Saddam Was Already Irrelevant

[jamiroguy1]

Saddam Was Already Irrelevant

Seeing a captive, disheveled Saddam on television this morning released a cascade of memories for me. I remembered the innocent Jews brutally hung in downtown Baghdad when the Baath came to power in 1968; the fencing with the Shah and the Kurds in the early 1970s; the vicious repression of the Shiites of East Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala in 1977-1980; the internal Baath putsch of 1979, when perhaps a third of the party's high officials were taken out and shot, so that Saddam could become president; the bloody invasion of Iran in 1980 and the destruction of a whole generation of Iraqi and Iranian young men in the 1980s (at least 500,000 dead, perhaps even more); the Anfal poison gas campaign against the Kurds in 1987-88; Halabja, a city of 70,000 where 5,000 died where they stood, their blood boiling with toxic gases, little children lying in heaps in the street; the rape of Kuwait in 1990-91; the genocide against the Shiites that began in spring of 1991 and continued intermittently thereafter; the destruction of the Marsh Arabs; the assassinations, the black marias, the Fedayee Saddam. Yes, the United States was not innocent in some of this. Perhaps they cooperated in bringing the Baath to power in the first place, as an anti-Communist force. They certainly allied with Saddam against Iran in the 1980s, and authorized the purchase of chemical and biological precursors. But the Baath was an indigenous Iraqi phenomenon, and local forces kept Saddam in place, despite dozens of attempts to overthrow him.

A nightmare has ended. He will be tried, and two nations' dirty laundry will be exposed, the only basis on which all can go forward towards a new Persian Gulf and a new relationship with the West.

What is the significance of the capture of Saddam for contemporary Iraqi politics? He was probably already irrelevant.

The Sunni Arab resisters to US occupation in the country's heartland had long since jettisoned Saddam and the Baath as symbols. (See "Sunnis gear up" below.) They are fighting for local reasons. Some are Sunni fundamentalists, who despised the Baath. Others are Arab nationalists who weep at the idea of their country being occupied. Some had relatives killed or humiliated by US troops and are pursuing a clan vendetta. Some fear a Shiite and Kurdish-dominated Iraq will reduce them to second class citizens. They will fight on, as Mr. Bush admitted today.

My wife, Shahin Cole, suggested to me an ironic possibility with regard to the Shiites. She said that many Shiites in East Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere may have been timid about opposing the US presence, because they feared the return of Saddam. Saddam was in their nightmares, and the reprisals of the Fedayeen Saddam are still a factor in Iraqi politics. Now that it is perfectly clear that he is finished, she suggested, the Shiites may be emboldened. Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. As with many of her insights, this one seems to me likely correct.

Link to article

Related Links

Saddam's Capture: A Pyrrhic Victory in the Making?

Saddam Talks: No WMD, No US POWs in Iraq

[youarehot99]

This is what I keep talking about when you anti-Bush people on this board bitch about stuff just for the sake of bitching, no matter what is happening. We finally get Saddam and now its, oh it doesnt matter, it wont mean anything. Gimmie a break...irrevlavant? What kinda moron thinks that capturing Saddam doesnt mean anything?

How about lifting the spirits of the troop and the Kurds in the north who are working with the colalition. How about giving to the people who have been punished are persecuted by Saddam for years and years the satisfaction of knowing Saddam or his people will never be in power again. Thats a weight that we could never imagine thats being lifted off their shoulders....it also means he will finally pay for the ungodly things he's done to those people in the past. Maybe it doesnt really mean a whole lot to us here in the states...but it does matter in so many ways. So please people, dont say capturing him doesnt acomplish anything. Plus who knows, maybe he'll talk and tell us things we wanna know...fat chance, but ya never know.

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by youarehot99

This is what I keep talking about when you anti-Bush people on this board bitch about stuff just for the sake of bitching, no matter what is happening. We finally get Saddam and now its, oh it doesnt matter, it wont mean anything. Gimmie a break...irrevlavant? What kinda moron thinks that capturing Saddam doesnt mean anything?

How about lifting the spirits of the troop and the Kurds in the north who are working with the colalition. How about giving to the people who have been punished are persecuted by Saddam for years and years the satisfaction of knowing Saddam or his people will never be in power again. Thats a weight that we could never imagine thats being lifted off their shoulders....it also means he will finally pay for the ungodly things he's done to those people in the past. Maybe it doesnt really mean a whole lot to us here in the states...but it does matter in so many ways. So please people, dont say capturing him doesnt acomplish anything. Plus who knows, maybe he'll talk and tell us things we wanna know...fat chance, but ya never know.

Will this be one of them???

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s

DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;

U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;

Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam

Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:

.A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.

Watch the video

.National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

.National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

.U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

.The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

[youarehot99]

Be one of what?

What the US did in the early 1980s doesnt really have anything to do with what has happened in the past 5-10 years. At the time they were almost an ally because of the "financial" situation of the country. In other words, yeah we were oil happy and we were gonna kiss ass to keep somewhat control of their oil over there. You really think Regan gave 2 craps about Iran or them being invaded? Hell no, he had Saddam's back for the oil.

But guess what...at the time they were telling him to keep it all in check. The human rights issue, the WMD issue, and all that. Of course I'm putting it all in lehmans terms...he went wacko and got out of control with it, we told him to stop or else. He didnt, we turned our backs on him. You can say all you want about why we invaded both times...it was for oil or whatever...maybe thats true, maybe not. None of us will ever know...but the point is, he's gone now. Never again will the people of Iraq live in fear, and the U.S. has one terroristic threat out of the way. Let this be an example to N. Korea and that maniac Kim Jung Il.

Which is kind of a scary situation, but I give him credit...he's a lot smarter than Saddam. He could do a lot more damage the Saddam and Iraq ever could, but he's smart enough to know whatever he does will come back on him ten fold. Its one of those things where as long as he leaves us and S. Korea alone, we'll leave him alone. Lets hope it stays that way...

[xpyrate]

i dont think kim jung will learn anything from this ... n korea will prove a formadible foe ... especially with their capabilty to hit the west coast with a nuke

[marksimons]

Originally posted by youarehot99

Be one of what?

What the US did in the early 1980s doesnt really have anything to do with what has happened in the past 5-10 years. At the time they were almost an ally because of the "financial" situation of the country. In other words, yeah we were oil happy and we were gonna kiss ass to keep somewhat control of their oil over there. You really think Regan gave 2 craps about Iran or them being invaded? Hell no, he had Saddam's back for the oil.

well ze thing is, that a lot of people around in the early, mid, late, eighties early nintees, are, shock shock horror, back in town. the policies, people and organisations of reagan are back.

regan didn't know what the fuck was going on, a senile old man with a former CIA chief as his VP. like fuck he was running the country...

[pattbateman]

reagan was our greatest president. he is very underrated cause the liberals hate him so much and their biased media has been spinning stories about him the last 20 years and people dont know what they are talking about. people hate reagan just cause other people do with no real reason why. you ask the lay person who hates reagan why they are spechless. same thing if you ask a black why he is a democrat majority will have no idea why ("cause all black people are democrat"). i know i have gotten into many discussions with illinformed morons. sorry a little off topic im all over the place today

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by pattbateman

reagan was our greatest president...

What exactly makes him great? The fact that he had supported several failed proxy wars in South America and the Middle East that caused thousands of innocent people to die?

[pattbateman]

he won the cold war. saved the WORLD by building up our military and russia backing down. you can spin it anyway you want he won the war. shit, since reagan our economy has been pretty much on the up and up over all

[jamiroguy1]

Conservatives argue that Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents in American history—the man who won the Cold War, rekindled the American dream, and revitalized the worst economy since the Great Depression. Liberals counter that Reagan was a soft-minded dunce who ran up staggering debts, allowed AIDS to devour the gay community, and pushed us all dangerously close to World War III. Liberals presumably hoped to advance this vantage point of Reagan in this miniseries; conservatives flexed their might to convince CBS not to air what they considered unbalanced liberal propaganda. It’s remarkable how polarizing a figure Ronald Reagan still can be, even in the twilight of his life.

FICTION: Ronald Reagan won the Cold War

Just as Neil Armstrong didn’t single-handedly land on the moon, Ronald Reagan didn’t single-handedly win the Cold War. Nor did Reagan’s policies single-handedly win the Cold War. Thousands of Americans for over three-quarters of a century played important roles in combating communism—including Democrats Jack Kennedy and Harry Truman. Different policies at different junctures were required to stem the tide of Soviet aggression. Reagan’s philosophy certainly wouldn’t have worked in the early 1940s, when America needed an intimate alliance with the Soviets to battle the Nazis, so one could even argue that flexible restraint deserves as much credit as Ronald Reagan. The Cold War was ultimately won through an amorphous American foreign policy that included Reagan’s hard-line approach, but also included pragmatism and softer diplomatic measures.

[jamiroguy1]

Saddam’s Capture Means Trouble for U.S. Officials (click here)

[pattbateman]

watch the news and watch iraq fallin apart now that we got him

[youarehot99]

Originally posted by pattbateman

reagan was our greatest president. he is very underrated cause the liberals hate him so much and their biased media has been spinning stories about him the last 20 years and people dont know what they are talking about. people hate reagan just cause other people do with no real reason why. you ask the lay person who hates reagan why they are spechless. same thing if you ask a black why he is a democrat majority will have no idea why ("cause all black people are democrat"). i know i have gotten into many discussions with illinformed morons. sorry a little off topic im all over the place today

Regan our best president ever? Yikes...

I'm a Regan fan, but thats a little far fetched. How about Licoln...ya know, the guy who ended slavery.

[pattbateman]

yeah the republican who ended slavery. black people are lost. they dont even know why they hate republicans

[skince55]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

allowed AIDS to devour the gay community

how is this reagan's fault?

[pattbateman]

not, it just poped in my head!!!

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by skince55

how is this reagan's fault?

Read the book "And the band played on" By Randy Shilts (or watch the movie) or do a few google searches on the Reagan Administration and the Aids Epidemic in the 80's and see for yourself.