Day of Infamy

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
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.

See Juan - that's where you start up with the phony "caring" chat about how mean the people in the U.S. are.... you are so obvious. Not all Iraqi people have been killed by U.S. missiles....you are beginning to disintegrate.

I guess we should have let Kofi and his fellas continue starving the people there? In your little corner of the world that would have been the best thing.

Do I know what all "Americans" think - of course not - I only know what I think. I think I can do nothing - the same as you choose to do nothing - and the young in my family have done enough.

I see you are also on Israel's case today - you are on a roll.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
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?

What another misconception. Can you name the US operation that put Saddam into power? I'd like to hear it. Well let me save you the trouble... there isn't or wasn't one.

Saddam was a thug from his early youth on. Because of his thuggery and heavy handedness in the Baath Party he climbed the ranks. He was eventually appointed by the Iraqi Ruler in charge of Iraq's Secret Police. Once he was there he told the leader that it was time for him to retire and Saddam took charge of the country. Shortly after seizing power he called a general session of Iraq's governing body and once the meeting started he said this.

"There are traitors among us."

He began reading names and his Secret Police led them out to be executed. But he did not read them all at once. It took hours. Every man had to sit and pray that they were not on the list. He would read a few names and then some other words would be said. Most went quietly but one man whose name was called protested

"Saddam... I've known you all my life. Since we were kids... how did I betray you? I have been loyal to you all my life... how am I a traitor?"

"Get him out!" Saddam said "OUT!"

The point was if that guy was a traitor EVERYONE could be one. When Saddam cried (he faked it) they all cried with him. By the end the men left were all shouting

"SADDAM! SADDAM!"

His power was secured. He was in charge. The CIA couldn't even orchrestrate something like that. It was all him baby.

AND it is even on video... the whole thing and I have watched it a number of times.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
It was filmed and has been on every documentary, although not in it's entierty, about his life and rise to power.

I did see the whole thing once. Chilling.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
That too.

I tried finding a clip on line with at least part of it so I could put it here for you. It is in black and white but the quality is pretty good and it had subtitles. Let me hunt around more and see if I can find it.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Top Ten Ways the US Enabled Saddam Hussein

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.
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. 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.
If one visits the title link, or the Juan Cole link, one will find more backtrack links and information to each item listed below:

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, 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 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 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 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.​
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I will not argue over the US involvement with Saddam, I believe it to be true, although, most of what you posted is conjecture and allegations, with some facts mixed in for entertainment value, I guess.

But even if we take it at face value, it all seems pretty stragically benefitial to me.

Just as strategic as invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power and gaining control of Iraqs oil.

All strategic moves, by your measure.

It seems that if we observe events from your perspective, violating international law is acceptable, when it is of strategic importance.

Any Comments?
 
Last edited:

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Juan

Stop making this stuff up!

Curiosity Eaglefart and ITN will have you in front of one of Bush's military tribunals as a terrorist...."Ifn ur not with us ure agin us..." remember...
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Bear

When Israel and the United States break international law...that's OK?

Do you really think the U.S. who used chemical warfare in VietNam, who use depleted uranium in their ordinance and who failed to sign on to the ICJ really give a shyte about "international law"...

Shake ur head dude your eyes are stuck...:)
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Bear

When Israel and the United States break international law...that's OK?

Do you really think the U.S. who used chemical warfare in VietNam, who use depleted uranium in their ordinance and who failed to sign on to the ICJ really give a shyte about "international law"...

Shake ur head dude your eyes are stuck...:)
To some extent I do feel that circumventing international law is acceptable. I do not however condone the blatant acts as perpatrated by the US nor Israel. Yet I still stand behind Israel, as I see most of their acts as pre-emptive self defence. Where as the US is acting out of corporate greed in most cases.

The invasion of Iraq, in my eyes, was just as illegal as Saddams launching of scuds into Israel. Only because I believe it had little to do with a regime change, but more over a lot to do with a change in corporate agenda in Iraq. If they had just gone in, made a big mess, but had not changed Iraqs laws to open it up to foreign exploitation and only removed Saddam. I might be more inclined to accept their propoganda. But seeing as they waltzed in, created a new set of rules and laws that allowed US exploitation, well you get the picture.

I'm a challenger Mikey, not all laws are created in the right mind set, nor do they all serve the greater good, so from time to time, they must be bent, but for a just cause. In the case of Iraq, I do not feel they meet the burden of proof.

I could quote Cretien her, but I'm not in the mood for a laugh that big, lol.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
And launcing a cruise missile strike against the only amoxicillin producing plant in the Sudan was perfetly OK with you?

When we tally the numbers of people killed by the United States and its use of military attacks against anyone it pleases, the sick injured and dying of curable diseases left without a common treatment by the United States never gets factored into that summary...

Why do you supose that might be?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
And launcing a cruise missile strike against the only amoxicillin producing plant in the Sudan was perfetly OK with you?

When we tally the numbers of people killed by the United States and its use of military attacks against anyone it pleases, the sick injured and dying of curable diseases left without a common treatment by the United States never gets factored into that summary...

Why do you supose that might be?
Perhaps a combonation of a feeling of helplessness and frustration, in the western populus. Or the misconceptions foisted on westerners by bias media outlets.

I am not some Fox news watcher Mikey, I get a very balanced news input, from various sources and view points. I base my opinions on how I weigh and measure the value of the source. But I do try to give them all a chance.

The event you mention, was tragic. But what exactly were the underlying causes, that drew such an act to fruition?

Is every act, that is seemingly barbaric, a calculated attack on the down trodden?

Or rather knee jerk reactions to events and actions, seen as actions against the interests of the empire. Which I must state, do not always entail corporate greed. Unless I missed some economic benefit in Somolia, that would somehow fatten the pockets of the Oil elitists.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
When you hand the lunatic the freedom to launch missiles against anyone he pleases...the world has stood by while the U.S. has behaved in ways that many other nations have been censured for...you don't get justice Bear you get what the investors want...
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
When you hand the lunatic the freedom to launch missiles against anyone he pleases...the world has stood by while the U.S. has behaved in ways that many other nations have been censured for...you don't get justice Bear you get what the investors want...
And I couldn't agree with you more.

But I do feel that the non military and military intervention that the US embraces the world over, via security forces, fincial aid and such, does merit some aplause.

It is always over shadowed by the continuous criminal corporate actions of the perperators of the modern version of the American Manifest Destiny.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Perhaps a combonation of a feeling of helplessness and frustration, in the western populus. Or the misconceptions foisted on westerners by bias media outlets.

I am not some Fox news watcher Mikey, I get a very balanced news input, from various sources and view points. I base my opinions on how I weigh and measure the value of the source. But I do try to give them all a chance.

The event you mention, was tragic. But what exactly were the underlying causes, that drew such an act to fruition?

Is every act, that is seemingly barbaric, a calculated attack on the down trodden?

Or rather knee jerk reactions to events and actions, seen as actions against the interests of the empire. Which I must state, do not always entail corporate greed. Unless I missed some economic benefit in Somolia, that would somehow fatten the pockets of the Oil elitists.
Somolia has oil.
 

RomSpaceKnight

Council Member
Oct 30, 2006
1,384
23
38
63
London, Ont. Canada
I think the reason the yanks went in to Iraq was because Afghanistan is to far away from the action. The 9-11 terrorists were Saudi and Yemenis I think. Not Iranian or Pakistani. With Iraq a total ****hole any dirt poor wannabe terrorist can make it to Iraq. Where he will be fed in to the killing machine set up by the US. US soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying, yes. But the kill ration between US troops and Insurgents is 100-1. All of Al-Qeadas resources are being funneled in to Iraq not in to the west to attack US targets. So a few Iraqis civilians die as long as American civilians are not dying who cares, just a bunch of bleeding hearts and some foreigners. Oil is perk not a reason for going in to Iraq. Sadam hated the fundamentalists. Syria's goverment killed 20,000 Islamic brotherhood members. Egypt has banned them as political party. The Saudis have their own version of Islam to promote. Iran is Shiite and at odds with most of the Islamic world. Osama did not get support from Iran. Only the goverment of a backward arsed country like todays Afghanistan would support him. Mind you he did do good deeds in helping them get rid of the Soviets. Afghanmistan broke the Soviets image of invulnerbility and cost them huge in terms of popular support. Maybe we should thank Osama for helping cause the collapse of the USSR.