The Truth Behind Saddam

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Peace, Jul 2, 2009.

  1. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #1
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...AR2009070104217.html?wprss=rss_print/asection

    Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

    Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region."

    ----------

    Discuss.
     
  2. iGuardian macrumors 6502a

    iGuardian

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    #2
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Is this new? We've always known this war was not fought because Hussein was threat. It was purely strategic and to secure the oil supply. We don't fight wars to bring "freedom" to anyone. We fight wars for economic reasons. Follow the money. In the case of this war, the money trail is really easy to follow.
     
  4. Peace thread starter macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #4
    Yes Lee. This info about Saddam perhaps discussing about protection with the USA came out yesterday.

    This new info really ticks me off. The United States had an opportunity to go into Iraq with the blessing of Saddam yet they decided to go in with guns blazing. something is very wrong with this picture.

    And it's not good for Bush/Cheney.

    This country wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and killed tens of thousands of people when all it had to do was offer protection for Saddam and none of this crap would have happened.

    Instead what the US did was publicly humiliate him then hang him.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Before the first Gulf war, Hussein had also requested that the UN look into side drilling in Kuwait. This isn't the first time he's asked for help. I'm not surprised by this at all.
     
  6. bbotte macrumors 65816

    bbotte

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    Um, he still killed thousands of his own people and his Son's raped and killed many women. I still remember the images of many Iraqi men beating his statue with their shoes. He was no saint.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    No one said he was.
     
  8. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #8
    Umm... I don't think the US hanged him
    Now, you can argue by extension that they did if you like...

    Minor details ;)

    Woof, Woof - Dawg [​IMG]
     
  9. Peace thread starter macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #9
    I wasn't implying he was a saint. However what this country did there was MUCH worse than what he did.
     
  10. Unspoken Demise macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    >9,000
    #10
    Nothing gets people to believe in their governement's "motives" like a good 'ol public execution.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    There are also many countries in the world where this kind of thing goes on. We haven't invaded them. I wonder why?
     
  12. Peace thread starter macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12
    They don't have oil and pipelines going to friendly ports.

    Saudia Arabia is just as bad. The only difference is the royal family are personal friends to the Bushs.
     
  13. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #13
    Thus making himself an inconvenient ally for the Americans who supported him for so long when they needed a pawn against Iran. Yeah, sure, "we gave him every chance." Right.

    He was a bastard, but he was also played for a sucker.

    Leaving aside as improbable the idea that we will reform, maybe aspiring military strongmen the world over will finally take the hint that having the US turn up and promise to help you gain control over your country is a little like the guy in red tights appearing in a cloud of black smoke with pen and paper in hand. It'll work, but it won't end well for you.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    SA is an awful place. My brother spent a few years there teaching. He told me things I could not believe. Scary beyond words how disgusting that place is.
     
  15. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    Honestly I do not think it was about oil but at the same time we are never going to know the real truth.

    One because the media polluted it so badly that no one could tell what the truth was any more. 2 you have nut jobs on both sides spinning things that again add to this pollution. Hell the army could of just wanted to go in to kill people and we would never know because of how polluted the truth is now.

    I think reason the US went combination of a long list of factors that just added up. One of them was the economy at the time was not doing well and generally speaking war is good for business.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Of course it was economic. I already mentioned that. Anyone who thinks it was because "Saddam was a threat" or "the Iraqi people need freedom" is quite honestly, a fool.
     
  17. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #17
    North Korea puts the lie to anyone who says it was about anything other than military security and oil. Iraq was essentially stable, with a functioning government and civil services. A lot of terrible things happened, most of them at Saddam's behest, but tens of millions of people lived their lives in some form of order.

    In North Korea, the government barely functions, hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions) starve, there's a highly unstable dictatorial leader (Hussein was mentally stable, at least compared to Kim Jong Il) and it is far more tyrannical than Iraq ever was.

    But, of course, there doesn't seem to be much oil in North Korea.
     
  18. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18
    You're kidding right?

    Don't tell me you really think it all rests on casualties, because a war will always lose there.

    I think that despite the mess the people of Iraq have now, they'll ultimately be better off not having him around. I don't agree with the war ultimately, but I have to acknowledge that Saddam needed to go.

    But maybe you think endless fear, executions, and the rape of thousands of women, with a little mass murder of the occasional minority ethnic group (all sanctioned by your buddy Saddam) are better than what has happened since the war began.

    Besides, I'd tell an FBI agent just about anything when I was waiting to be executed, if I thought I'd have a chance at surviving. Are we seriously going to just take Saddams apparent words, spoken to us second hand as the truth.

    I wouldn't trust that man for anything!

    SLC
     
  19. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #19
    That and North Korea lies on the border with China and very near to Russia. They have one of the largest standing armies in the world, and they are only separated from one of our sworn allies by a few hundred miles of barbed wire fencing.

    A war with North Korea could make Iraq look like a vacation.

    It's not that simple, as much as you'd like it to be.

    SLC
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    It was up to the Iraqis to get rid of Saddam, not us. Period.
     
  21. Peace thread starter macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #21
    So the US isn't invading Iran why ?
     
  22. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #22
    Yeah, they had every tool necessary at their disposal didn't they! He wouldn't fight back, he wouldn't gas them like he did the Kurds, he'd just step down without a shot being fired.

    Look like I said, I don't like being the world's police force anymore than you do. But we've set a precedent now. I agree the war had nothing to do with WMD's (at least not after the first few weeks or months), but ultimately the people of Iraq will be much better off without Saddam in power.

    SLC
     
  23. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #23
    Because we've already got two wars going on, we're over stretched as it is.

    And Barrack Obama would never even consider invading another country unless they had carried out a military attack against American targets. He knows that would end his chances of being re-elected in this day and age.

    SLC
     
  24. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #24
    Say, how about the people living in the United States? Three trillion dollars could buy a lot, and we spent it in Iraq instead (three trillion dollars is the estimated final cost of the war and occupation, as calculated by Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz).

    Think of the health care and myriad other things that money could have bought. Too bad we didn't mind our own business in a host of better ways.

    but ultimately the people of Iraq will be much better off without Saddam in power.

    You don't understand. That may well be true, but it still wasn't worth it. Also think about all the death squads and killings that went on for years, none of which would have happened had Hussein remained in power. Hussein was stability, for better or worse.
     
  25. uberamd macrumors 68030

    uberamd

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #25
    Oh well if you mentioned it then it must be true.
     

Share This Page