Skip to content or view screen version

Selective Justice and the Execution of Saddam Hussein

Gregory Elich | 31.12.2006 16:37 | Analysis | Anti-militarism

The transformation of Saddam Hussein from ally to enemy

Hailed by President Bush as an act of “justice,” former Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein was executed on the morning of December 30. Hussein’s trial,
Bush averred, had been a “fair” one. Yet there was little that could be
regarded as fair and legal about the proceedings. The court itself was
established at the Bush Administration’s behest. U.S. dollars financed the
proceedings, and U.S. officials provided aid, training and direct
involvement. The trial was fraught with problems. Three of Hussein’s lawyers
were murdered and many defense witnesses were intimidated into silence. The
trial was a U.S.-directed effort, intended to paint the occupation of Iraq
in the best light. The U.S. and British invasion had, we are reminded by
Western officials, overthrown this particular tyrant. But tyrants, like war
criminals, are in the eye of the beholder, and actions that might win praise
and support for one man might be condemned for another. Saddam Hussein found
himself on both sides of that equation at one time or another.

How does it happen that a man can be regarded as a friend and ally one day,
and an enemy the next? How is it that as praise fades away, that same man
comes to deserve capture and death? Is it because his behavior has changed,
or because there has been a transformation in perception?

At one time, Saddam Hussein was backed and promoted by the U.S. His brutal
methods were regarded as effective measures in furthering U.S. objectives.
But as his actions began to threaten U.S. interests, he earned opprobrium.

In his early years, Saddam Hussein was on the CIA payroll. Contacts began in
1959, when the agency sponsored him as a member of a small team assigned to
assassinate Iraqi Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim. The Prime Minister had
made himself a target by committing the unpardonable sin of taking his
nation out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. Hussein was set up in an
apartment across the street from Qasim’s office and told to observe his
movements. But CIA plans received a setback when the attempted assassination
on October 7, 1959 was conducted in so inept a manner that it failed to
achieve its objective. An over-anxious Hussein fired too soon, killing Qasim
’s driver and only wounding the Prime Minster. Following the botched attempt
on the Prime Minister’s life, CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents helped
Hussein to escape to Tikrit. From there he crossed into Syria and then to
Beirut, where the CIA provided him with an apartment and put him through a
short training course. Even at that young age, a former U.S. intelligence
official recalls, Hussein “was known as having no class. He was a thug – a
cutthroat.” But he did have excellent anticommunist credentials. From Beirut
he was eventually sent to Cairo, where he remained under the watchful eye of
his CIA handlers and made frequent visits to the U.S. embassy to meet with
agency officials.

U.S. hostility towards Qasim had not abated, and he was eventually killed in
a Ba’ath Party coup in 1963, after which the CIA gave the Iraqi National
Guard lists of communists they wanted to see imprisoned and executed.
According to former U.S. intelligence officials, many suspected communists
were killed under the personal supervision of Hussein. As one former U.S.
State Department official put it, “We were frankly glad to be rid of them.
You ask that they get a fair trial? You have got to be kidding. This was
serious business.” With his image burnished through such accomplishments,
Hussein first went on to become head of Iraqi security and then in 1979,
president of the nation. He remained allied with the U.S. during his first
decade in power as he ordered the arrest of communists and other political
opponents by the thousands. Nearly all would be tortured or killed. (1)

In 1980, Saddam Hussein sent Iraqi troops to invade Iran in an attempt to
seize territory by force of arms. The resulting war dragged on for eight
years, causing immense destruction and costing the lives of 1.7 million
people in one of the twentieth century’s worst wars.

Relatively early in that war, in December 1983, President Reagan sent envoy
Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to meet Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and offer
American assistance. Rumsfeld told Hussein that the U.S. wanted full
relations and “would regard any major reversal of Iraq’s fortunes as a
strategic defeat for the West.” Just one month before, State Department
official Jonathan Howe had informed Secretary of State George Schultz that
Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian forces on an “almost daily
basis.” It was also well known by then that the Hussein government was
engaging in widespread repression. Many thousands of individuals were being
imprisoned, tortured, executed or sent into exile.

Howard Teicher worked for the National Security Agency when he accompanied
Rumsfeld on that mission. Teicher recalls, “President Reagan decided that
the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq
from losing the war with Iran,” and formalized a policy of assisting Iraq in
a National Security Decision Directive [NSDD] which Teicher helped draft.
CIA Director William Casey “personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that
Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid
losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States
actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with
billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and
advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to
Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required.”

CIA personnel visited Iraq on a regular basis to provide surveillance
intelligence gathered by U.S.-supplied Saudi AWACS planes in support of the
Iraqi war effort. Both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency directly
assisted an Iraqi offensive in February 1988 by electronically “blinding”
Iranian radar for three days. “The United States also provided strategic
operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat,”
Teicher said. “For example, in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message”
through Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek, acting as an intermediary, “to
Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing
of Iran,” and “similar strategic operational military advice was passed” to
Hussein through meetings with various heads of state.

Teicher “personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey and Deputy
Director Robert Gates “noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such
as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off Iranian
attacks.” The CIA supplied cluster bombs to Iraq through Cardoen, a Chilean
company.

More than sixty officials of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency were
involved in the program that not only provided Iraq with intelligence on
Iranian positions, but actually helped Iraq to develop tactical battle plans
as well as plans for air strikes. Although it was well known by the later
stages of the war that Iraqi forces were routinely using chemical weapons
against the Iranians, American support for Iraqi offensives continued. “The
use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep
strategic concern,” recalled a former high-ranking Defense Intelligence
Agency official. U.S. leaders were more interested in ensuring the defeat of
Iran. The Pentagon “wasn’t so horrified by Iraq’s use of gas,” remembered a
former official involved in the program. “It was just another way of killing
people – whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn’t make any difference.”

Saddam Hussein received unstinting support throughout his war with Iran. His
crimes were never an issue. Not, that is, until he miscalculated and invaded
Kuwait in 1990 in another attempted land-grab. This war, however, was not on
the U.S. agenda, and Hussein’s reckless action triggered an attack by the
U.S. and Great Britain, along with the imposition of UN sanctions. (2)

That Saddam Hussein was once regarded as a friend of the West is rarely
mentioned these days. As long as he directed internal repression and
external wars at those U.S. policy makers loathed, he could count on
support. It was only when his actions went against U.S. interests that he
was suddenly transformed into a tyrant and criminal. His methods had not
changed. Only the Western perception of him had shifted, because he no
longer served the purposes of global capital.

The U.S. did much to create Saddam Hussein and others like him. It is
impossible to avoid concluding that the trial of Saddam Hussein was little
more than a case of selective justice, meant to provide post-justification
for an invasion that was itself a grave violation of international law.
Saddam Hussein’s crimes were real enough, but those acts would never have
brought him to trial had he continued to operate within the parameters
sketched for him by the West. The trail of Saddam Hussein is hailed as a
triumph of justice, despite the fact that it was initiated and guided by an
occupying power. Yet one wonders. Who will judge the Western powers that
stand in judgment?

Gregory Elich is the author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and
the Pursuit of Profit
 http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/1595265708/ref=pd_rvi_gw_1/202-1992549-4788638

He is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on
the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. His articles have appeared
in newspapers and periodicals across the world, including the U.S., Canada,
South Korea, Great Britain, France, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, Russia, Denmark
and Australia.



NOTES

(1) Richard Sale, “Exclusive: Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot,” UPI, April 10,
2003.
(2) “US and Iraq Go Way Back,” CBS News, December 31, 2002.
Patrick E. Tyler, “Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,”
New York Times, August 18, 2002.
Robert Windrem, “Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift,” MSNBC, August
18, 2000.
Christopher Marquis, “Rumsfeld Made Iraq Overture in ’84 Despite Chemical
Raids,” New York Times, December 23, 2003.
Michael Dobbs, “US-Iraq Ties in 1980s Illustrate Downside of American
Foreign Policy,” Dawn (Karachi), December 31, 2002.
Jeremy Scahill, “The Saddam in Rummy’s Closet,” Counterpunch, August 2,
2002.

Gregory Elich
- e-mail: gelich@worldnet.att.net
- Homepage: http://www.llumina.com/store/strangeliberators.htm

Comments

Hide the following 23 comments

'a friend and ally one day, and an enemy the next?'

31.12.2006 17:43

Better ask Roosevelt and Churchill that. After all, Stalin was our ally in World War II. And I think he can be described as 'a tyrant'.

Tyrants are in the eye of the beholder? Yes, if that beholder is being tortured, strangled or shot. And there are a million or two of those beholders.

Next, you're going to say - well, Bush and Blair are responsible for people being shot in their thousands. So were Churchill and Roosevelt. Does that mean we shouldn't have fought Hitler?

Saddam might have been supported by the Americans in the fifties. Just as we supported Stalin in the forties. Why? Because when you're fighting someone as nasty as Hitler, then you hold your nose when it comes to some of the people you regard as allies. The same in the Cold War, we supported a lot of people who were, shall we say, morally dubious. But as a result of that, the following countries are now free from Soviet occupation: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, east Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and probably a few others I've forgotten. So we supported Saddam against communism in the fifties. Around a hundred million people are grateful for that.

When did we turn against Saddam? When he invaded Kuwait. You can then parrot: 'war for oil'. Or you can say - why should Saddam march into another country and absorb it into his? Okay, we marched into Iraq. Do you really think Tony Blair wants to absorb Iraq into Britain?

A lot of you are very sceptical about Britain and America 'bringing democracy'. Well, in the last sixty years, they've brought democracy, or liberated from occupation, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, the Ukraine ... not a bad record.

sceptic


Who liberated who sceptic?

01.01.2007 19:26

Yeah, so America and the UK defeated the Nazis in World War 2, but also it was the Soviet Union that defeated Hitler, it was the catastrophic losses on the Eastern Front that ravaged the German was machine, and the fact that Britain is separated from Europe by the English Channel.

As for liberating the Eastern Bloc countries from the grips of the Soviet Empire? Well actually it was the people of these countries that liberated themselves from their oppressors, not the west invading them. Which is why it worked. Wheras in Iraq they have been invaded, given another few years Iraqis would probably have liberated themselves from Saddam Hussein, with a lot less bloodshed than the current "liberation"

Liberator


Thank you, Liberator, you make my point for me

02.01.2007 00:14

The Soviet Union was one of the Allies. exactly my point. We allied ourselves with another mass murderer - Stalin. Unfortunately, it was somewhat of a Faustian pact - eastern Europe found one occupier replaced by another.

These countries did liberate themselves - but probably wouldn't have done if it weren't for the continual pressure exerted on the USSR during the Cold War, leading to the Helsinki agreements and the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union.

As for Iraq: there were umpteen attempts by the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam, but given his brutal repression, they all failed. The Coalition forces should have finished the job in 1992, but got cold feet. The people in the south rebelled, but the revolt was crushed. The chances of getting rid of Saddam without external help were negligible.

Oh, and if you want more countries introduced to democracy by America, you could try Japan and the Philippines as further examples.

sceptic


skkkeptic

02.01.2007 05:46

What the fuck are you on. No seriously tell us where you get these brilliant jokes from.

The US/UK liberate countries???!! You mean they fought for the liberation of Europe during world war II while Britain occupied and oppressed half the world at the time. Churchil was one of many British freedom loving prime ministers responsible for the brutal treatment of the peoples of India, Egypt, Jordan I could go on for ages. The U.S was responsible for the liberation of Chile from the evil democratically elected allende while replacing him with the great liberator pinnochet. Same in Cuba. Batista was responsible for bringing freedom to the Cubans. Lets not forget the great liberating war of Vietnam. were all grateful for the USA and UK for fighting to maintain the colonialist status quo in the world. Not that its only the USA and UK. Every country plays their part as much as possible but its those two who are the biggest players right now. I love the liberators double standards. Saddam was a tyrant pinochets death causes sadness, ahmadinejad (elected by the iranian people) is a dangerous man. King abdulah of Saudi arabia (dictator of the country with the worst human rights record in the middle east) is a good friend.

USA/UK

Democratic/liberators/peace loving/Freedom loving......hahahahahahhahaaahahaha


...


ah, those oppressed countries

02.01.2007 09:36

Now, which is the largest democracy in the world? India. Why? Because that was the legacy of colonial rule.

Iranian democracy? Well, up to a point. You can vote for the people the ayatollahs approve of. Try looking to see how many people were disqualified as candidates even before an election.


Saudi Arabia? Nasty oppressive country. Sadly, it's got something we need. Countries with natural resources tend to be treated with rather more respect than those without. But that doesn't only apply to countries.

sceptic


Democracy: Made in Britain

02.01.2007 14:38

If your idea of the biggest democracy in the world is of a country who has managed to maintain half its population (500 million people!!) below the poverty line, and achieve a literacy rate of 60 whole % while at the same time preserving the priveleges massive wealth inequalities that existed during British rule then you may find that you have a warped view of reality.

Furthermore if you think that the way to bring 'democracy' to a country is to occupy, repress, and pillage what you can from that country and its people for 200 years then you must surely be proud of Britains history, for the great islands true goals all along was to bring democracy to the world and that it did to almost all the 'empire'. Just look at the countries one by one and ul realise how blessed they were to be occupied by this great democracy provider. All of British-Africa especially now enjoys the brilliant side effects of Britains divide and rule policy which of course was established to bring freedom to these people.

I cant even believe im carrying on with this conversation. You clearly live in a world of your own possibly a place called the 'autonomus koo koo cloud of right wing loons' and must therefore be marginalised and ignored forever.

...


Are you sure you poted on the right thread .. ?

02.01.2007 15:30

Yo' Septic wha gwaan an wha ya on ?
This is a very good well balanced article which appears to me to be very accurate and to the point.
You could go on about how Saddam was the democratic wests big buddy and all about exactly where he got
his chemical weapons from. But what the fuck ?
so hows does your first comment tie in with that ? what exactly are you on about ?
I do remember another little ditty about arms to Iraq in the shape of some monster gun that a british company
were helping him build I actually saw bits of it passing through europe and also just before it was stopped and
siezed by the Italian police.
No doubt Saddam was a bad man would have been nice to see a few UK/ EU arms dealers up on the gallow.
It really gets me how you can go on so much about Democracy which is basically two opposing puppets both controlled by the same pair of hands.
It'll soon be time to boot Blair and his new labour thugs out and replace them with some tory twat and a his
gang of thugs .. cor yeah great innit this democratic process ..

Septic (tank)


...

02.01.2007 15:35

By the standards by which Saddam was hung, we should probably have hanged Churchill as well. After all, Churchill was the first person to ever gas the kurds. He said

"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."

Bomber Harris said
"The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured."

Yes Sceptic, we were so civilised, bringing peace and democracy to Iraq back then, just like we're doing now.

Pure hypocrasy...

Hermes


so tell me ...

02.01.2007 17:08

Who did bring democracy to most of the world? Russia? No. China? No. Japan? No. Africa? No. The Middle East? No. So what are your suggestions?

sceptic


oh, and by the way

02.01.2007 17:53

Saddam was hanged neither for using poison gas nor for bombing villages. He was hanged for mass reprisals against a town in which an assassination attempt was made. 148 people were picked and random and killed.

sceptic


What we want/What we believe

02.01.2007 19:06

Democracy as a term is very vague in itself to speak of. If a country does not have a grass roots movement then there is no way 'democracy' or whatever is perceived as fair can be brought to that country. None of the countries you mentioned have brought democracy or infact any form of freedom anywhere. Neither has the west. It has continually showed a pattern of intervening where its economic or political (long term expansion) intersts lye bringing change in many forms from governments elected 'Soviet style' to brutal dictatorships. The case is that it doesnt have to be one or the other way. A united uprising in Iraq would have succeeded with a lot less bloodshed. The real situation however is that Iraq was clearly a country which consisted of 3 groups. 1 majority and 2 large minorities. The west did not take this into account as it did not care about the solution to the peoples problems rather it focussed on what they stood to gain from Iraq. Thus we have the mess that there is now.

I will not label myself with an ideology but rather I will tell you what i feel is the way forward for humanity. Religions and borders in my opinion are different creations supporting the same goals. They aim to separate and sidetrack people from addressing the real issues. The USA used religion and patriotism in many a wars as a way of rallying its citizens around the flag and against the 'enemy'. Britain aswell either using religion during the crusades or patriotism (for king and country) in other circumstances. In Iraq religion is being used by a small group of people seeking power in order to gain a position of power in the country sinking it deeper into unrest when the real priority should be to get rid of the occupiers and the companies they have brought in to the country to pillage its wealth. After this has happened the people must focus on bettering their lives and making decissions collectively. Western style democracy in a nut is a slightly milder form of dictatorship. Candidates who will fight for maintaining the status quo of the elite will be funded by the elite (effectively the rich) and promoted by the elite either by the media or by making statues in memory of certain so called 'heroes' who in truth were not much different to people the likes of saddam. They write history in their way and create a form of 'popular memory' wihin a country's people in order to solidify their position. In effect even tho there are alternative ideologies accessible, they are not spoken of/daemonised/or when necessary suppressed, and are replaced by their own again. e.g Go to a library and pick up a book on Churchill. 9/10 books you will pick up will be nothing less than a complete appraisal of the man. Churchill himself would be more critical had he written them.Yet there is plenty of info to contradict these books. So why have people written them in that way. well a combination of the popular memory and national identity will not allow as well as publishing companies unwillingness to publish anything contradictory to that history will innevitably lead to history being written in that way. We are not free as people. We are told what to do from day 1 of our lives. What to buy to make us look good. what to eat if we wanna be 'cool' what to vote (have u seen many ads from any1 but the big 3 during an election campaign?)
how to think (via the education system which promotes the mainstream historical concepts without giving you a glimpse of accounts to contridict that,) These democracies usually spring up in the west where they are able to provide their people with a better standard of living (at the expense of 3rd world countries whose wealth they are using for this). As long as people develop in a conformist fashion then the govt will allow you certain freedoms to criticise, to mock, to develop different patterns of thought. However when there is evidence that there is amovement growing to challenge this status quo, these govts will not hesitate to shift from mild dictatorships to harsher dictatorships. This is when the terror laws, the banning of demonstrations, the police brutality kick in. It happened under thatcher during the famous strikes (esp miners) and it is happening now with the new laws where the definition of a terrorist can now be defined as (if you're not with us, you're a terrorist) If you read up on left wing ideologies be that communism or anarchy (and i dont mean communism in the way it was used by the eastern block, china etc) I mean the actual ideology, you will see why these 'democracies' feel so threatened by them. It effectively offers a change from elitist politics and a society where the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, therefore threatening this elite base and its employer (the govt). Alternatives exist, i suggested you doing some research on the alternative i have to offer, or do your own research on anything else, the point is at the end of the day there is another way/other ways.

...


and by the way

02.01.2007 19:09

Had he been tried for the other crimes then a lot would come out on the role that countries such as the US and UK played for those things to happen thus incriminating them as well;. Yet more proof of who really controlls justice in Iraq

...


don't let history confuse you ...

02.01.2007 20:57

'Candidates who will fight for maintaining the status quo of the elite will be funded by the elite (effectively the rich)'

Really? That's no doubt how Lloyd George, Attlee and Wilson got elected Prime Minister, is it?

'Had he been tried for the other crimes then a lot would come out on the role that countries such as the US and UK played for those things to happen thus incriminating them as well'

Oh? Like blowing up oil wells in Kuwait? Draining the marshlands because he didn't like the Arabs who lived there? Like killing so many opponents he had to resort to mass graves? Now if he'd been as wise as Hitler, he'd have cremated all his victims, so you could have turned round and said: What gas chambers?

sceptic


I suppose

02.01.2007 23:50

Those crimes exceed the million people that died because of him in the US/UK supported/pushed dirty war with Iran, or the gassing of hte kurds in Hallabjah at a time where the west still supported saddam and saw him as a key ally in the middle east. Again the chemical weapons were supplied by the west. But yea you have a point that blowing up oil fields in Kuwait is a much more significant event to mention and the scum must be tried and killed for it. I mean c'mon, this is oil were talking bout after all. It exceeds everything else in importance. EVERYTHING!

...


complicity

03.01.2007 01:02

Yes, we did see him - initially, at any rate - as an ally. And to revert to my earlier point, we saw Stalin as an ally, despite the rape of hundreds of thousands of women in Berlin, the ethnic cleansing of eight million Germans from Prussia, and the gulags - which so many on the left denied for so long.

And, willfully or not, you have misinterpreted my point about the oil fields. The pollution it caused was phenomenal. And it was done not on the basis of necessity, but out of pure spite.

We are well rid of him, as we are of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Milosevic (and there have been plenty of apologists for the latter on Indymedia).

sceptic


Massive differences

03.01.2007 10:13

Let's assume for a bit just for conveniance sake that Hitler and Stalin were more tyranical than Churchill and Roosevelt. Even though Im sure that the British colonies and South America at the time which was experianancing Americas 'good neighbour' policy would strongly disagree. You never armed Stalin. You never pushed him into a war with say Poland. In fact it was Stalin who wsa begging the west to form an anti fascist alliance in the 30's while the west turned a blind eye and even assisted Hitler in becoming more powerful through their companies investment in Germany and 'appeasment'. Take a look at the role of European but especially US companies in Germany's renaissance during the 30's. The case with Saddam was you funded him you armed him, then you pushed him to war with Iran which was definately not a threat to your security and only when he entered a Kuwait where there are plenty of British and US economic interests, did you start seeing him as a threat. Before that he was gassing kurds, killing 1million Iranian/Iraqis and he was still a friend.The west has been on froendly terms with murderous dictatorial regimes forever. Many times they put them there themselves, others they just assisted in one way or another. If you cant see the Hypocracy and still think that its all in the name of democracy in some twisted ort of way then there's no saving you.

...


Indeed there are massive errors - in what you wrote.

03.01.2007 15:05

'You never armed Stalin.' Oh, yes, we did. Ever heard of the convoys to Murmansk? America sent $11 billion of armaments to Russia.

'You never pushed him into a war with say Poland.' No, we didn't - he did that in conjunction with Hitler.

Ever heard of the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact?

'The case with Saddam was you funded him you armed him,' No, we did not. 98% of Iraqi military equipment came from Soviet and Eastern European sources.

'you pushed him to war with Iran' We did not. He was quite capable of doing that by himself.

'The west has been on froendly terms with murderous dictatorial regimes forever.' Oh, yeah, like Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Pol Pot in Cambodia - murderous ... indeed, they probably accounted for about 25 million people killed.

Now let's see - as I have pointed out, the West brought democracy to Japan, India, and almost all of Europe. Now, tell us who has brought democracy to the world? Russia? No. China? No. Japan? No. Africa? No. The Middle East? No. So what are your suggestions?

sceptic


WTF

03.01.2007 18:18

Seriously your basic reading into situations is quite disturbing. Yea Iraqs Kalaznikovs and ancient rocket launchers may have come from the Soviets. But where did all the good stuff come from. The weapons that allowed Iraq to use chemicals on Iranians for 8 years, and the Kurds later on. You say the West did not push Iraq into the Iraq Iran war. Look up any article on the issue and ul get your answers.
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

Here's one to start you off.

You say the west never backed any murderous regimes. You mean like Saddams, Like the Russian Tsars for centuries before the bolshevik revolution. What was the difference to you between the Russian Tsars and Stalin??!! They put Batista into Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, aided with the kidnapping of Chavez (elected) in Venezuela, armed and trained the Contras in Nicaragua, assisted in the Greek overthrow of the government in 1967 by the military, helped the French in their quest to keep hold of the south of Vietnam, Back the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE. This could go on for ages. The bringing of democracy to anywhere cannot be attributed to the US, the UK or infact any other country. By forcing a system upon a people without having any knowledge of their history culture or wants is in its own dictatoral. They brought democracy to Iraq by funding and allowing only pro occupation puppet parties to run for the elections. They did the same in Afghanistan by funding only Karzai's party who coincidently worked for a US consortium of companies (UNOCAL) which also won the contract for afghanistan's famous gas pipeline running through central asia.

...


read your sources first

03.01.2007 19:08

'When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.'

Shortened version: the West did not push Saddam Hussein into the Iran Iraq war.

'Yea Iraqs Kalaznikovs and ancient rocket launchers may have come from the Soviets. But where did all the good stuff come from.'

The good stuff: Iraq armed forces 2003:

'Tanks (Total: 2,200)

The Iraqi tank forces consist mainly of old Soviet design. The Type-69/59 are Chinese copies of the Soviet T-55/54 tanks. (see List of Soviet tanks)

* T-72 (700)
* T-62 (500)
* T-55/54 (500)
* Type-69 (350)
* Type-59 (150)

AIFV/APCs (Total: 3,800)

* AML-60/-90 (300+)
* FV-701 (90+)
* PT-76 (100)
* MT-LB (1,500+)
* YW-531 (1,000+)

Towed Artillery (Total: 1,900)

* M-56 105 mm
* D-74 122 mm
* D-30 122 mm (100+)
* M-1938 122 mm (400+)
* M-46 (130)

Multiple Rocket Launchers (Total: 200)

* BM-21 MRL 122 mm
* ASTROS II MRL 127 mm (60+)
* BM-13/-16 MRL 132 mm
* ASTROS SS-30 MRL 180 mm
* Ababeel-50 MRL 262 mm (50+)
* ASTROS SS-60 300 mm

Surface-to-Surface Missiles

* Frog-7 (50)
* Scud-B (27?)
* Al Abbas
* Al Hussein
* Al Samoud

Fighters

The J-7 is a Chinese copy of the MiG-21.

* Dassault Mirage F1
* Su-20/Su-22
* Sukhoi Su-25
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29
* J-7

Surface-to-Air Missiles

* Crotale
* Roland
* SA-2 Guideline
* SA-3 Goa
* SA-7 Grail
* SA-6 Gainful
* SA-8 Gecko
* SA-9 Gaskin
* SA-13 Gopher'

source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq

Find me one piece of Western built equipment.

You have to go back to the Tsars of Russia? Good one, that.

All the other examples you have quoted were Cold War examples. The old saying: my enemy's enemy is my friend. A few hundred million people are quite grateful the Cold War is at an end - thanks to mainly to NATO.

'By forcing a system upon a people without having any knowledge of their history culture or wants is in its own dictatoral.'

Yes, indeed - I'm sure that we ought to apologise to the Indians, for example, or to the Japanese. We should have left them in their feudal state.

Yeah, that's fine. Just let them rot under tyrants. Makes life easier, too.

sceptic


how low can you go

03.01.2007 23:02

Your selectiv ememory is amazingly good.

The article also points out that

"The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." But yea you got the final quote right. 100 million people of the world are grateful that the US funded wars of aggression and planted dictators all over the world. The vietnamese are grateful that the US burnt the shit out of them with napalm, raped their women, killed their children, in a country it had no right to be in in the first place. The Greeks are grateful for the 7 years of military dictatorship which resulted in deportations, imprisonments and bloodshed with the peak being the student protests of 73, the Indian citizens owe a great deal of gratitude to the British for having been treated as animals for 200 years. You even have the audacity to claim that Britain freed and brought democracy to india. What history are you reading? The true liberation of any nation has always taken place by the uprising of its own people. The same happened in India. Have you not heard of the indian independence movement. As for Japan id recommend reading Chomsky's 'deterring Democracy'. It might make you ask a few more questions about the U.S actions both past and present. On a final note, the arrogance of a people in a nation feeling they are high and mighty enough to determine another peoples future is sickening. You cannot claim that 100 million ppl are thankful to the USA for its actions. The USA is the most hated country in the world from Africa to Asia to the Middle East, to South America. Dont fall into the trap of caliming you represent those people or you know how they feel, You sound an awful lot like bush and blair when you do.

...


moving on ...

04.01.2007 01:11

Aren't you falling into your own trap here:

'The USA is the most hated country in the world from Africa to Asia to the Middle East, to South America. Dont fall into the trap of caliming you represent those people or you know how they feel'

You know, when I read all the polemics on Indymedia about how dreadful the US is how everyone hates it, etc, I then think: surely no one in their right mind would ever want to go there. So now, why is it that there are literally millions of people who are doing there utmost to get? And no one wants to leave. A little odd. A bit of cognitive dissonance here.

Dictators. I say again: who were the most tyrannical of the twentieth century? Hitler in Germany, and Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev and the rest. Heard of gulags, have you? Tojo in Japan. You talk of how the British treated the Indians like 'animals' [nothing like a bit of hyperbole, is there?]. Well, look at what the Japanese did in China, for example. Try this, for example:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre.

The US and Britain spent the twentieth century opposing each of these, and in the case of Britain, at very considerable cost to itself.

'The true liberation of any nation has always taken place by the uprising of its own people.'

Oh, I agree. But if you've someone like Stalin, Hitler or Saddam at the top, then you've no chance. They just butchered any opposition. Now tell me, during the colonial movements for independence in the 1950s and 60s, how many opposition leaders did we kill? None. Indeed, did we not leave them in charge of the country at independence?

sceptic


Fuck It

04.01.2007 07:03

This is tiring and pointless. Your historical analysis is at best GCSE standard and it seems to me like the only reading youve ever done is from wikipedia. I say the USA is the most hated country citing apretty lame example but nonetheless still showing something. The US flag is th flag most burnt in protests around the world. There is not 1 day where a US diplomat/state figure will visit another country and there wont be a protest against them. This is no coincidence considering how often the democratic loving US has interfered with other countries politics in order to either maintain or expand their economic interests. Citing your favourite and possibly only reading source i can too in seconds find you evidence of how Britain was implementing freedom while fighting fascists in Japan.

In India they went about it this way
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

This is what they did when the Irish people wanted their independence
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_War#British_response

Finally a summation from the Guardian
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,761626,00.html

You ended your point by saying

'The true liberation of any nation has always taken place by the uprising of its own people.'

Oh, I agree. But if you've someone like Stalin, Hitler or Saddam at the top, then you've no chance. They just butchered any opposition. Now tell me, during the colonial movements for independence in the 1950s and 60s, how many opposition leaders did we kill? None. Indeed, did we not leave them in charge of the country at independence?

1 TAKE IT BACK

2 Re-phrase it to 'Oh, I agree. But if you've someone like the british empire at the top, then you've no chance.'

How can any1 who has owned half the world, invented the modern history brutality methods, supported and funded some of the worst dictatorships including a figure you cant stop going on about (Saddam) have any right to claim war in the name of freedom and democracy.

This is my last post on this topic as continuing would be utterly pointless. I reccomend you research the word imperialism and read some books on western democracies and their foreign policy rather than justify their interventions on the grounds that the countries invaded have/had tyranical governments.

PS Iraqis are now 9 times more likely to be murdered than under Saddam. This problem did not exist before the war. What regime has lead to more brutality??

...


Finito

04.01.2007 08:48

This is tiring and pointless. Your historical analysis is at best GCSE standard and it seems to me like the only reading youve ever done is from wikipedia. I say the USA is the most hated country citing apretty lame example but nonetheless still showing something. The US flag is th flag most burnt in protests around the world. There is not 1 day where a US diplomat/state figure will visit another country and there wont be a protest against them. This is no coincidence considering how often the democratic loving US has interfered with other countries politics in order to either maintain or expand their economic interests. Citing your favourite and possibly only reading source i can too in seconds find you evidence of how Britain was implementing freedom while fighting fascists in Japan.

In India they went about it this way
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

This is what they did when the Irish people wanted their independence
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_War#British_response

Finally a summation from the Guardian
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,761626,00.html

You ended your point by saying

'The true liberation of any nation has always taken place by the uprising of its own people.'

Oh, I agree. But if you've someone like Stalin, Hitler or Saddam at the top, then you've no chance. They just butchered any opposition. Now tell me, during the colonial movements for independence in the 1950s and 60s, how many opposition leaders did we kill? None. Indeed, did we not leave them in charge of the country at independence?

1 TAKE IT BACK

2 Re-phrase it to 'Oh, I agree. But if you've someone like the british empire at the top, then you've no chance.'

How can any1 who has owned half the world, invented the modern history brutality methods, supported and funded some of the worst dictatorships including a figure you cant stop going on about (Saddam) have any right to claim war in the name of freedom and democracy.

This is my last post on this topic as continuing would be utterly pointless. I reccomend you research the word imperialism and read some books on western democracies and their foreign policy rather than justify their interventions on the grounds that the countries invaded have/had tyranical governments.

PS Iraqis are now 9 times more likely to be murdered than under Saddam. This problem did not exist before the war. What regime has lead to more brutality??

...