Ex-CIA officer alleges agency retaliated...

[Errantry]

The problem with Langky's post is that fails to recognize a couple basic truths. First about Saddam, did Langky know Saddam funded terrorism? Does he know Saddam tried to have Bush 43 assassinated? Now why, if as Langky claims, Saddam only wants to sit in a gold palace leaving everyone alone, did Saddam do these things?

 

Obviously the claim that Saddam was not a danger if left alone is a highly contestable claim.

 

Secondly, someone who lived under a dictator and fled rather than fought really has no moral ground to attack the politics of other countries. Glass houses and stones, that sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Karzak -

 

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United States put Saddam Hussein into power to begin with.

And the thing about America is this: -everyone- has the freedom of speech, whether they have lived through an experience or not. Moral ground is needless. Most politicians have absolutely no idea what being in war is like, and yet they dictate the United States' every move.

[~Di]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United States put Saddam Hussein into power to begin with.

And the thing about America is this: -everyone- has the freedom of speech, whether they have lived through an experience or not. Moral ground is needless. Most politicians have absolutely no idea what being in war is like, and yet they dictate the United States' every move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Care to offer proof of this allegation? Because unless you consider the USA, the UK, and several other western nations supporting the Baathist party over the pro-communist party supported by the Soviet union during the cold war 1950's through 1970's, Saddam put himself in power, moving from vice president to take power from the feeble president all on his own. Saddam's biography might relieve you of your misconceptions.

[Errantry]

 

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United States put Saddam Hussein into power to begin with.

And the thing about America is this: -everyone- has the freedom of speech, whether they have lived through an experience or not. Moral ground is needless. Most politicians have absolutely no idea what being in war is like, and yet they dictate the United States' every move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Care to offer proof of this allegation? Because unless you consider the USA, the UK, and several other western nations supporting the Baathist party over the pro-communist party supported by the Soviet union during the cold war 1950's through 1970's, Saddam put himself in power, moving from vice president to take power from the feeble president all on his own. Saddam's biography might relieve you of your misconceptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"At last in U.S. military captivity, ousted former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein will soon mark an important 20th anniversary, the kind of anniversary that brings with it an appreciation of the ironies of life, and politics. If so, he will remember that he was in Baghdad, as a special envoy from then-president Ronald Reagan, assuring his host that, to quote the secret National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) that served as his talking points: the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." Within a year, Washington would fully normalize ties with Saddam and even suggest that the dictator had become a full-fledged "Arab moderate," ready to make peace with Israel."

 

It depends what source you look at for your research. On a quick search, I found this at NewsTarget.com, specifically http://www.newstarget.com/000771.html. However, you were correct in that I may have misconceptions; my parents told me about the entire bit, having lived through it.

 

Of course, you could always take the approach that Saddam Hussein put himself into power, but the United States could have prevented his ascension, or at least questioned it more than they did. I have said the United States has indirectly aided his rise to power, but I never said the US knew what he had done, or guessed what he proceeded to do.

[~Di]

Indeed, a lot of western nations aided Saddam. France was one of his most ardent supporters in the 80's, along with the USA and the UK. No doubt about it. But there's a big difference between being allies and supporters of a country a decade or two back, and supporting a political party some 40 years ago and "putting Saddam into power." The USA put the Shah of Iran into power... unfortunately; they did not put Saddam into power, any more than the rest of the western nations who supported him did.

 

As for his visit with Ronald Reagan, That was in the 80's, after Saddam had already taken over presidency of Iraq. Don't forget that during the late 70's/early 80's (during Jimmy Carter's presidency), Iran had basically declared war on America by invading our Tehran embassy and taking our diplomats hostage. So of course, we were more than amenable to strengthen ties with the enemy of our enemy... which was Saddam. I do not know if your parents "lived through it" by being in Iraq during the time Saddam rose to power... in which case they must clearly know that he took over the presidency before Ronald Reagan came into office... or if they simply "lived through it" by being adults elsewhere in the world throughout the 70's and 80's... in which case I can basically make the same claim!

 

My point, and I do have one, is that your statement was misleading and inaccurate, in that it implied that the USA and only the USA supported Saddam from the 60's on, and personally plopped him into the presidency in 1979. That is incorrect. Hence, my clarification.

 

FWIW, I am utterly against the Iraq war, and think Saddam was a pig. I had hoped that despite the horror of an unjust invasion that something good might come out of it for the Iraqi people. Clearly that has not happened, and will not happen, IMHO. Truly a disaster all the way around. But exaggerating the past does not help either.

[Errantry]

I apologize if I gave the impression that the United States 'personally plopped him into the presidency.' (I really love that phrasing, though.) I was actually trying to say that the United States indirectly helped put him into power/keep him in power through indifference. I understand, though, that my post was hard to read. Again, I apologize.

 

~Marty

[~Di]

Eh, no problem. I'm angry with my own government at the moment as well, but we don't need to rewrite history just to make the Bush administration look worse. They have done that quite nicely without our help.

 

Unfortunately.

 

Plus I'm a stickler for accuracy. Unless, of course, the inaccuries are my own!

[Judge Hades]

Well, it doesn't matter now who put Saddam into power. What matters now that what happens now and right now Bushie got ourselves in a money pit called Iraq. He went to war over fiction and now getting our soldiers killed for no good reason. Oh, its that whole democracy thing. Listen, I don't give a rat's arse about other nations. If a nation isn't strong enough to take care of itself then it shouldn't be a nation. If a people aren't strong enough to topple a dictator themselves, then they deserve that dictator.

[Ludozee]

It wasn't about WMD. That's the crappiest BS i've ever heard. And by the way, the US has WMD themselves. Heck, they even store some of their nukes in on a NATO base Holland. But when a so-called enemy supposedly has WMD, then they can justify an invasion? Let's turn this thing around. What if Saddam would have invaded the US because they were a potential threat? He could justify that too. I think it is just hypocrathy (sp?) from the US to say it's about WMD.

Oil on the other hand sounds way more plausible. So all you canadians, watch out. before you know it, the US is going to invade your country and seize your oilsupplies, and giving you 5% of it in return. :ph34r:

[Judge Hades]

Its Hypocrisy and you are right on the money. It was always about the oil and Bush's need for a "legacy."

[Rosbjerg]

aren't they trying to expand the definition of WMD?

so that the things they have found will fall under the catagory of such weapons .. and then they can justify it?

something like saying "well we think of bricks as a wmd .. and sand too! which is what we was referring to all along"

 

heard something about that anyway..

[Judge Hades]

Man, Bush's administration gets stupider and stupider.

[Errantry]

"aren't they trying to expand the definition of WMD?

so that the things they have found will fall under the catagory of such weapons .. and then they can justify it?

something like saying "well we think of bricks as a wmd .. and sand too! which is what we was referring to all along'"

 

Now -that- would be something to see. The Bush administration: "Uh, yeah. We thought that...uh, well, you can smother stuff in sand. And they might smother an entire city. And then throw bricks at innocent passersby."