Bahu Virupaksha

Saddam Hussein and the US: A cosy Relationship gone wrong

Saddam Hussein and the US: A cosy Relationship gone wrong

Look at the past

The excecution of Saddam Hussein aon the day of Id marks an opportune moment to look back on his life, his brand of politics and of course, his relationship with the US which extended over three decades. I must say at the very outset that I deplore all that Saddam Hussein did in his life time, but yet maintain that the killing was not just bad politics but totally unjustified due to the fact that he did not receive a fair trial.

Saddam Hussein was born on 28th April 1937 near Tikri to a shepherd Arab family and was brought up by his stepfather for whom Saddam retained a great deal of real affection. He did not attend school till the age of 12 and learnt to read and write only in his teens. The early political formation of Saddam and men of his generation from less priveleged social backgrounds was in the Arab Socialist Baath Party which was influence deeply by Nasser's ideas of Arab nationalism. In the Arab Baath vision of politics there was no place for sectarian/religious/tribal identities. The US invasion of Iraq and its barbaric assault on the Iraqi polpulation has unravelled the carapace of pan regional Arab identity that was built up over the years, after Suez crisis of 1956.

In Iraq as well as in neighboring Iran, the Communist Parties were quite powerful and recived the full backing og the Soviets. In this deady coktail of cold war politics and Arab nationalism, Saddam Hussein plunged head long. The Iraqi monary established by the British was overthrown by General Karim Kassim, who was supported by the Communists. Though it is not clear from the primary records, there have been persistent echoes across the Arab world of Saddam Hussein being in the pay of the CIA which was trying to subvert the Iraqi government with the silent support of Nasser in Egypt. In 1959 Saddam Hussein participated in an attempted assasination of the Prime Minister of Iraq, Kassim.He escaped with a bullet in his leg and the scars of that injury remained all his life. As can be expected he was sentenced to death in absentia as he had escaped to Egypt. Had this sentence been activated and Saddam executed it would have been more just and honest. In Cairo Hussein trained to be a lawyer.

In 1963 the American backed CIA coup overhrew Qassim and this was just the first of several CIA operations in the Middle East. Saddam was back in Baghdad and the CIA provided him a list of prominent Communists and Saddam proved his mettle by tracking down and having a large number of communists killed. The Baath Party filled the political vacucum created by the eslipse of the Communists. In neighboring Iran too the CIA sponsored a coup in which a Natioanlist government was overhrown and the Shah and his blood thirst crew brought back. In 1963 Saddam Hussein became the Vice Secretary General of the Baath Party and in 1968 played an important role in the Coup that toppled the regime in Baghdad and in this coup too the US hand is suspected.

In the early 1970's Saddam Hussein was secure in his position to ease out Ahmed Bakr, a Tikriti, and became the dominant political personality. At every step he was aided by his deep and abiding links with the CIA. In fact the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein was reviled all over the Third World as a right wing dictatorship. What was not understood by the American sponsors of Saddam Hussein was that though he was willing to play ball with the Amricans, he was at heart an Arab Nationalist. One of the first acts of Saddam Hussein in power was to nationalise the oil and petroleum wealth of Iraq, a major blow to the US interests. Now we can understand why a President with strong links to the Oil Companies like George Bush II was so eager to launch an all out war against Saddam Hussein and even collaborate in his execution.

In 1972 Saddam Hussein signed a Treaty of Friendship with the then Soviet Union He embarked upon a programme of social and economic development in Iraq which transformed Iraq from a poor backward country into a vibrant economy. Saddam Hussein was responsible for spreading literacy in Iraq and today that country has the highest rate of literacy in the middel east. He launched a programme of Cummpulsory Free Education in Iraq and instituted land reforms that completely changed the face of Iraqi socirty. In fact the UNESCO honored Saddam Hussein with its highest award for the program.

Throughout the 1970's and 1980's the USA enjoyed the closest of ties with the regime of Saddam Hussein. The Iranian revolution had overthrown the client monarchy in Iran and the USA began to build up Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against what it preceived to be the threat of the Iranian Revolution spreading into the rest of the Arab world. USA in particular stoked Saddam's ambition of becoming the preeminent power in the region. Though Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party were staunch nationalists, the Iranian Government began to fan the fires of Shiaa sectatrian opposition to Saddam Hussein. The fact that Saddam had the complete backing of the USA and other western powers throughout the 8 long years of the Iran-Iraq War which took more that 1.5 million lives.In that war Kuwait with its cash rich oil weatth had promised Iraq a sum of 30 billion US $ as its contribution to the war against Iran. Kuwait never kept the promise and Iraq was drained of its oil wealth during the course of the war. The US gave military aid to the tune of 1.5 billion US dollars to Saddam Hussein dring the Iran Iraq War. This fact is hidden in all the discussions on the US relationship with the deposed dictator. This fact also explains why Saddam was not tried for the more serious charges of war crimes during the Iran Iraq war. Had a trial been held the truth of US complicity would have come out.

The problem with Kuwait was not just the promise of the war charges. During the Iran Iraq war, Kuwait bagan side drilling the oil fields near the border with Iraq and extracted oil worth a few billion. And Kuwait was a provinve of the Ottoman Empire and Iraq has always had claims over Kuwait and trhe only reason the West created Kuwait as an independent emirate was to protect its investment in Kuwait.

It is at this point Saddam made his biggest mistake: he marched into Kuwait in earlyn 1991 thinking that the US will back him as it had done in the past. That was a major miscalculation and the UN imposed sanctions regime led to the death of more than a million Iraqis.

How will the Iraqis remember Saddam Hussein? After the passions exited by the US sponsored Idenntity politics dies down, the Iaqis will remember Saddam Hussein as a martyr killed by the USA when he asserted Arab natioanlist pride.
30,614 views 76 replies
Reply #26 Top
Diplomacy is the advancing of national goals internationally. Doing what is in the best interest of a nation. It served a nations interest to have madmen on a leash at one time. Goals change and those madmen are either killed or cut loose.


Now we are talkiong sense. I too do not believe in the tall talk of "peace" "democracy" "freedom" and "liberty" with which US cloaks its diplomatic rhetoric. I too believe that nationas puesue their self interests and I have no quibble with you over that. My only problem is that USA seems to have forgotten that a Saddam Hussein was a far better bet for stability in the middle east than the mess it has fgotten into. And aslo remember that USA got sidetracjked from the larger war on Terror. US interests were not susserved by its invasion of Iraq and that is the poiunt. I too know every well that nations are not moral actors and do not believe that statecrsft has a moral purpose.
Reply #27 Top
The USSR started training and funding terrorist around the world in order to combat NATO without getting its hands dirty.


You talk of self interest and history. I will give you yet another example of how silly and shortsighted US foreign policy can be. In order to make a vietnam for the Soviets in Afghanistan, the USA trained and armed the mujahudeen who were hailed as great freedom fighters. Now the USA has to wage another war in the name of war against terrorisnm against the very men it armed and trained. So if USA pursues it rational goals there is no problem but the USA changes enemies into friends and friends into enemies very rapidly. And so also with Saddam Hussein.
Reply #28 Top
Before I can even hope to agree with this statement I first want to know the extent of your knowledge of Iraqi law. It may not seem fair in your part of the world but your laws are different that thiers. When Saddam ran the country a fair trial would be given but the outcome would have been determined before the trial started. At least for those lucly enough to have a trial.


You might think Iraqis prefer to be summarily punished without having their version of events heard, but I haven't heard that point of view garner much respect from any of the Iraqi specialists I've spoken to or read. For some strange reason they haven't made much note of such a surprisingly passive, masochistic perspective. One wonders how the resistance can even function at all when the citizenry, as you describe it, seems to enjoys being degraded.
Reply #29 Top
My only problem is that USA seems to have forgotten that a Saddam Hussein was a far better bet for stability in the middle east than the mess it has fgotten into.


I disagree with you here. Saddam became a serious threat to the world so he had to go. That was in the worlds best interest. As soon as he started supporting terrorist and talking of giving his WMD to the terrorist he signed his death warrent.

aslo remember that USA got sidetracjked from the larger war on Terror. US interests were not susserved by its invasion of Iraq and that is the poiunt


It was not sidetracked at all. In fact as long as we had support at home and did not seem fragmented with our international friends even Iran was screming to help us. As soon as we started to look weak they jumped into the war with both feet so they could become the leader of the Arab world. My point is that going into Afghanistan scared the pants off our enemies. Going into Iraq re-enforced this fear. Then we started arguing with each other and that killed the win.

Now the USA has to wage another war in the name of war against terrorisnm against the very men it armed and trained.



Wait a minute. First of all not all the people we trained are fighting against us. of the 100k only 10k worked for Al Qaeda. They are spread around the world training others. Just remember that the first thing AQ did before the the attacks of 9/11 was to kill off the Afghan leader who controlled the 90k bin Laden was fighting. It seems that only a small amount of people wanted to use that training against us unlike the 100% of the people trained by the USSR. Every military has people that misuse their training.

You might think Iraqis prefer to be summarily punished without having their version of events heard, but I haven't heard that point of view garner much respect from any of the Iraqi specialists I've spoken to or read.


But that has nothing to do with my statement. The laws of the country were being upheld. The Americans had nothing to do with the exicution of the man. All America did what provide security until the trial was over. Saddam was found guilty and according to thier law he was treated as they wished to treat him. Do I agree with what they did? Yes! Do I think it was handled badly? Yes! Like when the first woman was sent to the electric chair. Someone snuck in a camera and took pictures. Was it approved? NO!

Reply #30 Top
how about cia involvement in the 1963 coup, one consequence of which was saddam being named vice-secretary general of the victorious baath party (a crucial step in his trek to the top


According to the link you posted, this never happened.


Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Conflicting accounts of CIA and Saddam, 1959-1963

My posting last Saturday, For Whom the Bell Tolls: Top Ten Ways the US Enabled Saddam Hussein has elicited a very interesting account by a US government insider contesting the allegations about CIA-Saddam connections early in his life, specifically 1959-1963, and which denies CIA complicity in the first Baath coup of 1963 or the use of the Baath to destroy the Iraqi Communist Party.

The former official reports that Agency case officers in Cairo in 1960-1962 maintain that they never had heard of Saddam Hussein and that it was impossible that meetings should have been held with him without their knowledge. He says that he had looked into these allegations and had also contacted a number of Foreign Service Officers who were in the Cairo embassy at that time, and they also had no recollection of any contact with Saddam. (Another retired USG official who was in Cairo in this period also denied any such contacts, so I have it from two insider eyewitnesses.)

This source maintains that a national security official in Washington, DC, with Iraq oversight duties reports that he was called back to the office the evening of February 8, 1963, to find that the CIA chief of station in Baghdad was reporting that the Ba'this had overthrown and killed `Abd al-Karim Qasim and that "to convince the public of the demise of Qasim Iraqi TV showed a film of a Ba'thi officer holding up for view Qasim's severed head." This US government old-timer writes, "I assure you that the Ba'thi coup came as a TOTAL surprise to the US intelligence and diplomatic community . . . No one in the Washington community had ANY prior knowledge that this coup would take place, let alone having been involved in fomenting it . . ."

This source quotes an Agency case officer in Baghdad 1963 as saying that there was no connection whatsoever between the CIA Station and the Baath Party of Iraq "or with any element of the Iraqi government." There were penetrations of the Party, "but no liaison with it. It did not happen. Nor was there any significant contact between the Ba'thi government and the Political Section of the Embassy or with the Ambassador."
Reply #31 Top
According to the link you posted, this never happened


doc????

you do realize the portion you quoted was a response to an article posted the previous week in which mr cole provided statements directly attributed to real people with real names in which those people revealed what they knew about the us government's role in creating the baathist iraqi state and assisting hussein to take complete control of it?


i'm not sure how you coulda missed it since it was spelled out very clearly in the first sentence you quoted. in any event here's where it can be found what you shoulda checked into

apparently you prefer anonymous sources since the response you've quoted--unlike the original article and the rebuttal i quoted--cites no names or positions.

finally, you'll note the responses are posted in chronological order. the one i quoted--rebutting the anonymous source's response substantiated by statements allegedly uttered by even more ghosts--was posted afterwards, you're arguing it was already contradicted prior to appearing on the site?

a new first...even for you.
Reply #32 Top
How about Saddam's choice to take over the government by breaking the law. This got him a death sentence causing him to flee the country. Was the CIA at fault there as well?


sorta does seem that way:

"Iraq in the 1940s and 1950s had become an extremely unequal society, with a few thousand (mostly Sunni Arab) families owning half of the good land. On their vast haciendas, poor rural Shiites worked for a pittance. In the 1950s, two new mass parties grew like wildfire, the Communist Party of Iraq and the Arab Baath Socialist Party. They attracted first-generation intellectuals, graduates of the rapidly expanding school system, as well as workers and peasants. The crushing inequalities of Iraq under the monarchy produced widespread anger.

Qasim undertook land reform and founded a new section of Baghdad, in the northeast, which he called Revolution Township, where rural Shiites congregated as they came to the capital seeking work as day laborers (it is now Sadr City, where a majority of Baghdadis live). The US power elite of the time wrongly perceived Qasim as a dangerous radical who coddled the Communists.

1) The first time the US enabled Saddam Hussein came in 1959. In that year, a young Saddam, from the boondock town of Tikrit but living with an uncle in Baghdad, tried to assassinate Qasim. He failed and was wounded in the leg. Saddam had, like many in his generation, joined the Baath Party, which combined socialism, Arab nationalism, and the aspiration for a one-party state.

In 1959, Richard Sale of UPI reports,


' According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.'


CIA involvement in the 1959 assassination attempt is plausible. Historian David Wise says there is evidence in the US archives that the CIA's "Health Alteration Committee" tried again to have Qasim assassinated in 1960 by "sending the Iraqi leader a poisoned monogrammed handkerchief."


that damn hankerchief thing pretty much seals it for me. only those actually participating in such a ridiculous stunt could expect others to believe such thing actually occured.
Reply #33 Top
Saddam became a serious threat to the world so he had to go. That was in the worlds best interest. As soon as he started supporting terrorist and talking of giving his WMD to the terrorist he signed his death warrent


That is plain wrong. The accusation of having WMD was advanced by the US and its partners and not by Saddam Hussein. He did use chemical weapons in Hajbala during the Iran Iraq war, but thiose chemicals were supplied by West Germany with the approval of the US.

Going into Iraq re-enforced this fear. Then we started arguing with each other and that killed the win.


Once again the same old argument. The war was being won until the liberals came along and started questioning the purpose and objectives of the war. In fact since there were no weapons of mass destruction if Iraq, pray what was the objective for which the US went into Iraq in the first place. You seem to forget that as long as Saddam Hussein was running Iraq, that country was not a safe haven for terrorists.

It seems that only a small amount of people wanted to use that training against us unlike the 100% of the people trained by the USSR. Every military has people that misuse their training.


It is not the numbers that matter. The fact is that the USA, particularly the CIA thought that by fanning pan Islamic opposition to the Soviets, the US can visit a vietnam on that power. It did succeed. But in the process creagted the genie of Islamic fundamentalism that the US is not able to control.
Reply #34 Top
America had a cozy and warm relationship with they USSR because it was in our interest to do so. When Europe feard the USSR it was in thier best interest to beg America to join NATO which made our friend the USSR an enemy that we had to destroy


a cozy, warm relationship? at best, it was an alliance of necessity that was on the rocks well prior to yalta.

you're killin me here.

after informing bahu he's devoid of knowledge about diplomacy, you offer some fairy story about how western europe lured an unsuspecting usa join them and turn our backs on our good buddy uncle joe?

i'll grant you there are a lotta people who appear to have not even the faintest glimmer of understanding about diplomacy. most of em have spent the last 6 years sucking up to our president--perhaps the most stubbornly defiant diplomacy ignoramus to hold public office in living memory.

not so obtuse, however, that he don't understand the danger failed states pose...just enuff to be able to ignore it.

time is ticking away. we'd be so much safer today if, instead of helping to convert a rogue state into a new failed state, we'd have invested half as much energy and money undoing the damage done by us and on our behalf in afghanistan and somalia.
Reply #35 Top
In fact as Kingbee has pointed out the factual basis of my post on the cosyrelationship between the US and Saddam Hussein is well known. He has thanks to the uncivilised manner in which he was put to death become the rallying point for all ARAB NATIONALISTS.
Reply #36 Top
apparently you prefer anonymous sources since the response you've quoted--unlike the original article and the rebuttal i quoted--cites no names or positions.


It was the "very same" source that YOU yourself linked to. Go read it again.


Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Conflicting accounts of CIA and Saddam, 1959-1963

My posting last Saturday, For Whom the Bell Tolls: Top Ten Ways the US Enabled Saddam Hussein has elicited a very interesting account by a US government insider contesting the allegations about CIA-Saddam connections early in his life, specifically 1959-1963, and which denies CIA complicity in the first Baath coup of 1963 or the use of the Baath to destroy the Iraqi Communist Party.

The former official reports that Agency case officers in Cairo in 1960-1962 maintain that they never had heard of Saddam Hussein and that it was impossible that meetings should have been held with him without their knowledge. He says that he had looked into these allegations and had also contacted a number of Foreign Service Officers who were in the Cairo embassy at that time, and they also had no recollection of any contact with Saddam. (Another retired USG official who was in Cairo in this period also denied any such contacts, so I have it from two insider eyewitnesses.)

This source maintains that a national security official in Washington, DC, with Iraq oversight duties reports that he was called back to the office the evening of February 8, 1963, to find that the CIA chief of station in Baghdad was reporting that the Ba'this had overthrown and killed `Abd al-Karim Qasim and that "to convince the public of the demise of Qasim Iraqi TV showed a film of a Ba'thi officer holding up for view Qasim's severed head." This US government old-timer writes, "I assure you that the Ba'thi coup came as a TOTAL surprise to the US intelligence and diplomatic community . . . No one in the Washington community had ANY prior knowledge that this coup would take place, let alone having been involved in fomenting it . . ."

This source quotes an Agency case officer in Baghdad 1963 as saying that there was no connection whatsoever between the CIA Station and the Baath Party of Iraq "or with any element of the Iraqi government." There were penetrations of the Party, "but no liaison with it. It did not happen. Nor was there any significant contact between the Ba'thi government and the Political Section of the Embassy or with the Ambassador."

He writes, "In November 1963, civil war erupted between two factions of the Ba'thi Party of Iraq. [The civil war was, eerily, suspended for one day that month when leaders of the two factions laid down their arms and came to a US Embassy sponsored memorial ceremony for John F. Kennedy.] The losing faction, including leader Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, Air Force Commander Munthir al-Windawi, and, presumably, a junior Saddam Husayn, then fled the country, most going to Damascus. This faction returned to take power in 1968."

I'm sorry to say that I cannot give more detail than this, but I would like to underline that the person I talked to is an eyewitness and insider, is not an apologist, and is about the best source a historian could hope for on this issue.


So before you accuse me of something, check the mirror first. If you wanted us to read something else then you should have posted the correct link. And btw.... there's a lot of words being bandied about in your second link like....alleged, attempted, and plausible to name but a few.
Reply #37 Top
or...your comment #16 is so typically vague and ambiguous (to provide you with lots and lots of wiggle room as anyone foolish enough to question your take on anything quickly learns) it's impossible to determine what exactly you're refusing to refute.


So english is not your forte' either as i CLEARLY said allegations. Allegations - Chronology - yea they look the same. NOT. You areally are a lousy debater.

Just for you, I will highlight the word again. all 3 times.

We have not refuted the allegation that the moon is made of green cheese either. Do we have to for those who chose not to believe? Apparently. He spews a lot of allegations, with no supporting documentation. I guess that is why you like him. The seriousness of the allegation negates the necessity for proof of it?


Reply #38 Top
CIA involvement in the 1959 assassination attempt is plausible. Historian David Wise says there is evidence in the US archives that the CIA's "Health Alteration Committee" tried again to have Qasim assassinated in 1960 by "sending the Iraqi leader a poisoned monogrammed handkerchief."


What you have just quoted in no way ties the CIA to "Saddam's" breaking of the law and recieving a death sentence. It "does" however point to yet another CIA screw-up!
Reply #39 Top
That is plain wrong. The accusation of having WMD was advanced by the US and its partners and not by Saddam Hussein. He did use chemical weapons in Hajbala during the Iran Iraq war, but thiose chemicals were supplied by West Germany with the approval of the US.


This is just plain correct! The accusations of wmd's was advanced by "every" single intelligence agency in the world. Please try to get your facts straight.
Reply #40 Top
CIA involvement in the 1959 assassination attempt is plausible


Love that! Ask for proof and get "plausible". Not even "evidence of", conspiriacy theory of, or anything like that, just plausible.

It is Plausible that Elvis Presley was involved as well. I am surprised you did not throw that into the stink you label proof.
Reply #41 Top
He has thanks to the uncivilised manner in which he was put to death become the rallying point for all ARAB NATIONALISTS.


We did "not" choose the manner of his death. That was done by an IRAQI court of law. So if you consider it uncivilized then complain to them about it.
Reply #42 Top
You areally are a lousy debater.


heh. and you're a master debator. (notice i'm able to spelll it properly)

not solely in the cheap play on words sense either. also by virtue of exactly the same sorta narcissistic indulgence one associates with jon lovitz' master thespian.

you've gotta lotta nerve dismissing bahu's statements outta hand as allegations considering you rarely--if ever (and i endured about an hour of searching through your archive without locating a single instance)--provide any factual support for any opinions you offer.

which is not to say you don't link to a lotta reportage to demonstrate what it is exactly inspiring your reaction. what you fail to do is provide any independent corroboration or evidence that your original source isn't merely some nutcase with whom you happen to agree or not.

wanna see a perfect example of you serving up completely unsupported (not to mention highly suspicious) opinions as fact, check the thread of gid's article about redeeming hussein.
Reply #43 Top
So before you accuse me of something, check the mirror first. If you wanted us to read something else then you should have posted the correct link. And btw.... there's a lot of words being bandied about in your second link like....alleged, attempted, and plausible to name but a few.


i truly have no clue how to make this clearer.

that thing you keep quoting (it's not really necessary to do it again btw) is a RESPONSE to the ORIGINAL article (to which i subsequently provided a link).

what i initially quoted is a REFUTATION (as in it provides evidence disproving or disqualifying the prior RESPONSE) by a person who qualifies as an expert attributing statements supporting his argument to their sources by name.

Reply #44 Top
Love that! Ask for proof and get "plausible".


as stated previously, i'm a believer if for no other reason than this: what would one establish oneself as an absolute idiot--which is exactly what one would be doing by publicly lending any credence to the efficacy of this sorta maxwell smart technology seriously--unless one had, in fact, been foolish enough to have given it a try?
Reply #45 Top
what would one establish oneself as an absolute idiot--which is exactly what one would be doing by publicly lending any credence to the efficacy of this sorta maxwell smart technology seriously--unless one had, in fact, been foolish enough to have given it a try?


I was wondering when you would finally stoop to that. Paraphrasing the idiocy of "it is not the evidence, but the seriousness of the charges" type of drivel.

No evidence whatsoever. Just "plausible". Why not throw Elvis in there. he met with the president. So it must be a conspiracy as well.

The way you are going, Col Klink has better arguements than you do.
Reply #46 Top
i was unable to edit my previous post when i attempted to summarize it by saying if someone seems convinced it's possible to escape prison by climbing up a flashlight beam, they've given it a try.
Reply #47 Top
you do realize the portion you quoted was a response to an article posted the previous week in which mr cole provided statements directly attributed to real people with real names in which those people revealed what they knew about the us government's role in creating the baathist iraqi state and assisting hussein to take complete control of it?


Maybe I misread it but it sounded like he recanted his article because he now had people who were there saying it did not happen.
Reply #48 Top
yall seem to be missing bahu's larger point.

based on his research--none of which has been refuted nor has anyone even attempted to do so on this thread--hussein's iraq was a product of us foreign policy. which is to say, the west
---kingbee

This is probably because that fact has been hit on more times than a Clinton intern. And her sister on a visit to the White House. And their mother, too.
It's been mentioned and covered and mentioned and covered so many times on here in the last three years+, no one probably felt the need to reiterate.
Yeah....we put him in; so what? Why is this such a big deal? Such a huge thing to continually point out? Cold War politics made strange bedfellows. Lots of deals with the Devil. Get over it.
If anything, I'd think that fact gives us more of a right to have taken him out, and we did.

exactly.

isn't there some sorta aphormism about secrets dying unrevealed with those who keep them?
---kingbee

Well, he did have ample opportunity to tell any such secrets in the trial, where he spent hours hanranguing and disrespecting the court and the present government. I mean, what were they gonna do if he did tell all? Kill him?

By the way----it's spelled "aphorism", Mr. Spell-Check


a cozy, warm relationship? at best, it was an alliance of necessity that was on the rocks well prior to yalta.
---kingbee

Not really....Roosevelt, Communist dictator-loving Democrat that he was, actually liked and thought a lot of Stalin and, despite Churchill's warnings, trusted him to keep his word to withdraw from Eastern Europe.

Hey---maybe Saddam's not really dead---maybe the CIA faked his hanging and took him to live with JFK, Jim Morrison, Elvis and Tupac. Hmmmmm.....

Just a thought.
Reply #49 Top
I think there is need for some sense of history in all this. Most seem to forget that Saddam Hussein was indeed an ally of the USA and for good reason: he had the oil and he took on the Iranians in a savage war that did not serve the interests of his own country.In all this the USA supported him as a bulwark of stability in the region, gave him weapons and military aid to the extent of 1.5 billion US dollars. In fact Donald Rumsfeldt was the envoy who supervised this special relationship between Iraq and the USA. All these are facts of common knowledge. Why did USA turn against him with such brutality that instead of putting the old horse to pasture was willuing to slaughter him. This is because Saddam decided to be independent abnd promote Arab nationalism using the Palestenian Cause. This new strategy of Saddam and his belligerence over the Kuwait question sealed his fate.
Reply #50 Top
I think there is need for some sense of history in all this. Most seem to forget that Saddam Hussein was indeed an ally of the USA and for good reason: he had the oil and he took on the Iranians in a savage war that did not serve the interests of his own country.In all this the USA supported him as a bulwark of stability in the region, gave him weapons and military aid to the extent of 1.5 billion US dollars


We've been over this before. But I'll say it again. The USSR was Saddam's BIGGEST suplier of weapons. Start doing some reading, will ya? They aren't shooting at our troops with M-16's are they? NO they"re shooting with AK-47's (which are RUSSIAN made). The planes found buried in the desert outside of Bahgdad...were they F-16's or 18's? NO they were RUSSIAN made MIGS! 68% of their total military came from Russia. 11.8% came from CHINA and a lowly 0.5% came from the US. Now you want to ammend your silly statement?

Link