I think that the one good thing that will come out of the Iraq invasion and the Bush Administration in general is that the whole thing has activated an entire generation of “18 to 39’ers” to become informed and politically active. I’m not just talking about those dirty, pseudo-countercultural WTO-protesting GAP window kicker-inners that show up to protest anything that moves - I’m talking about upper-middle class educated professionals who really didn’t give much of a rip about politics until this all happened, and are now organizing in their communities, attending and organizing sane and legal protests, writing their representatives, hell, even running for offices.
I think that most of us 18-39’ers just assumed that no matter what happened in the world of politics, there was no way that it could really get THAT bad - and we’ve seen the danger of this line of thinking manifested in this illegal, unprovoked war and the truly insane actions of this administration. It’s been a wake-up call that no, we haven’t really come a long way from the insanity of the red scare and the cold war and the unabashed illegality of the Vietnam era at all - that with “9/12” we could find ourselves in a sociopolitical situation that would make Kafka and Orwell roll in their graves (and that we’re already more than halfway there since 9/11).
It should be pointed out that this is not a “timetable”, which, as The Leader has commented, would allow our enemies the strategic advantage of “waiting us out”. This is different. Very different. Not the same thing at all. Nosiree Bob. Not even close.
‘In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam’s Ba’ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq’s secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA’s close friends in Iraq.’
‘While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.’
Incidentally, in a Frontline story aired on 25 January 2000, titled “The Survival of Saddam”, it was revealed that Saddam Hussein, then an up-and-coming CIA asset and dictator, and other members of the Ba’ath party worked with “the Americans” to overthrow General Kassem. According to Frontline, “With CIA help, the Iraqi Ba’ath Party seized power in 1963. General Kassem was killed in the coup. The CIA provided lists of suspected communists for Ba’ath Party hit squads, who liquidated at least 800 people. Saddam Hussein rushed home to join in as a interrogator, torturer and killer.”
Yes, most of the usual Western countries sold arms to Saddam. One main reason for this was the Iran-Iraq war. The US was terrified that a fanatical religious country would control the Iraqi oil. Since Iran had massive numbers of troops, Saddam received chemical WMD’s which he used in the war, and later on his own people.
‘In the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration sent then-private citizen Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to improve relations. Rumsfeld is now the U.S. secretary of defense.
…
To the United States, Iraq’s secular regime was an important counter-balance to Iran, where anti-American passion mixed with radical Islam had led to the overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah.’
You’ll like the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands. Did Rumsfeld get blood on his?
Perhaps the US shouldn’t have put Saddam in power then. :rolleyes:
Surely you understand that Iraq is part of the War on Terror?! It was sold to the electorate as a reaction to 9/11. :rolleyes:
If Bush decides to invade somewhere in future, even I could write the speech:
"Fellow Americans … we must strike against the terrorists … War on Terror … freedom … Al-Qaida … democracy … remember 9/11 … they have nuclear weapons … US cities must be kept safe … duty … patriotism … necessary action … World Trade Centre … surgical strike … God.
I had forgotten the CIA’s envolvement with Saddam in the 50’s. I’m unsure whether its accurate to say the US put Saddam in power though. It seems clear from your cites that we assisted Saddam for our own reasons (looks liketo topple the old government, but I think it was Saddam himself who siezed power on his own. I’ll have to look it up again, but IIRC it was the British that had more of an impact on events in Iraq than the US did.
Certainly. The US certainly sold arms to Iraq (mostly Soviet arms IIRC purchased gods know where) with the sole intent to harm Iran. The other powers who sold arms to Iraq however probably had, er, other motives (like money).
No doubt he’d like to forget about that. Its always embarrassing when one is caught holding hands with someone like Saddam. Sort of like Clark.
The same way America does…by securing (in theory) a vital strategic global resource. You do realize that the US doesn’t actually import much oil directly from Iraq, right?
Well, I’m still unsure that the data indicates the US did directly put Saddam in power. CIA involvement with Saddam in the 50’s doesn’t necessarily mean that it was the US’s actions, directly, that enabled Saddam to sieze power in the early 60’s ('62 or '63 IIRC).
Certainly I understand the arguements that Iraq is part of the WoT, and I understand that the Administration THINKS its part of it…and I understand how the war was sold to the American people.
Thats great, but the reality is its going to be a bit more difficult to sell another foreign adventure unless there is rock solid proof that nation X did indeed attack the US. And this will remain the case for many years to come. Even leaving aside the realities that we simply don’t have the military force to invade another nation, politically that dog just won’t hunt, nor is it likely to get off the porch any time in the forseeable future. I’m sure you are aware that Bush’s numbers have been in a continual slide downward, and resistance for the war here in the US continues to rise. Do you REALLY think Bush could simply give that BS speech you posited and gain enough support with the people (let alone in the COngress and Senate) for another military adventure? Really?
He can tell fish stories till his nose is 20 feet long for all the good it will do him. His political capital for a new war is at something like negative 450 these days. Even if Bush had a hard on for a new war, and even if the US military COULD invade and occupy another country there is no way in hell that Bush would get another war through the Congress and the Senate…let alone through the people. The American people are already getting more and more unhappy with THIS war and you think he could get another one through? The one and only caviot I’ll give is that if some maniac detonates another large bomb or flys a plane into another building in the US and we can directly trace it back to a nation state…and at a guess the level of proof required is going to be VERY high.
Contrary to popular opinion the US is not pre-War Nazi Germany, and Bush is neither god nor king…nor dictator for life. He’s just a putz who has a bit more than 3 more years before we can shake the dust of his presidency from our boots before we move on to the next putz in line for the job.
I don’t believe there was ever a time when Iraq was less than anxious to sell oil to the US, certainly I don’t think there was ever a time when Irag refused to sell oil to the US. During the embargo after GW I, they didn’t sell oil to the US but that was a US law. Saddam was in it for the glory and money (mostly money). If the US had offered to pay cash, we could have purchased all the Iragi oil we wanted at any time. Of course the Iragi gov’t kept mouthing off all the time, but cash was always welcome.
I don’t know why we invaded Iraq. It made no sense at the time (to me). So I am going to take Bush/Cheney on face value. Those two really believed that Saddam was working on WMDs and were afraid of them. I can’t explain why they were so afraid of them, but that is what Bush said and I can’t come up with a better idea.
So I don’t think one should put access to Iraqi oil in the “good parts” column. Access to that oil was never in doubt before the war and so far the only effect of the war has to reduce the supply of Iraqi oil to everyone.
My understanding is that Saddam Hussein was specifically excluding U.S. companies from oil contracts in his country (for obvious reasons). IIRC he was offering those contracts to French, Russian and Chinese (?) companies.
So just leveling the playing field would be in the interest of the U.S.
I think you have to think of oil for what it is - power, control, and the U.S’s greatest vulnerability. Oil is like Oxygen to the U.S. If our oil flow is cut off or even significantly restricted, both the military and the ecomony will be crippled. Terrorism’s got nothing on that threat. During OPEC’s oil embargo in 1973 the U.S. seriously considered invading Saudi Arabia. For good reason - it was about to devastate the economy and it was making it increasingly difficult to prosecute the Vietnam War. In 2002 the situation stood that the majority of the world’s oil supply was controlled by unstable allies at best. And the future was looking bleaker as Iraq - which is thought to have undiscovered oil reserves (most undeveloped) which may match Saudi Arabia’s - was outright hostile to the U.S. and giving potentially vast oil contracts to U.S competitors. Of course Saddam would have used whatever power he had against the U.S. if he could. To make things worse there are emerging high demand consumers like China to pick up the slack should any country decide to embargo the U.S. as leverage. So we were in a situation where we were less and less in control of our destiny and more and more controlled by potentially hostile powers.
I fully agree with your use of the phrase ‘sold to the American people’.
Here in the UK, we had an amazing parliamentary debate, in which Blair assured us that Saddam not only had WMD’s, but was ready to strike UK bases in 45 minutes. Even though the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook (who had seen all the ‘intelligence’) resigned, saying there was no need to go to war, Blair still sent the troops in.
Since then Blair has announced that although there were no WMD’s and that Saddam had no capability to hit any UK base, he (Blair) has nothing to apologise for. :rolleyes:
Further, Blair insists that the recent bombings in London have nothing to do with the UK troops in Iraq. :wally
I certainly hope there is not another violent fiasco to come. However given that there was never any proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and the US still invaded, it seems clear that any proof, let alone ‘rock solid’, that ‘nation X did indeed attack the US’ is not needed for Bush to invade.
I don’t live in the US, so I don’t know how much control the Republicans have over the Congress and Senate.
I do know that using phrases like ‘War on Terror’, ‘WMD’s’, ‘support our troops’, ‘faith in God’, ‘Homeland’ and ‘Patriot’ (as in Homeland Security and Patriot Act) are symptoms of not having any proof, but just appealing to the basic instincts of the electorate.
Guantanamo Bay is still open.
A vocal minority still protests evolution.
It’s not encouraging.
