[von Wrangell]

What did SH lie about?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What did SH lie about?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahha ha






AAAAAAHahhahaha

[von Wrangell]

Obviously you aren't able to say what he lied about.

[Zimphire]

Oh I will post , I am still laughing...





Hold on. ..

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991"

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs

That's just one example.



I wont go into how he is still telling people he is president.

Here is another cool link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/in...9fnHV24X+Z99kw

[von Wrangell]

What's the lie there? He admitted they had those weapons?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What's the lie there? He admitted they had those weapons?

You talk about ME having reading comp problems.

He admitted to those in 91.

Clinton said

""It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991"

[Zimphire]

Here is another one

http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/004007.php

another

http://www.davidwissing.com/index.php/337

Another

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3157246.stm

[von Wrangell]

None of those links provide quotes about his lies. One is basically an opinion piece not offering anything to prove that he lied, the next says he lies but the link is broken(the msnbc link) and the bbc link provides nothing that says SH lied.

Want one more attempt?

[macamac]

And you wonder why you are considered a terrorist apologist & walking excuse?... sad.

[Kerrigan]

Saddam is old school, that's for sure. He's got that charismatic charm that you need if you want to rise to the top. While it is quite clear that Saddam is a stately, gracious man in his personal life, that does not excuse the torture and genocide which were so characteristic of his old regime. Saddam deserves to be treated like any other leader of a state, perhaps he even deserves his own reality tv show ;-) , but he should not be admired.

Even if you don't like the US, that does not mean that you should like Saddam.

[macamac]

Charisma? Is that how you define MURDERING the competition? Keeping people living in fear, even FAMILY MEMBERS who you have killed on occassion!

"Leader of State".. he's as bad as Hitler. "Head of State" < This has got to be a joke.

He:

Had people tossed off of buildings.
Had women dipped in baths of acid in public.
Had people experimented on, and butchered.
Mass murdered people with WMDs. (see Kurds)
Had his own family members executed. (see Son-in-Law)
Made backroom deals with members of the UN in the Oil for Food Scandal...

I celebrate the fact that he has been caught alive, so eventually the many survivors can confront him like those that did not have the chance to confront Hitler during his reign of terror over a mass of people.

I'm sick and tired of the partisan crap in these threads. If you hate the USA, fine, I don't care. Don't come here, or leave if you are already here. Our loss is someone elses!

[Zimphire]

[Face Ache]

We need a poll to find the most popular medication around here.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You talk about ME having reading comp problems.

He admitted to those in 91.

Clinton said

""It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991"

"A long long time ago...
In a galaxy Far, Far away..."

Geez. The Vikings had Axes; Why don't you complain about them?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

"A long long time ago...
In a galaxy Far, Far away..."

Geez. The Vikings had Axes; Why don't you complain about them?

Do you need a tampon Suzy?

It was relevant to the discussion.

[Kerrigan]

Did you even read my post, Macmac? RTFP

Saddam is old school, that's for sure. He's got that charismatic charm that you need if you want to rise to the top. While it is quite clear that Saddam is a stately, gracious man in his personal life, that does not excuse the torture and genocide which were so characteristic of his old regime. Saddam deserves to be treated like any other leader of a state, perhaps he even deserves his own reality tv show ;-) , but he should not be admired.

Even if you don't like the US, that does not mean that you should like Saddam.

[macamac]

Spin cycle on too long? You are getting all wrinkled mate.

===

1991 was not that long ago. Was it for you? Remember the 12 years of Sanctions by the <cough> UN </cough>

They FAILED.
Know why?
The UN is filled with lying. Cheating. Scumbag. Money-grubbing. Idiots.

They allowed Saddam to do his deeds while they collected, what was that figure? 26 BILLION in BRIBES?

How many Iraqis died and are now in those MASS graves because the UN did not allow their own sanctions to work!???

The "SEARCH" for WMDs. They went well eh? Who was being bribed there? At the very least they were misdirected and stalled quite easily by SADDAM.

If all this did not occurr, then we would probably not have had to go into IRAQ.

Edit:

You really don't have much to say. Each thread you post, you are simply reducing yourself to a joke by posting sillyness and zero substance.

Nothing wrong with a little silliness, but at least have something to offer the discussion.

[macamac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Did you even read my post, Macmac? RTFP

What do you mean? I replied to yours. What is your current point by stating this?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by macamac

You really don't have much to say. Each thread you post, you are simply reducing yourself to a joke by posting sillyness and zero substance.

Nothing wrong with a little silliness, but at least have something to offer the discussion.

My take on this is that anything in a cage with a tear is bound to trigger pity.

Now I wish we had done the same before the sanctions suggested by the U.S. to the U.N.

1 Saddam compared to 140 000 children impoverished. I would chosse the kids first. But that is just me heh?

As to substance, so far, yours are as substantial as wind.

Sail on!

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by macamac

What do you mean? I replied to yours. What is your current point by stating this?

My point is that you replied to my post, but you obviously misunderstood what I was saying and went off on some tirade.

[macamac]

I guess the truth to you is a tirade.

[Kerrigan]

what are you talking about? All I said was that Saddam, like most other world leaders, has a captivating and sophisticated aspect to his personality that cannot be overlooked. I never said that he was right about what he did. You obviously need to go back and read what I wrote.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by macamac

I guess the truth to you is a tirade.

My oh my! That wind is strrrrong!

[macamac]

I read what you wrote. He is NOT like most other world leaders. You think he is charming? Severed Head of Darth Vader, or whatever his name is, thinks he's cute. What is wrong with you people?

He's captivating like:

Adolf Hitler
Kim Jong iL
Joseph Stalin
Benito Mussolini
Ivan the Terrible

You mean like them? Ok. Fine. I agree.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

what are you talking about? All I said was that Saddam, like most other world leaders, has a captivating and sophisticated aspect to his personality that cannot be overlooked. I never said that he was right about what he did. You obviously need to go back and read what I wrote.

Some people in these threads cannot appreciate the complexities of Good and Evil...

Why fight against a brick wall?

[Taliesin]

Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug, and that's why the CIA/US chose him to be installed as Iraq's dictator. He was for the US the right guy at the right time, the one willing and able to mass-kill communists in Iraq, off course after the CIA provided the lists of people to be tortured and killed, the US even told him to invade Iran and he obeyed, while the US with the helping hand of France, kept his weapon-arsenal and ammunition fresh, including WMD's.

When Kuwait started to dig oil from Iraq's oilfields, Saddam Hussein even asked the US through its ambassador if they would oppose his idea of annexing Kuwait, and the US-ambassador replied that it would be an inner-arabic-affaire and the US would not care. Saddam Hussein had overlooked that with the end of the coldwar and the collapse of the Soviet-communism, he himself has lost the usefulness for the US and that the US felt that it had the right to capitalise on the won coldwar by directly gaining access to and control of the arabic oilfields and the oilfields in the caspic sea.

The invasion of Kuwait was the good opportunity to sell the concept to the US- and international public, which allowed the installation of US-military-bases in Saudi-Arabia.

9/11 was the next good opportunity to install US-military-bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and in most ex-Soviet-states, like Uzbekistan etc...

Military bases mean direct economic influence, deals are then made in favour of US-companies, the US-companies can act with the nearby protection of US-forces, ressources are then traded in dollars, instead of euros or yens. Markets get opened up for US-products, tarrifs and subventions for domestic products reduced.. Privatisation of essential assets like water, transport, communication, electricity... is being enforced...

Problem in Iraq is only that the remnants of the Baath-regime have organised a pretty effective insurgency, that periodically destroys oil-pipelines, forces the new iraqi-government to stay encircled in the green-zone, kills US-soldiers and iraqi-police- and military-forces constantly, so much that I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam Hussein were set free in a year from now, declared innocent by the court, just like Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson were declared innocent, because the court will find that the WMD's didn't exist, that the Kurds were gassed by Iran, and his brutal regime was necessary to combat communism, and as a free and innocent man be allowed to become president of Iraq, off course only with his call towards the insurgency to stop, to lay down the weapons and to become part of the new iraqi democracy for which the Baath-party will be again allowed to run for office.

If the US-administration is desperate enough, everything is possíble.

Taliesin

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam Hussein were set free in a year from now, declared innocent by the court, just like Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson were declared innocent...

Oh, I would be surprised!!! I'll bet a $1 that this will never happen!!

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by macamac

I read what you wrote. He is NOT like most other world leaders. You think he is charming? Severed Head of Darth Vader, or whatever his name is, thinks he's cute. What is wrong with you people?

He's captivating like:

Adolf Hitler
Kim Jong iL
Joseph Stalin
Benito Mussolini
Ivan the Terrible

You mean like them? Ok. Fine. I agree.

Ya got to remember, Even Ted Bundy had his share of wacko fans.

Wackos are Wackos. No need to understand them.

They live in Bizarro world.

Good = Bad

Bad = Good in their world.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug, and that's why the CIA/US chose him to be installed as Iraq's dictator. Taliesin

Got any proof to that baseless accusation?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug, and that's why the CIA/US chose him to be installed as Iraq's dictator.

False. Hussein was not put in power by the CIA. Iraq was a pretty messed up country then, and had gone through several bouts of murderous revolutions. Even the U.S.S.R. of then could not care less. The oil issue was not important enough then to have grand scale operations. It was better to deal with whoever was going to be in power, and I think there were more important concerns then.

He was for the US the right guy at the right time, the one willing and able to mass-kill communists in Iraq, off course after the CIA provided the lists of people to be tortured and killed, the US even told him to invade Iran and he obeyed, while the US with the helping hand of France, kept his weapon-arsenal and ammunition fresh, including WMD's.

I doubt it, as the U.S.S.R. was one of the numerous providers of weapons and contruction and goods of all sorts, like the U.S., France, Switzerland, etc.

When Kuwait started to dig oil from Iraq's oilfields, Saddam Hussein even asked the US through its ambassador if they would oppose his idea of annexing Kuwait, and the US-ambassador replied that it would be an inner-arabic-affaire and the US would not care. Saddam Hussein had overlooked that with the end of the coldwar and the collapse of the Soviet-communism, he himself has lost the usefulness for the US and that the US felt that it had the right to capitalise on the won coldwar by directly gaining access to and control of the arabic oilfields and the oilfields in the caspic sea.

The invasion of Kuwait was the good opportunity to sell the concept to the US- and international public, which allowed the installation of US-military-bases in Saudi-Arabia.

9/11 was the next good opportunity to install US-military-bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and in most ex-Soviet-states, like Uzbekistan etc...

Military bases mean direct economic influence, deals are then made in favour of US-companies, the US-companies can act with the nearby protection of US-forces, ressources are then traded in dollars, instead of euros or yens. Markets get opened up for US-products, tarrifs and subventions for domestic products reduced.. Privatisation of essential assets like water, transport, communication, electricity... is being enforced...

Problem in Iraq is only that the remnants of the Baath-regime have organised a pretty effective insurgency, that periodically destroys oil-pipelines, forces the new iraqi-government to stay encircled in the green-zone, kills US-soldiers and iraqi-police- and military-forces constantly, so much that I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam Hussein were set free in a year from now, declared innocent by the court, just like Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson were declared innocent, because the court will find that the WMD's didn't exist, that the Kurds were gassed by Iran, and his brutal regime was necessary to combat communism, and as a free and innocent man be allowed to become president of Iraq, off course only with his call towards the insurgency to stop, to lay down the weapons and to become part of the new iraqi democracy for which the Baath-party will be again allowed to run for office.

If the US-administration is desperate enough, everything is possíble.

Taliesin

That last part remains to be seen, but I fear you could be right. However, and contrary to Pinochet, the murderous actions of Hussein were more obvious, and he did have programs for WMDs prior to 1991. That cannot be hidden easily in a highly political environment where justice has to intervene.

[macamac]

I saw his story and rise to power, and nowhere did they mention how the CIA helped him out. Please do elaborate, or is this just another stupid conspiracy distraction?

:/

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by macamac

I read what you wrote. He is NOT like most other world leaders. You think he is charming? Severed Head of Darth Vader, or whatever his name is, thinks he's cute. What is wrong with you people?

He's captivating like:

Adolf Hitler
Kim Jong iL
Joseph Stalin
Benito Mussolini
Ivan the Terrible

You mean like them? Ok. Fine. I agree.

Hitler was extremely captivating and charismatic. That's part of how he was able to hold an entire nation in thrall.

Stalin also was a captivating speaker and leader. There are people in Russia who still think he was a great man, and still think that communism is the right course because of the power of Stalin's and (perhaps more so) Lenin's rhetoric.

I don't know much about Kim or Mussolini, but Ivan Vasiljevich is hardly a good example. His was an inherited position that he came into at the ripe age of 3. His personality has no bearing whatsoever on his rise to power.

Being captivating is not necessarily a good thing. 'Bad' people can be just as captivating as 'good' people.

[Kerrigan]

Yes but you can't even try to argue that point with Macmac, he will automatically reject your reasoning on the assumption that Saddam is some sort beastly ogre with Homer-Simpsonish charisma.

[macamac]

Same goes for SERIAL KILLERS.

[Kerrigan]

Well, that's the end of that.

[♤♥♦♧]

You think so?

[♤♥♦♧]

****

MacNN

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

False. Hussein was not put in power by the CIA. Iraq was a pretty messed up country then, and had gone through several bouts of murderous revolutions. Even the U.S.S.R. of then could not care less. The oil issue was not important enough then to have grand scale operations. It was better to deal with whoever was going to be in power, and I think there were more important concerns then.

I thought that meanwhile it's common knowledge that Saddam Hussein was installed by the CIA, but here is a report I found about that story:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-070214-6557r

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I doubt it, as the U.S.S.R. was one of the numerous providers of weapons and contruction and goods of all sorts, like the U.S., France, Switzerland, etc.

It's also common knowledge that the CIA provided lists of people that were communists to the Baath-party after the CIA-supported successful coup, which led to the torturing and death of thousands of communists, also hinted at in the report linked to above.

I think the USSR thought that it could maybe bring Iraq back to the communist-bandwagon, when it plays nice and offers technology, weapons and services, despite the communist-killings that happened before. For the US it was a great opportunity to see secondhand what technology the USSR had developed.

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

That last part remains to be seen, but I fear you could be right. However, and contrary to Pinochet, the murderous actions of Hussein were more obvious, and he did have programs for WMDs prior to 1991. That cannot be hidden easily in a highly political environment where justice has to intervene.

Off course Hussein had a WMD-program, which was helped along by the US, France and Russia and other developed countries. The important part though is that it was not illegal for Hussein to pursue such a program, because Iraq had not signed any treaties dealing with WMD's prior to 1991, and as a justification there was always the WMD-program of Israel.

As to the murderous crimes of Hussein, you are probably right. Eventhough Hussein could and probably will defend all these crimes as necessary for combating communists and islamists, and blame the gassing of the kurds on Iran, the media-stories about Hussein, the massgraves found, the torture-rooms and their stories are just too much to be ignored or pardoned.

Taliesin

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I thought that meanwhile it's common knowledge that Saddam Hussein was installed by the CIA, but here is a report I found about that story:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-070214-6557r





It's also common knowledge that the CIA provided lists of people that were communists to the Baath-party after the CIA-supported successful coup, which led to the torturing and death of thousands of communists, also hinted at in the report linked to above.

I think the USSR thought that it could maybe bring Iraq back to the communist-bandwagon, when it plays nice and offers technology, weapons and services, despite the communist-killings that happened before. For the US it was a great opportunity to see secondhand what technology the USSR had developed.






Off course Hussein had a WMD-program, which was helped along by the US, France and Russia and other developed countries. The important part though is that it was not illegal for Hussein to pursue such a program, because Iraq had not signed any treaties dealing with WMD's prior to 1991, and as a justification there was always the WMD-program of Israel.

As to the murderous crimes of Hussein, you are probably right. Eventhough Hussein could and probably will defend all these crimes as necessary for combating communists and islamists, and blame the gassing of the kurds on Iran, the media-stories about Hussein, the massgraves found, the torture-rooms and their stories are just too much to be ignored or pardoned.

Taliesin

I am far from being an expert on Hussein (for the record, my "false" from my previous post should be toned down to "imho, I do not believe so". What I had read though is from the biography written by Khadouri (the book is in a box from my last move, so I am not sure of his name). The writer was involved with Hussein as a trader in import-export of goods and other dealings; buying stuff for Iraq, being part of negociations for some economic deals, something like that.

What he reports, and that you remind me with your post, is that Hussein was a true despot in this way that people were objects to gain more power. So at some point, having to do some clean up in house while doing business with people sharing the same ideology makes sense. However, I remember the writer explain that since the U.S.S.R. had no real expansion plans, they did not bother with what was going on in Iraq. It is my understanding that the U.S.S.R. did not really have overwhelming sympathy for countries becoming communist.

This says a lot about the complexity of the character, yet leads clearly as to how this man can be dangerous and probably unreliable. The question remains however has to if he really entertained global domination plans, as it seems to be suggested. Maybe he did but I think he was a very pragmatic individual (the fact he executed people himself for instance) so he had to be somewhat realistic.

Regarding the issue of the involvement of the CIA, there is no doubt in my mind they were involved; what kind of involvement, however, we may never know for certain. For sure they were observing. That they were acting is a sensible hypothesis, however, Iraq became important for its oil later on. Also, from the '50s to the mid-'70s, Iraq was too chaotic politically to become a threat. Egypt may have been of greater interest then for the West. Strategically, Hussein created that threat while in power, but it became a concern only around 1980 (or so) and afterwards. Then I could envision a potentially more active participation of the CIA.

But from Khadouri, I understand that Hussein never created long lasting alliances, unless a they would provide a direct and short term benefit for himself. France stood as a "long-time" ally, but then, there are so many countries that were involved with Iraq (and mainly Hussein) that I doubt we could focus only on France in fairness to other countries (including the U.S., Canada, Great-Britain, etc.). From Khadouri's point of view, companies from across the world did profitable business with Iraq which sought these various sources. It is a clever way to involve everyone enough to make them feel important but safe enough not to monopolize and create animosities...

About his relationship with the CIA, Hussein is bound to lie if he can get an advantage, and he could either brag or shut up and we will be left with more questions. And whether we can rely on spooks to tell the truth at some point in the future...

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

This says a lot about the complexity of the character, yet leads clearly as to how this man can be dangerous and probably unreliable. The question remains however has to if he really entertained global domination plans, as it seems to be suggested. Maybe he did but I think he was a very pragmatic individual (the fact he executed people himself for instance) so he had to be somewhat realistic.

I think his main goal was to unite the Arabs. Didn't really matter to him how that was accomplished as long as he would be in charge.

I doubt he had any plans on control of anything much outside of that except perhaps resources directly linked to the arab world(see Iranian oil).

But as you said, I doubt they will release him. Why do that when they already pointed to where they wanted Iraq to go by installing a former hitman and terrorist? Little will change for Iraqis in the near future I'm afraid.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I think his main goal was to unite the Arabs. Didn't really matter to him how that was accomplished as long as he would be in charge.

I doubt he had any plans on control of anything much outside of that except perhaps resources directly linked to the arab world(see Iranian oil).

But as you said, I doubt they will release him. Why do that when they already pointed to where they wanted Iraq to go by installing a former hitman and terrorist? Little will change for Iraqis in the near future I'm afraid.

I am not certain he intended to unite Arabs. On the contrary, I believe he wanted to be the Super-Arab; it is clear to me that all arabic nations were in awe at the coming of age of "Iraq- The Arabic Superpower". But as any despots, I doubt his goal was for the benefit of Arabs; his record of killings in Iraq works against that hypothesis. I believe Hussein was highly narcissistic and wanted to respnd to his own personal needs only. He appears to have this type of personality that human life is useful for his benefit only. Hence, a reputation of "Great Arabic Leader" the supposed blood line with Mahomet, etc. Everything to manipulate the populations so he'd gain support. Look at the unrealistic results of his elections, as another example of his attitude towards people.

You have to have quite some nerve to claim being a descendant of the Prophet... It goes well with the character. With a few years more, I bet he would have found healing powers in himself and peformed miracles and demonstrate them in public.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I think his main goal was to unite the Arabs. Didn't really matter to him how that was accomplished as long as he would be in charge.

I doubt he had any plans on control of anything much outside of that except perhaps resources directly linked to the arab world(see Iranian oil).

But as you said, I doubt they will release him. Why do that when they already pointed to where they wanted Iraq to go by installing a former hitman and terrorist? Little will change for Iraqis in the near future I'm afraid.

Actually, a lot will change in Iraqis lives. I think there will be improvement. What I am most concern of is the process to achive that improvement. I fear the price is very high.

I am optimistic, but only for the long term. The transition is and will remain difficult for a while.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I am far from being an expert on Hussein (for the record, my "false" from my previous post should be toned down to "imho, I do not believe so". What I had read though is from the biography written by Khadouri (the book is in a box from my last move, so I am not sure of his name). The writer was involved with Hussein as a trader in import-export of goods and other dealings; buying stuff for Iraq, being part of negociations for some economic deals, something like that.

What he reports, and that you remind me with your post, is that Hussein was a true despot in this way that people were objects to gain more power. So at some point, having to do some clean up in house while doing business with people sharing the same ideology makes sense. However, I remember the writer explain that since the U.S.S.R. had no real expansion plans, they did not bother with what was going on in Iraq. It is my understanding that the U.S.S.R. did not really have overwhelming sympathy for countries becoming communist.

This says a lot about the complexity of the character, yet leads clearly as to how this man can be dangerous and probably unreliable. The question remains however has to if he really entertained global domination plans, as it seems to be suggested. Maybe he did but I think he was a very pragmatic individual (the fact he executed people himself for instance) so he had to be somewhat realistic.

Regarding the issue of the involvement of the CIA, there is no doubt in my mind they were involved; what kind of involvement, however, we may never know for certain. For sure they were observing. That they were acting is a sensible hypothesis, however, Iraq became important for its oil later on. Also, from the '50s to the mid-'70s, Iraq was too chaotic politically to become a threat. Egypt may have been of greater interest then for the West. Strategically, Hussein created that threat while in power, but it became a concern only around 1980 (or so) and afterwards. Then I could envision a potentially more active participation of the CIA.

But from Khadouri, I understand that Hussein never created long lasting alliances, unless a they would provide a direct and short term benefit for himself. France stood as a "long-time" ally, but then, there are so many countries that were involved with Iraq (and mainly Hussein) that I doubt we could focus only on France in fairness to other countries (including the U.S., Canada, Great-Britain, etc.). From Khadouri's point of view, companies from across the world did profitable business with Iraq which sought these various sources. It is a clever way to involve everyone enough to make them feel important but safe enough not to monopolize and create animosities...

About his relationship with the CIA, Hussein is bound to lie if he can get an advantage, and he could either brag or shut up and we will be left with more questions. And whether we can rely on spooks to tell the truth at some point in the future...

To be sure about the CIA-activities in Iraq during the fifties and sixties, why not directly asking for the publication of CIA-logs, memos, reports and archives from that time and country? I have heard there was a law in the US, that allows US-citizen to call for these papers and that forces the secret-agencies to comply, wasn't there?

Taliesin

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I am not certain he intended to unite Arabs. On the contrary, I believe he wanted to be the Super-Arab; it is clear to me that all arabic nations were in awe at the coming of age of "Iraq- The Arabic Superpower". But as any despots, I doubt his goal was for the benefit of Arabs; his record of killings in Iraq works against that hypothesis. I believe Hussein was highly narcissistic and wanted to respnd to his own personal needs only. He appears to have this type of personality that human life is useful for his benefit only. Hence, a reputation of "Great Arabic Leader" the supposed blood line with Mahomet, etc. Everything to manipulate the populations so he'd gain support. Look at the unrealistic results of his elections, as another example of his attitude towards people.

You have to have quite some nerve to claim being a descendant of the Prophet... It goes well with the character. With a few years more, I bet he would have found healing powers in himself and peformed miracles and demonstrate them in public.

He was a megalomaniac. I agree with you on that.

But his record of killing at home probably supports my idea more than yours since he was especially active in slaughtering the Kurds(non-Arabs) and the Shias(more linked to the Persians than Arabs). And I also believe that he wanted the best for the Arab people. That doesn't mean that his idea was the best just like Hitlers third reich wasn't the best that could happen to the German people. Get the idea?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Actually, a lot will change in Iraqis lives. I think there will be improvement. What I am most concern of is the process to achive that improvement. I fear the price is very high.

I am optimistic, but only for the long term. The transition is and will remain difficult for a while.

I wish I could share your optimism. The scenario I foresee looks much different from the one you see And will probably end in a split up a'la Yugoslavia with the same human rights violations and slaughter.

[Kevin]

He was a evil ruthless dictator.

Enough said.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

He was a megalomaniac. I agree with you on that.

But his record of killing at home probably supports my idea more than yours since he was especially active in slaughtering the Kurds(non-Arabs) and the Shias(more linked to the Persians than Arabs). And I also believe that he wanted the best for the Arab people. That doesn't mean that his idea was the best just like Hitlers third reich wasn't the best that could happen to the German people. Get the idea?

As I said, I am not an expert on Saddam Hussein. And I am not an expert on Hitler either.

All I can do is speculate and that may not be worth it.

Imho, however, Hitler always seemed to be the "Evil Mad Man". Saddam Hussein always appears to be the "Clever One".

Meeting with Saddam Hussein on a diplomatic level always appeared like a nice business meeting. I cannot see Hitler in similar cicumstances. Hitler always look tense and rigid in visual recordings that I saw, while Saddam Hussein always seem relax. Hitler had a wife, Saddam Hussein had a family; that says something important in the way they saw the world whilst in power.

They certainly share a lot, but I feel there are strong differences as well.

As for his intentions (Hussein) they were never clear to me, after reading the biography from Khadouri. But because of what I think I understand, uniting the Arabs was always accessory for Hussein.

Anyway, I am only speculating.

[Kevin]

They are two different people that dabbled in the same spirit.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I wish I could share your optimism. The scenario I foresee looks much different from the one you see And will probably end in a split up a'la Yugoslavia with the same human rights violations and slaughter.

My optimism is mitigated by the unknown factors you and I are not aware of, certainly.

However, and far from approving the intervention by the U.S. coalition, I am not certain it will be all bad.

There are a lot of challenges (from the top of my head and my very weak knowledge of politics):

1) insurgents

Who do they stand for exactly? Are they all frustrated Ba'as? Or are there some people frustrated from the extended stay following Saddam Hussein demise? This is important because if the "insurgents" were to win the local war, the possibility of important conflicts between leaders from the previous regime and the ones who just wanted to get the coalition out may not agree anymore on working together to unify the country. And we know there are other factions waiting for their time to come out.

This is even more of a concern when we look at the gory and bloody history of revolutions Iraq had in the last 50 years.

2) oil and economics

How will it be managed if the U.S. leaves, considering the opposite factions in the country? How will the country pull itself out of its misery?

3) neighbours

Can we rely on them to stay put or will they not consider puting their hands on the local resources necessary to Iraq's survival?

In a sense, and considering especially the various factions in play in that country, and its bloody history of revolutions, whatever happens in the future, may require a strong and centralized power, and conflicts may not see a resolve unless the territory is divided in autonomous regions. But who could believe such a thing could happen? I don't.

It may be that the best solution is that this country stays in a permanent state of siege from the coalition, to ensur peace. But at what cost? Will the U.S. and U.K. continue to pay for this? For how long? Can the coalition afford to send more soldiers? Will the Coalition trained local Iraqi Army be trained appropriately enough (and not as it has been botched in Afghanistan apparently) and in time to satisfy local Security? Or will these guys go back to their factions and fight for their side to feed the ongoing division inside that country?

Up to a point, Saddam Hussein, although a criminal leader, may have not have had a choice in leading the way he did, with a very strong hand and a vision of grandeur for the population... I am not excusing him and I am not saying he should be put back into power. I am only saying that the troubles amongst the various faction may have lead him to apply a very crude form of control over the population (certainly other people would probably have done much better!).

And I could be totally wrong; as I said, I am only speculating and it may not be worth much.

[Kevin]

SimpleLife, people are responsible for their own actions. He did indeed have a choice.