What Saddam's Execution Means

Topic locked
  • Reply
What Saddam's execution means Dec 30, 2006
Convention dictates that we precede any discussion of this execution with the obligatory nod to Saddam's treachery, bloodthirsty rule and tyranny. But enough of the cowardly chatter. This thing is a sham, of a piece with the whole corrupt, disastrous sham that the war and occupation have been. Bush administration officials are the ones who leak the news about the time of the execution. One key reason we know Saddam's about to be executed is that he's about to be transferred from US to Iraqi custody, which tells you a lot. And, of course, the verdict in his trial gets timed to coincide with the US elections.

This whole endeavor, from the very start, has been about taking tawdry, cheap acts and dressing them up in a papier-mache grandeur--phony victory celebrations, ersatz democratization, reconstruction headed up by toadies, con artists and grifters. And this is no different. Hanging Saddam is easy. It's a job, for once, that these folks can actually see through to completion. So this execution, ironically and pathetically, becomes a stand-in for the failures, incompetence and general betrayal of country on every other front that President Bush has brought us.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011729.php

valkyrie
Dubai chat master
Posts: 824
Location: U$

  • Reply
Dec 31, 2006
I personally don't think the execution of Saddam means much, but perhaps it will to the American public. It will be interesting to see if the American population sees it as a successful point and will warm to Bush's wish to continue occupation of Iraq. Who knows, we'll just have to see how everything plays out.
kanelli
Miss DubaiForums 2006
User avatar
Posts: 6979
Location: In the Jungle

  • Reply
Dec 31, 2006
It means he is dead.

People with computers and DF membership will opine (pro and con - see "general") but I image most people, numberswise, won't miss him.
Concord
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 3918
Location: Dawg House

  • Reply
Dec 31, 2006
All it means we in the West need to get a New Saddam for 2007 :) to rule you ragheads
Mr & Mrs Inquirer
Dubai Forums Talker
Posts: 152

  • Reply
Jan 01, 2007
i think the west should do this to most of the arab leaders, starting with sheikh mo. most of them deserve it, so did saddam. god bless america and israel.
errtime
Dubai forums Addict
Posts: 203

  • Reply
Jan 02, 2007
JA bless my sac for its continous desire of need when it came to me spottin jewish women oversea's ..... they a bunch of puni's that aint complainin about the JIHAD rush i gave all up in em..
Jamal
Mr. DubaiForums 2006
User avatar
Posts: 1801
Location: dubai

  • Reply
Jan 02, 2007
sorry asswipe i speak english only
errtime
Dubai forums Addict
Posts: 203

  • Reply
Jan 02, 2007
He takes his secrets to the grave. Our complicity dies with him

How the West armed Saddam, fed him intelligence on his 'enemies', equipped him for atrocities - and then made sure he wouldn't squeal

By Robert Fisk

Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e16031.htm

12/31/06 "The Independent" -- -- We've shut him up. The moment Saddam's hooded executioner pulled the lever of the trapdoor in Baghdad yesterday morning, Washington's secrets were safe. The shameless, outrageous, covert military support which the United States - and Britain - gave to Saddam for more than a decade remains the one terrible story which our presidents and prime ministers do not want the world to remember. And now Saddam, who knew the full extent of that Western support - given to him while he was perpetrating some of the worst atrocities since the Second World War - is dead.

Gone is the man who personally received the CIA's help in destroying the Iraqi communist party. After Saddam seized power, US intelligence gave his minions the home addresses of communists in Baghdad and other cities in an effort to destroy the Soviet Union's influence in Iraq. Saddam's mukhabarat visited every home, arrested the occupants and their families, and butchered the lot. Public hanging was for plotters; the communists, their wives and children, were given special treatment - extreme torture before execution at Abu Ghraib.

There is growing evidence across the Arab world that Saddam held a series of meetings with senior American officials prior to his invasion of Iran in 1980 - both he and the US administration believed that the Islamic Republic would collapse if Saddam sent his legions across the border - and the Pentagon was instructed to assist Iraq's military machine by providing intelligence on the Iranian order of battle. One frosty day in 1987, not far from Cologne, I met the German arms dealer who initiated those first direct contacts between Washington and Baghdad - at America's request.

"Mr Fisk... at the very beginning of the war, in September of 1980, I was invited to go to the Pentagon," he said. "There I was handed the very latest US satellite photographs of the Iranian front lines. You could see everything on the pictures. There were the Iranian gun emplacements in Abadan and behind Khorramshahr, the lines of trenches on the eastern side of the Karun river, the tank revetments - thousands of them - all the way up the Iranian side of the border towards Kurdistan. No army could want more than this. And I travelled with these maps from Washington by air to Frankfurt and from Frankfurt on Iraqi Airways straight to Baghdad. The Iraqis were very, very grateful!"

I was with Saddam's forward commandos at the time, under Iranian shellfire, noting how the Iraqi forces aligned their artillery positions far back from the battle front with detailed maps of the Iranian lines. Their shelling against Iran outside Basra allowed the first Iraqi tanks to cross the Karun within a week. The commander of that tank unit cheerfully refused to tell me how he had managed to choose the one river crossing undefended by Iranian armour. Two years ago, we met again, in Amman and his junior officers called him "General" - the rank awarded him by Saddam after that tank attack east of Basra, courtesy of Washington's intelligence information.

Iran's official history of the eight-year war with Iraq states that Saddam first used chemical weapons against it on 13 January 1981. AP's correspondent in Baghdad, Mohamed Salaam, was taken to see the scene of an Iraqi military victory east of Basra. "We started counting - we walked miles and miles in this freaking desert, just counting," he said. "We got to 700 and got muddled and had to start counting again ... The Iraqis had used, for the first time, a combination - the nerve gas would paralyse their bodies ... the mustard gas would drown them in their own lungs. That's why they spat blood."

At the time, the Iranians claimed that this terrible cocktail had been given to Saddam by the US. Washington denied this. But the Iranians were right. The lengthy negotiations which led to America's complicity in this atrocity remain secret - Donald Rumsfeld was one of President Ronald Reagan's point-men at this period - although Saddam undoubtedly knew every detail. But a largely unreported document, "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War", stated that prior to 1985 and afterwards, US companies had sent government-approved shipments of biological agents to Iraq. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax, andEscherichia coli (E. coli). That Senate report concluded that: "The United States provided the Government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-systems programs, including ... chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment."

Nor was the Pentagon unaware of the extent of Iraqi use of chemical weapons. In 1988, for example, Saddam gave his personal permission for Lt-Col Rick Francona, a US defence intelligence officer - one of 60 American officers who were secretly providing members of the Iraqi general staff with detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning and bomb damage assessments - to visit the Fao peninsula after Iraqi forces had recaptured the town from the Iranians. He reported back to Washington that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons to achieve their victory. The senior defence intelligence officer at the time, Col Walter Lang, later said that the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis "was not a matter of deep strategic concern".

I saw the results, however. On a long military hospital train back to Tehran from the battle front, I found hundreds of Iranian soldiers coughing blood and mucus from their lungs - the very carriages stank so much of gas that I had to open the windows - and their arms and faces were covered with boils. Later, new bubbles of skin appeared on top of their original boils. Many were fearfully burnt. These same gases were later used on the Kurds of Halabja. No wonder that Saddam was primarily tried in Baghdad for the slaughter of Shia villagers, not for his war crimes against Iran.

We still don't know - and with Saddam's execution we will probably never know - the extent of US credits to Iraq, which began in 1982. The initial tranche, the sum of which was spent on the purchase of American weapons from Jordan and Kuwait, came to $300m. By 1987, Saddam was being promised $1bn in credit. By 1990, just before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, annual trade between Iraq and the US had grown to $3.5bn a year. Pressed by Saddam's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, to continue US credits, James Baker then Secretary of State, but the same James Baker who has just produced a report intended to drag George Bush from the catastrophe of present- day Iraq - pushed for new guarantees worth $1bn from the US.

In 1989, Britain, which had been giving its own covert military assistance to Saddam guaranteed £250m to Iraq shortly after the arrest of Observer journalist Farzad Bazoft in Baghdad. Bazoft, who had been investigating an explosion at a factory at Hilla which was using the very chemical components sent by the US, was later hanged. Within a month of Bazoft's arrest William Waldegrave, then a Foreign Office minister, said: "I doubt if there is any future market of such a scale anywhere where the UK is potentially so well-placed if we play our diplomatic hand correctly... A few more Bazofts or another bout of internal oppression would make it more difficult."

Even more repulsive were the remarks of the then Deputy Prime Minister, Geoffrey Howe, on relaxing controls on British arms sales to Iraq. He kept this secret, he wrote, because "it would look very cynical if, so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales".

Saddam knew, too, the secrets of the attack on the USS Stark when, on 17 May 1987, an Iraqi jet launched a missile attack on the American frigate, killing more than a sixth of the crew and almost sinking the vessel. The US accepted Saddam's excuse that the ship was mistaken for an Iranian vessel and allowed Saddam to refuse their request to interview the Iraqi pilot.

The whole truth died with Saddam Hussein in the Baghdad execution chamber yesterday. Many in Washington and London must have sighed with relief that the old man had been silenced for ever.

'The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East' by Robert Fisk is now available in paperback
MaaaD
Dubai Forums Zealot
User avatar
Posts: 3401

  • Reply
Jan 02, 2007
I doubt that Saddam was sitting there passively, waiting for help and instructions from the US... so is he really a victim?

Many countries are meddling in other countries' affairs in order to acheive their own strategic goals. There are lots of skeletons in lots of closets. For some reason, people seem to think that the US is only capable of such deception and manipulation, which is very naive and goes against a wealth of evidence all around us. The US could very well be the worst offender, but that is likely how the US stays on top as the most influential and important country in the world. I'm sure the US wants to fight to keep it that way.
kanelli
Miss DubaiForums 2006
User avatar
Posts: 6979
Location: In the Jungle

  • Reply
Jan 04, 2007
hmmm no sadam lol i think da americans would suffer the most out of this. :D now they wont have any reason to bomb da iraqis for any reason. i guess they already looking for the next arab leader to pick a fite with. they all American puppets as soon as one of them get away from american control america will go after that country for reasons such as oh they have weapons of mass destruction. We all know about IRAN. y does America never attack IRAN. IRAN has been there from the beginning. as far as the early 70s where Iranians bombed da british embassy n hijacked a few aeroplanes. y wasnt Iran attacked then??? lol i ll tell u y. Iran is a shia country n America needs Iran to be there to help America make a gap between Iran n the rest of the Musilim world. Have u wondered y is it NOW that words like Shias n Sunnis are being mentioned alot in CNN n other news agency. y was shias n sunnis not mentioned in early 70s or 80s or even da sept 11 but Islamic Terrorists. America is using Iran n shias population to divide the Islamic world into pieces. dont believe me hmmm look at Iraq. u got da shias on one side n da sunnis on the other side. still dont believe me. have a look at Afghanistan its divided not POLITICALLY but religiously. y is it that CNN would report of shias attack on sunnis or sunnis atack on shias in Pakistan or Other parts of the world n make it a BIG HEADLINE. when dat story doesnt even appear in da headline of the local countrys newspaper.
America is playing a big game with all of us it started with sept 11 which was american planned. 7 years after that look wots happened. open ur eyes guys :D
rudeboy
Dubai Forums Zealot
Posts: 3309

posting in Philosophy and Religion ForumsForum Rules

Return to Philosophy and Religion Forums