TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Court: Execute Saddam Within 30 Days
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

In the general condemnation of neo-conservatism, we forget, at least as it pertains to foreign policy, it arose from a variety of causes, not the least as the reaction against the moral bankruptcy of both rightist realism and leftist appeasement. We were reminded of those poles these past few days with news that confirmed Arafat's order to murder American diplomats in Khartoum. That apparently had made no affect on Bill Clinton, at least if it were really true as legend claims that such a terrorist much later was the most frequent overnight foreign guest to the Clinton White House. Add in not just just the inaction after the first World Trade Center bombing, or Khobar Towers or the USS Cole, but all the other weird elements of appeasement, from Carter sending Ramsey Clark to beg for the hostages to Clinton dispatching Warren Christopher to sit on the Damascus tarmac and his own later praising of Iranian "democracy" as liberal. But the antipode is just as bad, when we recall selling out the Kurds to appease the Shah, Turks, and the Iraqis, the deal for arms for hostages with the theocracy, arming the crazies in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, playing off Saddam versus Khomeini, letting the Kurds and Shiites hang in the wind in 1991, the coddling of the Pakistani dictators and the House of Saud, and the infusion of Gulf money into the law firms, investment houses and arms consortia in Washington and New York, staffed with ex-administration "wise men" from both parties. In that context, Iraq in the climate of post-9/11 was an effort to find a consistent US position of toughness with terrorists and murderous dictators, and principled consistent support for reformers. For all the sorrow in Iraq, that vision is not over, and can still be realized if we stay calm and unyielding. I was reminded of what real woe was from reading today of Churchill in May-June 1940 learning that France was lost, Belgium lost, Holland lost, an entire British army trapped in Flanders and Dunkirk, told that there were no more RAF reserves, and about 200 tanks in all of Britain-and in great spirits eating breakfast at 4am, with cigar, trying to lecture the above, strengthen those at home, and without doubt of eventual victory. Victor Davis Hanson.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC and no one told him to be some damn ruthless in his rule...

Unfortunately, that train of thought is lost on a lot of people here DD...

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Oh and some might say it's the west's fault for backing him instead of Iran (supported by Soviets) 20 years ago but that was the lesser of two evils and no one told him to be some damn ruthless in his rule...

Really?
By the time the US came around to noticing Iraq as being more than a pile of sand dunes they where knee deep into Iran's guts, AFTER buying the majority of their weapons off the Soviets in the decade before.
Iran was fighting mostly (and 2-1 against them) because they got invaded and where using US weapons in that particular conflict along with US aircraft. When they began to run low of those they bought Chinese, N Korean and anything else they could lay their hands on including US weapons which where supplied to them by... come on guess?
Israel (no I am not making that up...)

Not wanting to be left out on making a buck here everyone sold stuff to Saddam, he bought stuff off the French, Chinese, Brazil, Egypt the US, UK and continued buying off the Soviets. Heck Regan even sold him chemical plants which would have a dual use of making fertiliser, insecticides and... come on, guess again?
Chemical weapons
Knowing full well what they'd be used for mostly, as did a whole heap of suppliers from Germany, France, UK and China.

And he used them on the Iranian's a lot.

I mean really, how much of a 'lesser evil' was he for the US not to have noticed that he was invading a neighbour, killing them with chemical weapons and doing a fairly solid job of it. Same said neighbour was reduced to strapping bombs to 12 and 13 year old boys and girls to stop the onslaught of tanks, troops and in its own way started off the course of matyrdom which was adopted by many other muslim causes after.
Iran was a lot of things, they didnt really like the US and for a lot of reason at the time but they really where not a threat to the US directly aside from a lot of sabre rattling, they never used chemical weapons at all though.

I'd hate to think of what the definition of a 'greater evil' would be...

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Saddam is more responsible for the war than Bush.

LOL.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Iran was a lot of things, they didnt really like the US and for a lot of reason at the time but they really where not a threat to the US directly aside from a lot of sabre rattling, they never used chemical weapons at all though.

wait a second, Iran sacked our embassy, kidnapped and tortured our diplomatic officials, killed 240 marines on a UN peacekeeping mission and blew up our Lebanese embassy earlier that year. among many other things during that time period

Iran should never be marginalized or eqivocated with anything other that fundamentalist terror and interlopers.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL.

laugh all you want, but you cannot deny he was the only one person on the planet then who could have stopped it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wait a second, Iran sacked our embassy, kidnapped and tortured our diplomatic officials, killed 240 marines on a UN peacekeeping mission and blew up our Lebanese embassy earlier that year. among many other things during that time period Iran should never be marginalized or eqivocated with anything other that fundamentalist terror and interlopers.

Yep and Saddam had a nasty habit of dropping gas on several 100,000 Iranians civilians and soldiers living on the border. The killing of the marines was done in 1983 wasnt it?
I mean the Iran-Iraq war had been in full swing for 3 years by then.
I still confounded why the US would have seen him as a lesser evil?

edit-
I dont want to argue history, its there and it documents the attrocities he was getting up to at the time (from both sides) in the Iran-Iraq conflict.
Read it and then come back to me and answer the question- "Why did the US see Saddam as a 'lesser evil

No more sniping and mumbling around the subject, just answer the question.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith and answer the question- "Why did the US see Saddam as a 'lesser evil No more sniping and mumbling around the subject, just answer the question.

That's an easy one (and has been answered before); Saddam was worried as much as the US was about the Islamic Revolution that looked like was going to roll right through Iraq after Iran collapsed.
Being the only one strong enough to fight it, was it any wonder the West propped him up? Saddam, as well, wasn't about to let his own power go.

At the time, at least Saddam was still willing to do business with the West even though we only trusted him as far as we could throw him; hence, 'Lesser of two evils'...

quote:

Originally posted by Yan Are you honestly that surprised? I'm extremely disappointed by this, by the way.

Yes, I really am. I'm disappointed as well. This trial was hastily put together. He was hastily convicted. And now he was hastily put to death.

I mean come on. From the minute this trial went about, there was no doubt in my mind that Saddam was going to be convicted. I was surprised that his appeal failed, which furthers my suspicion of there not being a fair trail.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's an easy one (and has been answered before); Saddam was worried as much as the US was about the Islamic Revolution that looked like was going to roll right through Iraq after Iran collapsed. Being the only one strong enough to fight it, was it any wonder the West propped him up? Saddam, as well, wasn't about to let his own power go. At the time, at least Saddam was still willing to do business with the West even though we only trusted him as far as we could throw him; hence, 'Lesser of two evils'...

Easy, funniest euphamism I've ever heard for what the US assisted in building up the largest army in the middle east and he was a monster, they knew he was a monster and Regan took him off the US's list of known terrorists in 1982. (Despite congress arguing otherwise)
As for Saddam being worried about Iran, it was never over Iran being an all encompassing muslim empire and it might be a good idea to put aside what the western media have described. It was over land, a bitter argument which goes back since goodness knows when of who owned what along the borders. When the talks between Iran and Iraq broke down, Saddam invaded because he wanted that land.
Iran being a menace as much as its been described was simply hype, theyre economy was as reliant on oil sales too the world as Iraq's and they where not particually fussy who bought it as long as the money kept coming in because they where at war.

I've got an interesting article
here and if youre still convinced it was just an 'easy' solution to Iran, then youre welcome to keep it. With what Saddam was getting up too a better description would be perhaps, a 'solution of expedience' where people wouldn't have to get their hands directly dirty, regardless of the attrocities which one side was prepared to knowingly commit and continued to commit.

I just find it extremely ironic that that same expediency in massacring people through the use of chemical weapons, which where used quite successfully in airstrikes and scuds against military and civilian targets would become the basis of a lie that later launched the 2nd gulf war and the court cases which led to Saddam's execution today.

Because this, raises the question on the whole morality of the US and its involvement in the middle east as the war against terror and the war against Iraq has repeatedly been slammed, over and over as a war of ideals and freedom.
This is, the quintessential hypocrisy of the US and its involvement in Iraq.
And to argue it is otherwise reeks of double standards the rest of the world should consider very wary when dealing with the US. Lest we wake up one morning and find ourselves 'no longer required' and 'surplus to uses'

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers fair

This word loses meaning based on credibility. A shame.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Easy, funniest euphamism I've ever heard for what the US assisted in building up the largest army in the middle east and he was a monster, they knew he was a monster and Regan took him off the US's list of known terrorists in 1982. (Despite congress arguing otherwise) As for Saddam being worried about Iran, it was never over Iran being an all encompassing muslim empire and it might be a good idea to put aside what the western media have described. It was over land, a bitter argument which goes back since goodness knows when of who owned what along the borders. When the talks between Iran and Iraq broke down, Saddam invaded because he wanted that land. Iran being a menace as much as its been described was simply hype, theyre economy was as reliant on oil sales too the world as Iraq's and they where not particually fussy who bought it as long as the money kept coming in because they where at war. I've got an interesting article here and if youre still convinced it was just an 'easy' solution to Iran, then youre welcome to keep it. With what Saddam was getting up too a better description would be perhaps, a 'solution of expedience' where people wouldn't have to get their hands directly dirty, regardless of the attrocities which one side was prepared to knowingly commit and continued to commit. I just find it extremely ironic that that same expediency in massacring people through the use of chemical weapons, which where used quite successfully in airstrikes and scuds against military and civilian targets would become the basis of a lie that later launched the 2nd gulf war and the court cases which led to Saddam's execution today. Because this, raises the question on the whole morality of the US and its involvement in the middle east as the war against terror and the war against Iraq has repeatedly been slammed, over and over as a war of ideals and freedom. This is, the quintessential hypocrisy of the US and its involvement in Iraq. And to argue it is otherwise reeks of double standards the rest of the world should consider very wary when dealing with the US. Lest we wake up one morning and find ourselves 'no longer required' and 'surplus to uses'

I do agree, the States do have a heavy hand in that area of the world but we're forgetting they were hardly the only ones.
That doesn't mean they don't get their share of the blame, but lets not be so linear in our argument either.
It's a very complex web of backstabbing, fat heads and agendas for this area and for lots of different reasons.
For instance, all the foreign investments and interests would be a great place for a start to some of the answers.
The States are just way too convenient (and easy!) a target unless your REALLY want to dumb it down that much; something we really don't need to do in this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith "Why did the US see Saddam as a 'lesser evil

ultimately it was the "greatest evil", the Soviet Union, dictating not only our foreign policy but the rest of the worlds alignment against Iran and the new fascist theocracy.

Iraq, in my estimation, did not use chemicals until the mid-point of the war.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith This is, the quintessential hypocrisy of the US and its involvement in Iraq.

no it isn't. it is our quintessential responsibility of our involvement in Iraq. there is a very fine and complicated line.

the entire world gave Saddam a pass because it was Iran.

I'm keeping it simple and using an example of a series of linear events because all I get is one-paragraph replys or the odd "No it isnt" with no supporting arguments Firestarter, which makes me think I'm talking to people with either no real ability to grasp a complicated problem... or the US government

You have allies of convenience, once their job is done and after you've supplied them with massive amounts of armaments and support, they run off and carry out your foreign policy in the middle east.
They do the job, continue being monsters and you put them down like a rabid dog because their use has finished.
That, is what this is about and why the middle east is very dubious about dealing with the west, theyre getting 'used' so to speak.

Now to be fair, I've not just picked on the US here and I'm well aware and have stated who else was involved in supply of armaments in the other post on page 5. (basically every large arms manufacturer in the world) Of course the Soviets where going to oppose the US at every angle, if they didnt then the US would have had a free rein to do what it wanted against them, thats what the cold war was about. Now that the cold war is over and there isnt anyone really left to oppose the US in doing what it wants it makes the rest of the world kind of nervous that theyre wondering who else is in for the chop.
And provided the US continues to use this type of diplomacy then theyre really not going to be making any genuine allies, all theyre doing is creating a longer lasting problem by throwing a proverbial can of gas on a fire, hope it burns itself out and then they can walk in and stomp out the smouldering bits later on.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith You have allies of convenience, once their job is done and after you've supplied them with massive amounts of armaments and support, they run off and carry out your foreign policy in the middle east. They do the job, continue being monsters and you put them down like a rabid dog because their use has finished.

and god knows it that simple.^^

and no, Iraq didn't carry out our foreign policy in the Middle East. Iran, maybe indirectly. if he did he would have recognized Israel. Saddam carried out his foreign policy. he also carried his domestic policy as well being a sovereign nation and all.


so in your estimation, how many more "rabid dogs" are left in the Middle East.

Quick, abbreviated recap for you in case you didnt want to read it the first time so its here in print and I've pulled the bits out succinct to my argument.

quote:

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1] 1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4] November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15] October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16] November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1] December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15] July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19] January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2] March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10] May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3] May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7] April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7] August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13] September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7] September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15] December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1] July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

Source

If I was a punter, (and I'm not) I'd be keeping a close eye on Pakistan myself (and no offence too the Pakistani's among us ) because its got a long history of both US backing and military involvement in its government if you want to put two and two together. Indeed, their current president is a general.
Musharraf is an interesting man in himself having to balance a large country with a majority muslim population that doesnt have a lot of love, lets say for the US and he has to balance that with having the US as being one of his largest armaments suppliers in return for assitance with Afganistan.
A lot from a couple of credible news sources outside the US has made a point of looking at how much assistance the US is getting off Pakistan in terms of Afgan-Pakistan boarder security.

Feel free to have a look through this-
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s887326.htm

Musharraf also isnt exactly comfortable with the US telling him how to run his country...



Along with several other examples which undermine his presidency in the country, I'd be real worried about Musharraf being bumped off and replaced with someone who isnt so 'amenable' with the US.

Now.
Your turn Q5, come up with something as a credible counter because my patience for the 1-liner replies is getting kind of thin or I'll just consider this whole argument as waste of my time.

^^ Nevermind that during the same time the US was selling weapons to Iran in order to bankroll guerrilas in Central America.

If that's not blatant hypocracy I don't know what is.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse ^^ Nevermind that during the same time the US was selling weapons to Iran in order to bankroll guerrilas in Central America. If that's not blatant hypocracy I don't know what is.

Thats in the link and I've also stated it BEFORE on page 5 if you bothered to read it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Thats in the link and I've also stated it BEFORE on page 5 if you bothered to read it.

Sorry, my bad, I only just got back into this thread and missed that link.

I do agree with your viewpoint though

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Let all dicktators and tyrants know they are not invincible...

EYES ONLY
Gladio Saddam phase complete.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Now. Your turn Q5, come up with something as a credible counter because my patience for the 1-liner replies is getting kind of thin or I'll just consider this whole argument as waste of my time.

i don't want to get started on that Iranchamber crap, but...

we voted against UN resolution 582 because we did not want the PLO involved with talks about the situaion with Iran/Iraq.

yes we provided satellite imagery of Iranian formations, troop stregth and BDA's.

there is no evidence that Saddam used "biological" weapons on Iran or his own people.

your argument is out of all the countries that helped Iraq fight Iran that the U.S. somehow bears all the responsibility for the attrocities Saddam committed fighting that war, (that war btw was one of the most inneffective and strategically blunderous in the history of warfare on both sides not b/c of us) but when it comes to taking him down effectively by ourselves for invading and attacking three other countries and gassing his own people and in the hopes of trying to make the Middle East a better place in the 21st century, we're hypocrites? whatev dude.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC YouTube And opus you're wasting your time writing and quoting,

On you, perhaps so. There's always hope that individuals such as yourself break the habits of ignorance, however.

quote:

it's too long and boring man j/k lol

Are there certain parts that you are having difficulty reading? I'm more than willing to help if need be.

Otherwise, that's rather childish and sophmoric of an answer to a debating forum. Surely you can put forth a bit more effort?

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Saddam is more responsible for the war than Bush.

No one debates that Saddam didn't share his large part of responsibility. But it was the U.S. who invaded, was it not?

quote:

He tried the world's patience for 8 years by not complying with resolution after resolution by the UN.

Oh dear - you realize how many other countries don't abide by UN resolutions, including the U.S.? How about Israel (Resolutions 233, 234, 237, 446, 242, 248, 250, 251, 252, 259, and the list goes on to at least 30 total). How about Indonesia - they violated Resolutions for almost a quarter of a century in East Timor? How about Morocco illegally occupying Western Sahara?

Gosh, by your logic we've got a lot of Resolutions to defend with invasions. But then again, we'd have to go against the UN Charter in Article 41 and 42 that unequivocally states the UN Security Council alone has the power to authorize the use of force against any nation that does not comply with its resolutions.

quote:

Did he really think we were bluffing when we gave him the ultimatum? He could have stopped it but he was a fool... Tired of everyone blaming Bush but not this idiot...

Hmmm, I guess it would have been difficult for Saddam to stop producing nukes and WMDs when, in fact, the guy had none at the time, wouldn't it?

How can I blame Saddam for Bush taking his eye off the bastards that attacked us and went after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

quote:

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

To which I agree, but I'd still rather have had bin Laden's head over his.

quote:

Oh and some might say it's the west's fault for backing him instead of Iran (supported by Soviets) 20 years ago but that was the lesser of two evils and no one told him to be some damn ruthless in his rule...

But someone did tell him that when he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians that we'd only deliver a little handslap. Guess whom that person(s) was who did that?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo

In that context, Iraq in the climate of post-9/11 was an effort to find a consistent US position of toughness with terrorists and murderous dictators, and principled consistent support for reformers. [/QUOTE]

Silly me - I thought it was what this administration told us all along - disarming Saddam's WMDs and disrupting the al Qaeda-Saddam link.

And when shall we be invading all those other countries who have murderous dictators, including the ones we are seemingly allied with for some strange reason?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.