurds. He made a deal with the Iraqis at Algiers in 1975, and Saddam immediately ordered an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan. The US acquiesced in this betrayal of the Kurds, and made no effort to help them monetarily. Kissinger maintained that the whole operation had been the shah's, and the shah suddenly terminated it, leaving the US with no alternative but to acquiesce. But that is not entirely plausible. The operation was supported by the CIA, and the US didn't have to act only through an Iranian surrogate. Kissinger no doubt feared he couldn't get Congress to fund help to the Kurds during the beginnings of the Vietnam syndrome. In any case, the 1975 US about-face helped Saddam consolidate control over northern Iraq.
6} When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, he again caught the notice of US officials. The US was engaged in an attempt to contain Khomeinism and the new Islamic Republic. Especially after the US faced attacks from radicalized Shiites in Lebanon linked to Iran, and from the Iraqi Da`wa Party, which engaged in terrorism against the US and French embassies in Kuwait, the Reagan administration determined to deal with Saddam from late 1983, giving him important diplomatic encouragement. Historians are deeply indebted to Joyce Battle's Briefing Book at the National Security Archives, GWU, which presents key documents she sprung through FOIA requests, and which she analyzed for the first time.
7} The US gave practical help to Saddam (external - login to view) during the Iran-Iraq War:
8} The Reagan administration worked behind the scenes to foil Iran's motion of censure against Iraq for using chemical weapons.
9} The Reagan administration not only gave significant aid to Saddam, it attempted to recruit other friends (external - login to view) for him.
10} After the Gulf War of 1991, when Shiites and Kurds rose up against Saddam Hussein, the Bush senior administration sat back and allowed the Baathists to fly helicopter gunships (external - login to view) and to massively repress the uprising. President GHW Bush had called on Iraqis to rise up against their dictator, but when they did so he left them in the lurch. This inaction, deriving from a fear that a Shiite-dominated Iraq would ally with Tehran, allowed Saddam to remain in power until 2003.