Reasons for Why Iraq Was Better of Under Saddam…

Originally posted by ShazamsChampion
His soldiers put children into plastic shredders feet first, ours hand out candy and toys.

Again, not to defend Saddam in any way, but everything I've read indicates the people shredder story was a farce, and I never heard anything about children being fed into it. I tend to believe it is not true, because given the lack of WMD's, you'd think they would have shown pics of the shredders all over the news in order to help justify the invasion. Also, they videotaped all the other terrible things they did to people, there should be some video out there floating around of somebody being shredded.

Originally posted by Willard856
I'd be interested to know your opinion (and the other apparent liberals) on the recent phone-tapping allegations against the NSA. By the logic you have presented above, you should be fine that the government does this as it will promote stability and security, despite the inconsequential restrictions on freedoms.

First, it's only for calls in and out of certain countries, or so they say. Even if it weren't the case, I guess in principle it's intrusive, bu I don't really feel that I have any more restrictions on my freedoms than I did before. Do you know anybody who has been affected by the phone-tapping? I don't, if some computer wants to record me talking dirty to my girlfriend of BS'ing with my friends, whatever (even though I understand certain key words have to be said a certain number of times in order to trigger it). I guess if you want to plan a government take over or a terror attack, you may be inconvenienced by having to find another way to communicate with your associates, but other than that, how is it gonna help the government put us all in camps or whatever to listen to boring personal calls? In fact it would be a huge waste of time and manpower, and wouldn't further their evil agenda in the slightest....


[edit on 25-5-2006 by 27jd]

That was kind of my point 27jd. In the US, the impact of freedoms are inconsequential. However, in Iraq, they were very consequential. Yet we have people on ATS demanding that the Government cease and desist, that they may have to "fight for their freedom". But in Iraq, a psychotic mass murderer who actually did oppress his nation through mechanisms such phone-tapping, apparently this is ok, and the Iraqi people were better off with this. My point was I see a disconnect in the logic of some posters in this thread. If you do take the point of view that government mechanisms to promote security such as RFID, identity cards, and phone-tapping, is very bad, and your freedoms mean more to you than life itself, then how is it possible to advocate that another society should accept and live with such constraints, because they were apparently "better off"?

As for the political discussion, as a non-US citizen, I can't really comment too much, other than my personal opinion is Afghanistan would definitely still have happened under a Democratic government, but I'm not so sure about Iraq. This is simply an opinion based on gut feel, not any form of in-depth analysis of the topic.

Originally posted by Willard856
If you do take the point of view that government mechanisms to promote security such as RFID, identity cards, and phone-tapping, is very bad, and your freedoms mean more to you than life itself, then how is it possible to advocate that another society should accept and live with such constraints, because they were apparently "better off"?

Personally I don't think the government mechanisms really promote security, as much as the illusion of it, to go along with the illusion that we're all in terrible danger without it. Fact is, if somebody wanted to commit a terror attack, the government would probably not be able to stop them. As far as the Iraqis being "better off" under Saddam, only time will tell I guess. But if we pull out and a fundamental theocracy takes hold, we may actually be able to say they were better off. Also, I wonder where all these freedom fighters, so willing to put their lives in jeopardy, were when Saddam was in power. And finally, if we're going around liberating everybody from murderous tyrants, we have alot of work ahead of us because there are plenty more out there and it seems unfair to pick and choose who we help, right? Aren't we obligated to help everybody if that's really our motive?

The Iraqi's have an opportunity to forge their own destiny. I believe this already makes them better off than having to participate in a sham election to revalidate a dictator. If they choose, of their own free will, to become a fundamentalist theocracy, then good for them.

As for where the "freedom fighters" were during Saddam's reign, a lot of them were in Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Of the others, they were part of the minority who benefited from Saddam's rule, and those who didn't were too terrified to act because of Saddam's likely response. Villages were gassed for going against Saddam's wishes. People imprisoned, tortured and executed for speaking their mind.

Should the US pounce on every dictatorship or Government you don't agree with, or think is bad for the people of the country? Well, that is far from me to say. It is an interesting question, and as we all know, the answer is far from black and white. Without the WMD justification, would the Iraq invasion ever have happened? I don't believe so. Did the US invade with the thought that they would gain strategic advantage in a hostile region? Absolutely. Does the rest of the world want the US to be the big stick that keeps everyone on the straight and narrow (however the US defines it)? Who knows. China certainly didn't appreciate some of the comments in the recent Congressional report into their military capabilities, and I can understand why. In fact, the Executive Summary to the report asks:

This lack of transparency prompts others to ask, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did in June 2005: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases? Why these continuing
robust deployments? Absent greater transparency, international reactions to China’s military growth will understandably hedge against these unknowns.

Some would say that you could replace the word China with USA in the above, and still have a valid question. But I think an active US in the world community is a good thing. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, stated when he visited Australia recently

The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us, can be resolved or even contemplated without them.

I couldn't agree more.

to whom it may concern,
example: "you r so wrong"

I actually thought that this thread has thus far produced some meaningful and respectful debate, compared to some of the discussions on ATS recently. I don't think the key contributors have ever said "You are wrong" and not supplied some evidence.

As for a survey of Iraqi people, this occured when 8 million Iraqis (approximately 57-60% of eligible voters, depending on source) decided that car bombs and insurgents weren't going to stop them from voting. If they didn't believe they would be better off compared to when they were living with Saddam, why vote in the election at all? As way of comparison, the Election Project Office estimates that of eligible voters in the US election of 2004, 60.3% was the turnout.

Liberal's point, for me, is twofold. Firstly, we have taken a situation that was, admittedly, bad (the Iraqi people under Saddam), and made it worse. Around 1000 Iraqis a month are dying through violence, and there is reason to suppose that the US is behind some of this, through organising death squads. There are threads on ATS here and here about this. Plus, Iraq has been asset-stripped by the US, the multinationals are using the instability as an excuse to make their oil contracts even more of a rip-off for the Iraqi people, the much-vaunted 'reconstruction' is a sham - unless you're talking about the US embassy which will be visible from space, and there are precious few jobs to go round. Have you heard about Iraqis marching in the streets, demonstrating for jobs?

Secondly, in order to demonise Saddam to the point that the Great Unwashed could be persuaded invasion was a Good Thing, his positive achievements (and there were some) had to be ignored. Yes, Saddam spent a lot on himself and his cronies, but the rulers of neighbouring oil-rich states spent at least as much if not more on themselves, and precious little on their own people. Saddam, as another poster pointed out, had literacy and health care programmes. He also had a massive public works building programme, and before Gult War I (which, incidentally, had a huge effect on public health thanks to the introduction of DU pollution) infant mortality rate - a rather good guide to the well-being of a populace - was rather better than in some US cities.

And because Saddam was a secularist, Shia and Sunni lived alongside each other in peace, and women could get jobs, go out in public without the hijab, and do so in safety.

To throw away all that in exchange for a purple thumb voting for a puppet government is hardly progress, imo. And I think the Iraqi people would agree.

If the purpose of the US had been simply and solely to liberate the Iraqi people from an Evil Dictator, they'd have left by now.

No doubt I'll get the kind of "Saddam is your boyfriend" argument seen all too often on this board, but all I'm trying to do is bring a little grey scale to the black and white. Saddam DID do SOME good things for the Iraqis, and it is a notable achievement of the US that many of them are starting to look back on his time as the good old days.

As for Saddam's trial, has anyone asked themselves why it's restricted to only one case, in which he gave the death penalty (admittedly, to a LOT of people) for an assassination attempt on him? Why IS that, I wonder? Could it have anything to do with the fact that there is no chance that any US politicians could be called upon to testify in such a purely internal matter? It's a show trial, is what it is... and the Soviets did this kind of thing so much better...

It's not people's fault that they don't realise the good aspects of Saddam.

What in the world have you been smoking? Saddam had no good aspects. He slaughtered people by the thousands. Look at what he did to the Kurdish people. By the way, ask the average Kurdish person what they think of the coalition. A recent poll said that something like 95% approved of the invasion, still do, and want coalition troops to stay.

Rich23

Around 1000 Iraqis a month are dying through violence, and there is reason to suppose that the US is behind some of this, through organising death squads.

I'd love to see your source on the organised death squads. The US couldn't even cover up the beatings of a few prisoners at Abu Ghraib, yet death squads go by without notice? Of course, if you believe this, Saddam also had death squads, so the average Iraqi is no better or worse off in comparison in this regard.

Have you heard about Iraqis marching in the streets, demonstrating for jobs?

Yes, I have. Nice to be able to protest without having your family killed or your village gassed, even if you don't have a job. Like a lot of Shias who missed out on jobs to Sunnis under Saddam. Didn't see any protests then, did we? I'll mark that as better off post-Saddam.

Saddam, as another poster pointed out, had literacy and health care programmes.

Yep, if you were of Sunni persuasion. Too bad if you were Shia. Course, now that schools have reopened, and the newly elected government can evenly distribute revenue, I think it will lead to a better situation than under Saddam.

And because Saddam was a secularist, Shia and Sunni lived alongside each other in peace

Yes, I'd live in peace too if I thought that the slightest peep of unhappiness would lead to execution.

To throw away all that in exchange for a purple thumb voting for a puppet government is hardly progress, imo. And I think the Iraqi people would agree.

How is it a puppet government when you can vote? Even the Sunni parties were represented, a damn sight better than the zero representation from anyone but the Ba'ath party in the last election. And, as I have said before, if they really didn't believe in the vote, why vote at all? Did someone hold a gun to their head and force them to vote? Oh, wait, that was the previous government.

If the purpose of the US had been simply and solely to liberate the Iraqi people from an Evil Dictator, they'd have left by now.

The US haven't left because they underestimated the impact of foreign fighters, the time to restart basic infrastructure and administration practices, and the time to get the new Iraqi Army up and running. The US has strategic goals in Iraq, that is true. However, allowing Zarqawi to take over (as opposed to being voted in, which he could have tried rather than beheading potential voters) would be counterproductive in every way. And a disservice to those who voted in the election with a hope that the new Iraq would work, despite the threat from the insurgency.

Saddam DID do SOME good things for the Iraqis, and it is a notable achievement of the US that many of them are starting to look back on his time as the good old days.

Some of the Sunni's maybe. But the greater proportion of Iraqi's support the new Iraq, hate the insurgency, and just want to get things moving so the US can go, and they can forge their own destiny.

Only time will tell if the Iraqis will end up better off. But surely the opportunity to move forward and not live in fear is better than life under Saddam?

Originally posted by Rightwingpatriot

It's not people's fault that they don't realise the good aspects of Saddam.

What in the world have you been smoking? Saddam had no good aspects. He slaughtered people by the thousands. Look at what he did to the Kurdish people. By the way, ask the average Kurdish person what they think of the coalition. A recent poll said that something like 95% approved of the invasion, still do, and want coalition troops to stay.

Could you possibly provide a link to this "recent poll"? Because a recent one I've seen, reported in the London Telegraph and conducted by the UK Ministry of Defence in late 2005, seems to suggest otherwise:

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.

And fyi, the Telegraph is by far the most right-wing paper in the UK. It's known as something of a mouthpiece for the security services and has strong ties to the armed forces.

Mind you, I'm a bit shocked at that "fewer than one percent".

The subs there ought to know it should be "less than one percent".

Originally posted by Willard856
The Iraqi's have an opportunity to forge their own destiny. I believe this already makes them better off than having to participate in a sham election to revalidate a dictator. If they choose, of their own free will, to become a fundamentalist theocracy, then good for them.

Perhaps, but if a theocracy does take hold, the Iraqis who choose the theocracy today take away the opportunity for the Iraqis of tomorrow. It will have been a "temporary" democracy which will expire once an Iran-like government takes hold. Will it have been worth the lives and money lost just to give the Iraqis the opportunity to install new tyrants who will be even more hateful towards the west, will be an ally of Iran, and in addition to oppressing and murdering Iraqis, they may also eventually promote and support fundamental terrorists outside Iraq just like Iran does. Saddam did not do that, he would not tolerate fundamental groups in Iraq and in a roundabout way was more of an ally against terrorism than many of our so-called allies in the middle east. He just wanted to be rich and couldn't care less about jihad. Just to reiterate, he's still a dick. And again, if our mission is to liberate brutally oppressed people, our job is far from done. If there were ten people drowning, and you saved one, would you call it a day and pat yourself on the back or would you try and help everybody?

As for where the "freedom fighters" were during Saddam's reign, a lot of them were in Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Right, because again, Saddam wouldn't tolerate islamic extremism...

and those who didn't were too terrified to act because of Saddam's likely response

But they don't fear us? With all the terrible things so many say we do over there, and a much greater ability militarily to go after them, you'd think they'd be as concerned about their well being taking on more efficient killers...

Villages were gassed for going against Saddam's wishes. People imprisoned, tortured and executed for speaking their mind.

The same happens in many countries, why did we help just Iraq? There are many in the world who face even worse than Saddam. The North Koreans could have probably used a hand more urgently.

Should the US pounce on every dictatorship or Government you don't agree with, or think is bad for the people of the country? Well, that is far from me to say. It is an interesting question, and as we all know, the answer is far from black and white.

I agree, but it's still very likely this Iraq situation will come back and bite us on the @ss. There were other more oppressive governments that posed a far greater threat to the rest of the world than the crippled and boxed in Saddam.

Did the US invade with the thought that they would gain strategic advantage in a hostile region? Absolutely.

Iran would have been a much bigger gain, and would have reduced hostility in the region much more dramatically. Now, when there may actually be a threat, we will have a very hard time convincing the world to understand why we're attacking another country.

But I think an active US in the world community is a good thing. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, stated when he visited Australia recently

Well, that's not really a surprise that Tony Blair would say that, and I don't disagree but but I think we engaged in the wrong activity at the wrong time.

The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us, can be resolved or even contemplated without them.

I couldn't agree more.

I also agree that we can't just pull out, although it's a nice thought to bring our soldiers home. It's like we're holding a black mamba by the neck and if we let go it's gonna strike us, we either kill it or figure out a way to release it safely. It's a tough situation that we're in right now....



[edit on 26-5-2006 by 27jd]

Originally posted by Willard856
I'd love to see your source on the organised death squads.

Well all you had to do was click on the links I gave.

Yes, I have. Nice to be able to protest without having your family killed or your village gassed, even if you don't have a job.

When Iraqis in Fallujah protested about the US continuing to occupy a school (one of the taller buildings in the neighbourhood), the US troops fired upon them, which kicked off the whole uprising in Fallujah. Thousands died. No better than Saddam - in fact, rather worse.

And while we're on the subject of protest, here's just one article I found from 2003 to show that that wasn't a one-off:

They protest in the streets, especially against the aggressive American military raids, and they protest in the press. Much good does it do them. When ex-Iraqi soldiers demonstrated outside Bremer's office at the former Presidential Palace, US troops shot two of them dead. When Falujah residents staged a protest as long ago as April, the American military shot 16 dead. Another 11 were later gunned down in Mosul. During two demonstrations against the presence of US troops near the shrine of Imam Hussein at Karbala last weekend, US soldiers shot dead another three. "What a wonderful thing it is to speak your own minds," Lt-Gen Sanchez said of the demonstrations in Iraq last week. Maybe he was exhibiting a black sense of humour.

About the whole Shia-Sunni thing. I'll take the word of someone who lived all her life in Baghdad and whose opinion can be found here:

I read constantly analyses mostly written by foreigners or Iraqis who’ve been abroad for decades talking about how there was always a divide between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq (which, ironically, only becomes apparent when you're not actually living amongst Iraqis they claim)… but how under a dictator, nobody saw it or nobody wanted to see it. That is simply not true- if there was a divide, it was between the fanatics on both ends. The extreme Shia and extreme Sunnis. Most people simply didn’t go around making friends or socializing with neighbors based on their sect. People didn't care- you could ask that question, but everyone would look at you like you were silly and rude.

Half her family is Sunni, half Shia.

She also believes the government is a bunch of self-serving puppets. I can sympathise with this. But the point is, the power is elsewhere. The US will not go no matter how nicely, or otherwise, they are asked.

I spent rather a lot of time on this post only to find I should have saved before I clicked on 'preview'. My bad, but my patience is shorter now. I could rebut all of your other points, but I think I'll just post a quick resume of what Iraqis really think of the US occupation:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

Oh, and they don't seem to be better off in simple basic matters like water and electricity:

Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.

That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.

The source for this is a poll carried out for the Occupation forces and it's in a link from a previous post of mine you probably didn't click on either.

I can't quite believe people are still flogging this dead horse of life being better than under Saddam.

Polls can be very biased man; they ask people who tell them what they want to hear. And BTW, your source on the U.S. troops firing on Iraqis I think is baloney. That's the same "news source" that wrote a story about Jessie Macbeth, who is a total liar; if they believed him, then it means they have no clue as to what they're talking about and don't bother to check up on their information.

I would rate what the Iraqi people really think of the U.S. by the fact that they actually go out and vote, despite the insurgency's attacks, there are men willing to join the Iraqi Defense Force (that takes some balls), and the Infantry soldiers who come back do not talk of hateful Iraqis.

There was a Marine with a Recon unit who wrote a letter to his brother back here, who said thsoe IDF guys are some of the gutsiest guys he's ever seen. He said they go out in 2WD trucks on patrols with no body armor, to help fight insurgents.

Thousands of Iraqis dying each month and U.S. death squads? The media would have a field day with that and the infantryman involved in it would be headed to jail. What, you seriously think field commanders just give orders to form a "death squad" and go kill random folks? That would really play well with the command, because A) it would accomplish nothing (waste money), and B) if they were caught, it would create an uproar against the U.S., and C) it's illegal, and contrary to popular belief, many U.S. soldiers greatly believe in what they're doing and are highly religious. It's propaganda, nothing more. Until we see some video evidence of an actual shootout, I don't believe it.

The invasion of Fallujah had to do with intelligence that showed Fallujah was a major command center of the insurgency, and considering the battle that went on in it, it most likely was. Taking it dealt the insurgency a major blow, obviously not defeating them, but still dealing them a blow.

As for Saddam, he was a ruthless dictator who starved his population in order to live his nice life. He tortured thousands of people. Life was not "better under Saddam." The U.S. just knocked out a lot of the infrastructure (a necessity to take out Saddam's forces). They are working to rebuild the infrastructure, but the constant attacks from the insurgency have presented a problem with that. Life will be much, much improved once the infrastructure starts functioning again, which it would if the insurgency was not interfering.

FACT: Saddam was a ruthless dictator and a murderer, who utilized all his country's resources to support himself.

FACT: The Iraqis wouldn't have as large an infrastructure problem right now if it wasn't for the insurgency slowing down the rebuilding of it.

FACT: An enormous amount of Iraqis never had clean water or food to begin with, which is why during the invasion the soldiers ran into village after vilalge of people living in mud-huts.

And your saying that if the United States intended to just liberate the Iraqi people, that it would have left already, is very ignorant-sounding to me. When you liberate a people, it is implied you stay and help re-build if you knocked out infrastructure to liberate them. The U.S. helped rebuild Europe and Japan after WWII, and that was not a liberation.

And furthermore, it would make no sense to liberate the people and not stick around. You'd just create total anarchy as various groups struggled to gain power.

And BTW, Lyndon B. Johnson tried to fight a war without knocking out the infrastructure of the enemy, it was called Vietnam, and we all know how well that stategy worked.

Saddam’s Iraq Better for Woman…
www.ipsnews.net...
Hillary Clinton Agrees: www.freerepublic.com...
(see what I meant about him being secular?)

Iraqi Children Better of Under Saddam
www.truthout.org...

And (to be fair)…. 2004 opinion poll
news.bbc.co.uk...
However even here nearly half of people say life is: ether the same or worse than it was under Saddam. What would the result be like today?

And don’t forget to look at geek101 link. en.wikipedia.org...
That was great as it mentioned the good times of social and civil stability under Saddam, including those (pre 1991) times when Iraq was verging on a Westehn standard of living.

On Our Campaign of Occupation

Oh 65% of Iraqis want our troops dead. (Neither do they think we are helping them)…(more recent poll)
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

Key findings…

“Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.”

The article date (23/10/05) makes this quite an interesting poll. Because given the recent escalation in bloodshed (ignited by the moss bombings) goodness knows what the findings would be today (that’s assuming it was safe enough to conduct such an opinion) (Or if the respondents would even dare give their real opinions).
So much for being liberated!!!

This is an MOD opinion poll not a biased News International one.




As said most Iraqis want us out (older opinion poll).
www.usatoday.com...
What the peoples like Murdoch’s press forgets to mention is that real reason why we are staying there is to prevent another Holy State (i.e. Iran 2). This is what most Iraqis want (thanks to 60% of the population being Shiite). Saddam was a secular Sunni he knew all this religious fundamentalist stuff was a pile of unpractical c***. More people got killed in his 30 years of war resisting for religious reasons than ideals of democracy. This is in spite of the resistors living under a dictatorship themselves (perhaps it’s not that surprising as it’s really quite normal in the Arab world).

Who’s War Is It Anyway?
I find this “Proof” of America’s Deception….
www.iraqanalysis.org...
(And here’s some “not so good?” proof)
dir.salon.com...

BACK TO our DEBATE…

1. Seekerof Of course if I were to ask the hundreds of thousands of Saddam’s alleged victims: “whether or not they are happy without him” the answer is going to be a emphatic “yes”. But I bet too if I asked those same people whether or not the world would a better place if everyone was forced to convert to Islam, I would also get a emphatic “yes” because that’s the sort of people many of Saddam’s victims are (and they became victims to secularism).
But appreciate your compliment about me deserving a place on the Defence team. But I never created my defence of Saddam; it was always the facts of history.

That said I would love to be on the defence team. But because it’s in the “New” Iraq it wouldn’t be safe. thescotsman.scotsman.com... (some of Saddam’s defence team have murdered)
Also because many of the judges are Shiite it’s obvious many of the judges are going to rule against Saddam (come what may). Furthermore Tariq Aziz (who is now an ill old man) was got out of bed in his pyjamas to give testimony for the purpose of humiliating him in the eyes of the Arab world. I wouldn’t really like to have witnessed that.
Saddam has at times been got up unexpectedly early in the morning and apparently even made to sleep in a red cage.
This is hardly a fair trial.

I like Saddam’s daughter (Raghad Hussein) but I'm convinced she has unwittingly hired a bunch of spies, in place of some others she fired. She has certainly fired some good people who weren’t spies. And that English speaking Walter guy is just a legal mercenary. I can see why Saddam’s daughter hired him (to speak to the western world) but in my view he’s corrupt and that’s why he is doing such a bad job of it.

Also the court was set up by the International Bar association, and one of its representatives was denouncing Saddam case on CAN earlier this week.

Saddam leadership is not on trial, but how he dealt with a community of Muslim fundamentalists who tried to assonate him is. Along with a few other things which amount to nothing like what the West has accused him of.
Supposedly this is merely to save time. But I believe its really to save the Western public the embarrassment of having to admit our own governments support in some very necessary but sometimes ruthless so called “crimes” that Saddam did actually do (yes famously he once was our ally). And it’s in those times most graves were dug (kind of like today really as once again since we’ve been in Iraq more graves than usual have been dug). Is that an interesting par ell between Iraq, graves, and being high on Western foreign policy agenda?

ShazamsChampion and Astronomer70 I would like to remind you that people become most disconnected from reality when they become most arrogant. If it weren’t for people like me you wouldn’t get to see the other side of the argument (sadly it’s something many people want). Do you ever wonder how much you are being lied to? Do ever see beneath the surface? Or do you think the deliberate differences between say Fox and CNN and enough to do that for you?
Few things are pure in life try; and accept that. Is it really so bad to wonder just how far the same is true for Saddam’ leadership?



[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
And BTW, your source on the U.S. troops firing on Iraqis I think is baloney. That's the same "news source" that wrote a story about Jessie Macbeth, who is a total liar; if they believed him, then it means they have no clue as to what they're talking about and don't bother to check up on their information.

Can you provide a link to demonstrate this? A brief search reveals no link between Robert Fisk and Jesse Macbeth to me. Robert Fisk is an extremely careful reporter who has been a middle east correspondent for decades. He has always been very reliable. If you're going to dismiss a source, you should try and get your facts STRAIGHT, please. This is a man who, unlike his American counterparts, actually leaves the Green Zone and puts his own life at risk to get the story. If you're going to impugn his integrity you'd better be on the money.

I would rate what the Iraqi people really think of the U.S. by the fact that they actually go out and vote, despite the insurgency's attacks, there are men willing to join the Iraqi Defense Force (that takes some balls), and the Infantry soldiers who come back do not talk of hateful Iraqis.

I would rate what the Iraqi people really think of the US by the opinion poll I previously quoted. Just to recap: those polled didn't know that the poll was conducted on behalf of the coalition, and the poll itself was kept secret because it was regarded as intelligence. It was an attempt by the Coalition to find out for itself what is really going on in Iraq, as opposed to the sanitised news stories it hands out for domestic consumption. Its leak to the Telegraph is indicative that there are factions within the Coalition (at least the UK side of it) that have a pragmatic, as opposed to ideological, view of the Occupation, and realise what a quagmire we have waded into.

There was a Marine with a Recon unit who wrote a letter to his brother back here, who said thsoe IDF guys are some of the gutsiest guys he's ever seen. He said they go out in 2WD trucks on patrols with no body armor, to help fight insurgents.

Funnily enough, Fisk has been on patrol with the Iraqu police, and he paints a rather different, and to me, a more believable picture. What you can't seem to do is to put yourself in the position of the average Iraqi. This simple inversion would enable you to see that a lot of what you're fed by your media is propaganda pure and simple. The US is not seen as a liberator. It is a force of occupation. If the ordinary Iraqis like the US being there so much, why do they want you to get the hell out of their country?

The picture Fisk gives is that of people signing up for the police mostly because there aren't any jobs to be had in Iraq now. Remember in an earlier post of mine I mentioned demonstrations in the streets about unemployment? At least under Saddam they had jobs. Police pay, poor as it is, is one of the better options available. You may be able to appreciate this as it's a motivating factor in many Americans joining up: you get paid and you can get a college degree.

When he was hanging with the Iraqi police, Fisk also noted that while they seemed dutiful early in the day, they became more relaxed around him and started to refer to "the insurgents" as "the resistance" and seemed more sympathetic to them as the day wore on. In fact Fisk seemed to think there might be links between the police and the insurgents in some cases. It's not surprising. They're patriotic people and they've seen off foreign occupation before, which is why the CIA attempted to control the country by promoting the Baath party and Saddam himself in previous decades.

This is just history. It may mean nothing to you, but if you take note of it it might enable you to see what is actually going on in Iraq rather than viewing it with the rose-tinted glasses handed out by the Administration.

Thousands of Iraqis dying each month and U.S. death squads? The media would have a field day with that and the infantryman involved in it would be headed to jail. ....I don't believe it.

Not a surprise... Have you ever heard of the School of the Americas? Try doing some research into it. It's based in Fort Benning Georgia and it's where all the death squad officers that infested South and Central America were trained. It's what that place does in the guise of 'counter-insurgency'. Its reputation became so bad that it had to be renamed WHISC (Western Hemisphere Institute for Security and Co-operation. The US has trained and used death squads for DECADES in central and South America. The rest of the world knows this, the evidence is before your eyes, yet you will insist that it's not the case.

The facts do not bear you out.

I've run out of room, but I'll continue my rebuttal in another post.

Oh, I forgot to mention, there are two threads on ATS on death squads in Iraq. Click on them and read them before you bury your head in the sand.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
The invasion of Fallujah had to do with intelligence that showed Fallujah was a major command center of the insurgency, and considering the battle that went on in it, it most likely was. Taking it dealt the insurgency a major blow, obviously not defeating them, but still dealing them a blow.

Again, all you are doing is repeating what the Administration (which, let's face it lied on every count about the reasons for going to war) has released for domestic consumption via a supine media.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the insurgency seems to crop up in so many places?

You can't get it into your head that ORDINARY IRAQIS WANT THE US OUT. It's bizarre. For a different perspective, try looking at the video in this thread. This is a documentary made by a Japanese crew who documented what happened there in 2004. You will see children in hospital and hear some pretty unpleasant accounts of US actions. You will probably choose to write it off as propaganda by people who "hate the US for its freedoms" - that phrase always makes me smile... nonetheless, there is plenty of testimony to show that what I have said is true, and that many of the people who have taken up arms are just ordinary people (teachers, for crying out loud) who are fed up with a brutal army of occupation and the asset-stripping of their country.

As for your "facts", well, there's always something more underneath that you're not looking at....

FACT: Saddam was a ruthless dictator and a murderer, who utilized all his country's resources to support himself.

FACT: he was paid by the CIA to assassinate General Qasim, who wanted to nationalise the oil industry and kick out the multinationals. FACT: the Baath party was aided and financed by the CIA. FACT: at the time he was committing his worst atrocities, THE US SUPPORTED HIM or do you think that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him (and giving him a gift from Reagan) was photoshopped? FACT: Madeleine Allbright, in interview, being confronted with the fact that US-imposed sanctions had probably killed half a million Iraqi children, said that it was probably worth it.

Saddam was a CREATION of the CIA for many years. The US was happy to arm Iran and Iraq against each other.

FACT: The Iraqis wouldn't have as large an infrastructure problem right now if it wasn't for the insurgency slowing down the rebuilding of it.

FACT: every week through the Clinton administration, bombing runs were undertaken by US and UK planes. Against the Geneva conventions, they targeted fresh water and electricity provision. This was part of the policy of 'containment' and comes under an administration that, as evidenced above, cared little for the lives of Iraqi children, let alone adults. FACT: the only infrastructure being regularly attacked by the insurgency is the oil business. They intend to deny the US as much oil as they can, and I don't blame them for that. FACT: the contracts to reconstruct Iraq went mainly to US companies, which have in many instances pocketed large sums of money for doing NOTHING. That you haven't heard about this is a tribute to both the compliancy of the US media and to your own need to think only the best of your government. It's an illusion. wake up.

FACT: An enormous amount of Iraqis never had clean water or food to begin with, which is why during the invasion the soldiers ran into village after vilalge of people living in mud-huts.

I would like to see your source on this before I comment further. However I would point out that it has already been shown in this thread that infant mortality rates under Saddam's early years, before he was conned into invading Kuwait, (try googling April Glaspie if you don't believe me on that one and see what you find), was better than in many US inner cities. It would be so convenient for you if the evil side of Saddam is all that had ever existed, but real people - as opposed to the cartoonish figures presented in the media - are complex, and Saddam did do these things.

I'm afraid that, like so many of your countrymen, you have an entirely edited and spun version of your country's history to work from. A fuller selection of facts does not support your prejudices.

I retract my statement on that part of your one source there, because now they have acknowledged that Macbeth "may be a liar," so they don't fully trust him, which is good: www.informationclearinghouse.info...

I do not believe at all that the average Iraqi wants the U.S. out. NONE of the Infantry solders I know of who were there and saw combat claimed any hatred from the Iraqis. It is the insurgents who want the U.S. out, not the Iraqis. I also am not inclined to believe the insurgents are not affecting the rebuilding of the infrastructure. I knew a combat engineer who was over there who's best friend got shot in the face, even.

I read both those "threads," and they didn't convince me at all, considering they were both completely one-sided. The one was only one person, even. And I am very un-inclined to believe that any "Army Special Forces" soldier would train "death-squads." The entire philosophy of the Special Forces is about freeing people. You can read about that here: www.professionalsoldiers.com - everyone there with the designation "Quiet Professional" is a real Special Forces soldier who has been verified by the men SF soldiers running the site. If you are so sure that this guy (Steele) DID form death-squads, go there and make the claim and see what the soldiers say. They aren't liars, and they'd know the truth more than anyone.

That Japanese news crew went in and filmed a video after the Battle of Fallajah and you take it as the gospel truth? Nothing but more propaganda. Of course bad things happened there, it was one of the largest battles of the current Iraq War, if not the largest. It was necessary because Fallujah was a major component of the insurgency.

As for your facts on the U.S. relation to Saddam, that was in the past, under a different foreign policy. If you knew anything, you would know that the United States is trying to do the exact opposite of that foreign policy.

In the 1980s, the U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East was this: "We don't care who kills who, just don't any of you turn communist." Literally. Well, that of course was a BAD foreign policy and generated a lot of hatred towards the U.S. Heck, back in the 1950s, the U.S. removed a democratically-elected president from a Middle Eastern nation (I forget which) and replaced him with a dictator, b/c the dictator was friendly to the U.S.

Well, that was all very BAD foreign policy, and the United States is trying to repair its image to the Middle East. The only way to get rid of terrorists is to kill their source: hatred. And they have plenty reason to hate the U.S. for thigns it did in the past. But that was then and this is now; new times, new foreign policy.

The U.S. is working to create a new image of itself to the new generation of people growing up in the Middle East. When those people see what the U.S. did, but then how it also changed and went in and got rid of a brutal dictator and freed the people and stayed and fought thei nsurgents while building up the infrastructure to the point that the people themselves could fight off the insurgents, terrorism will die out.

The U.S. did this very same thing to Central America. For years, the U.S. aided oppressive dictators in Central America, but then realized it needed to stop that, and reversed the policy. The Special Forces were sent in, they made friends with the locals, and trained them and helped them overthrow the oppressive governments there. Now the U.S. has much better relations with those Central American countries.

The same will hopefully be said of the Middle East. In the long term, it will also lead to more stability in the Middle East.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
I retract my statement on that part of your one source there, because now they have acknowledged that Macbeth "may be a liar," so they don't fully trust him, which is good: www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Informationclearinghouse is NOT the source. The source was Robert Fisk. I've been reading his reports for years. He stayed in Baghdad through Shock and Awe. When the US bombed a market in Baghdad, and then denied it, he dug through the rubble until he found a piece of bomb casing that still had serial numbers on it and verified that it was US ordnance, verified the manufacturer, verified the manufacture date... He checks his facts.

Informationclearinghouse is what it says. They collect, and reprint, a whole bunch of stuff from all over the world. Occasionally, since it has become more popular as a source of news you don't find in the mainstream, it gets contributions from writers. But Fisk writes for the Independent, lectures all over the world. If it means anything to you, he's on a US watch list and cannot get on a plane there without going through some serious searches. This is a journalist who's out there trying to find out what is actually going on, and he is routinely harassed by the US government.

I read both those "threads," and they didn't convince me at all, considering they were both completely one-sided. The one was only one person, even. And I am very un-inclined to believe that any "Army Special Forces" soldier would train "death-squads."

Well you obviously didn't google School of the Americas, then. I'm sorry, I've given you as much information as I am prepared to. You can always find out more if you want, but you'd sooner write off any inconvenient stuff as "propaganda". I have two questions.

1) did you watch the movie about Fallujah? I really don't think so. Did you see the interviews with the insurgents? I doubt it.

2) can you give me a good reason why the Japanese should be producing propaganda?

If you are so sure that this guy (Steele) DID form death-squads, go there and make the claim and see what the soldiers say. They aren't liars, and they'd know the truth more than anyone.

Soldiers would never tell lies. Oh no. Yet this article suggests that they do, and that the Pentagon covers up for them, too.

As for your facts on the U.S. relation to Saddam, that was in the past, under a different foreign policy. If you knew anything, you would know that the United States is trying to do the exact opposite of that foreign policy.

If you knew anything, you would know that current US foreign policy is following very closely the plan set out in the Project For A New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses. It's a new foreign policy that seeks to capitalise on the collapse of the Soviet Union and enforce American hegemony across the world by force of arms. "American interests" (in other words, the US' God-given right to guzzle all the world's oil and invade countries at will to be able to do so) are paramount. Have you ever read the document and seen the names of its authors? It's like when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. No-one could say we weren't warned, then, or now.

Well, that of course was a BAD foreign policy and generated a lot of hatred towards the U.S. Heck, back in the 1950s, the U.S. removed a democratically-elected president from a Middle Eastern nation (I forget which) and replaced him with a dictator, b/c the dictator was friendly to the U.S.

Just the ONE? Well, at least you're prepared to admit "mistakes" were made in the past. In theory, therefore, you're capable of waking up to the fact that this is STANDARD POLICY in the middle east, in Africa, the Far East, and Central and South America. And now, thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe too.

In the sixties, the US replaced the democracy in Greece. with a bunch of murderous goons who had death squads, torture, the works. They've done the same in Bolivia (where they installed, as an eminence grise, the guy who created the gas chambers in Nazi Germany - he overthrew Bolivian governments with astonishing regularity) Brazil, Argentina, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Panama (the 1960 assassination of its president authorised by Nixon, VP at the time), Guatemala (tens of thousands assassinated by goon squads using CIA lists), Haiti - again and again! - and the list goes on and on and on.

The CIA coup in Chile, in which the President, Salvador Allende, was murdered, even took place on September 11. That country has its own reasons for remembering that date. FAR MORE PEOPLE DIED AS A RESULT than in 9/11.
(continues)

Originally posted by rich23
Informationclearinghouse is what it says. They collect, and reprint, a whole bunch of stuff from all over the world.

Not one to drop any kind downer on peoples links, but the one you mentioned did carry this for a few days untill they realised it was a hoax.

They then posted
this once they realised.



[edit on 28-5-2006 by Bikereddie]

If you think anything has changed, the US is STILL organising coups. Who do you think was behind the removal of Aristide in 2003? He won elections, fair and square, over the US' preferred candidate Marc Bazin. Immediately the CIA set up an organisation to "promote democracy" which was all about building up an armed ] opposition to Aristide, whom in case you've "forgotten" was a priest from the backwoods. A coup followed with the return of the death squads that the US had supported through the rule of Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier. People began fleeing, heading, ironically, toward the US. It became so embarrassing for Clinton when a boatload of refugees was turned away to face the death squads except for two Cubans that the crew had picked up in the Caribbean that he decided to put Aristide back in in the hilariously-named Operation Restore Democracy.

Then Bush got in and removed him.

Bush was also behind the US coup in Venezuela in 2002. A great film was made of this by an Irish film crew who happened to be there just as it happened. You'll dismiss it as propaganda, no doubt (and I can't tell you how sad that makes me) but you see the whole coup take place, and the disruption of democracy. The US denies involvement, but the conspirators were in Washington the previous month, the US had a warship standing by which was communicating with the coup army officers, and the whole thing was done to protect US interests.

Oh, one country - only one country in the world - recognised the coup government in the less than 48 hours it held power. Can you guess which government it might have been?

You can see the film on /quote]this thread, but of course those wily Irish propagandists are distorting the facts. They're KNOWN for it, aren't they?

Originally posted by WheelsRCoolWell, that was all very BAD foreign policy, and the United States is trying to repair its image to the Middle East. The only way to get rid of terrorists is to kill their source: hatred. And they have plenty reason to hate the U.S. for thigns it did in the past...The U.S. is working to create a new image of itself to the new generation of people growing up in the Middle East. When those people see what the U.S. did, but then how it also changed and went in and got rid of a brutal dictator and freed the people and stayed and fought thei nsurgents while building up the infrastructure to the point that the people themselves could fight off the insurgents, terrorism will die out.

See, now, this is the point that you just become delusional and have clearly not taken in any of the information that contradicts this untenable point of view. If you think invading countries, killing people in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, asset stripping the countries so that their industries are sold off to foreign control, polluting vast areas with Depleted Uranium, and imposing a fairly brutal army of occupation is going to win you friends, then I can only feel pity.

The U.S. did this very same thing to Central America. For years, the U.S. aided oppressive dictators in Central America, but then realized it needed to stop that, and reversed the policy. The Special Forces were sent in, they made friends with the locals, and trained them and helped them overthrow the oppressive governments there. Now the U.S. has much better relations with those Central American countries.

I've been very patient with you. I often give you sources, or at least facts you can go and check. You give me this vague stuff, which I know to be untrue. I would like you to give me one concrete example, with a source that I can check, of what you say is happening in the quoted paragraph. Because I know that the historical facts do NOT support this cloud-cuckoo-land piece of candyfloss. When did the US reverse the policy, and who did it? When and where were special forces sent in to make friends with the locals? I want chapter and verse on at least one instance, becasue this is rubbish.

The same will hopefully be said of the Middle East. In the long term, it will also lead to more stability in the Middle East.

Keep hoping. Outside your little dream world, anti-US sentiment is rising across the globe as a direct result of your Dear Leader's policies. There's an unintentionally hilarious document available
here that suggests that

...a group called (BDA)... realized that America's favorability in other countries was decreasing. In a search for answers there was a huge listening exercise with people all over the world participating...Four root causes of anti-American sentiment surfaced... our US public policy, the negative effects of globalization, our popular culture, and our collective personality.

It's not a new poicy. Nor is it winning friends.