Home | Community | Message Board


Kraken Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Why Saddam was left in power in 1991
    #1332587 - 02/24/03 07:59 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Interesting take on why Saddam was left in power by the UN head of the oil for food programme who resigned in protest at the genocidal sanctions policy.

Does the West want to hold on to Saddam? If so, why?

?Bush or somebody in the United States made a decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein. What is the motive? Traditionally the motive was that they needed him to provide stability in Iraq, to keep Iraq together, to avoid the Kurds going their way and the Shia perhaps going there way in the South, and so on; and the Shia of course would threaten Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, being Shia as opposed to Suni ? so he?s a good enemy this man, he?s great! Said Aburish in his new book has said that the CIA has worked with him for 30 years. So there is a ploy to keep him in power, but of course to destroy him at the same time, to enable him to survive without having any capacity to threaten his neighbours. If you look at the sales of US military hardware, Saddam is the best salesman in town. I think over $100 billion has been sold to the Saudis, Kuwaitis, the Gulf states, Turkey, Israel, and so on. It?s thanks to Saddam. Just last week they sold $6.2 billion of military aircraft to the United Arab Emirates. What on earth does a little country need hardware like that for? Saddam provides that ? he should be getting a cut.?

Who, in your view, is primarily responsible for the deaths of those 500,000 children under five?

?All the members of the Permanent Security Council, when they passed 1284, reconfirmed that economic sanctions had to be sustained, knowing the consequences. That constitutes ?intent to kill?, because we know that sanctions are killing several thousand per month. Now, of the five permanent members, three abstained; but an abstention is no better than a vote for, in a sense. Britain and America of course voted for this continuation. The rest of them don?t count because they?re lackeys, or they?re paid off. The only country that stood up was Malaysia, and they also abstained. But you know, by abstaining instead of using your veto, when you are a permanent member you're guilty because you?re continuing something that has this deadly impact. However, I would normally point the finger at London and Washington, because they are the most active in sustaining sanctions: they are the ones who will not compromise. All the other members would back down if London and Washington would change their position. I think that?s quite clear. But unfortunately Blair and Clinton have an almost personal investment in demonising Saddam Hussein. That?s very hard to get out of, they have my sympathy, but they created their own problem. Once you?ve demonised somebody, it?s awfully difficult to turn around and say, ?Well actually he?s not such a bad guy, he likes kids?. Under the Baath Party regime, they ran a social welfare system in Iraq that was so intense it was almost claustrophobic, and they made damn sure that the average Iraqi was well taken care of, and they did it deliberately to divert them from any political activity and to maintain stability and allow them (Baath Party) to run the country.

The British and US Governments claim that there are plenty of foodstuffs and medicines being delivered to Iraq, the problem is that they are being cynically withheld by the Iraqi regime. In a letter to the New Statesman recently, Peter Hain, Minister of State, wrote: ?The ?oil for food? programme has been in place for three years and could have been operating since 1991 if Saddam had not blocked it. The Iraqi people have never seen the benefits they should have.? Is there any truth in that?

?There?s no basis for that assertion at all. The Secretary-General has reported repeatedly that there is no evidence that food is being diverted by the government in Baghdad. We have 150 observers on the ground in Iraq. Say the wheat ship comes in from god knows where, in Basra, they follow the grain to some of the mills, they follow the flour to the 49,000 agents that the Iraqi government employs for this programme, then they follow the flour to the recipients and even interview some of the recipients ? there is no evidence of diversion of foodstuffs whatever ever in the last two years. The Secretary-General would have reported that.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 9 days, 7 hours
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Xlea321]
    #1332602 - 02/24/03 08:11 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

there is no evidence of diversion of foodstuffs whatever ever in the last two years.




So we only have valid data on that for the last two years. What does the data say about the effects of sanctions over that period?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Xlea321]
    #1332634 - 02/24/03 08:36 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

So Hussein was left in power by the UN so defense contractors could get rich? Sounds crazy to me, but I'll admit it's as good a theory as any other I've heard so far -- there was certainly no rational explanation for allowing him to remain in power.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (02/24/03 08:39 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Phred]
    #1332916 - 02/25/03 12:24 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I think there is a rational explanation for every event that happens, historical or otherwise. To suggest that an event is 'irrational' is to give up attempting to understand it.



--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 9 days, 7 hours
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Phred]
    #1332956 - 02/25/03 01:01 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

How about "We didn't want to spook the other countries"?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Xlea321]
    #1333162 - 02/25/03 04:43 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

i believe that they left him in power because facing actual removal or death, he would become desperate and use his chemical and biological weapons as a last resort. i'm sure he'd have taken down as many coalition forces with him as he could have, and probably sent something nasty over to his hebrew neighbors as well, had we actually tried to remove him at that time. i'm sure that going after him now of course, is a completely different situation  :wink:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFred Garvin
Male Prostitute
Registered: 09/24/02
Posts: 1,657
Loc: The northern part of sout...
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: ]
    #1333400 - 02/25/03 06:42 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

How could that be? I thought Saddam doesnt have any chemical or biological weapons, and we're just going after his oil. Hmmmmm....


--------------------


The above statements are just the incoherent babblings of your friendly neighborhood Cracker!

Shur drinkin kils brane sells--but only the week ones!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Xlea321]
    #1333627 - 02/25/03 08:09 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I said it then and I'll say it again. He was left in power because governments need enemies, the U.S. no longer has the Soviet Union to scare the sheeple into supporting Leviathan. Enemies are very important in state propaganda to be used in blunting objections to the theft of the people's property and their rights.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Edited by Evolving (02/25/03 08:09 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Evolving]
    #1333795 - 02/25/03 09:17 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

That sounds about right evolving! :smile:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Evolving]
    #1336268 - 02/25/03 11:36 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Evolving writes:

I said it then and I'll say it again. He was left in power because governments need enemies, the U.S. no longer has the Soviet Union to scare the sheeple into supporting Leviathan.

Ummm... perhaps my recollection of the reportage of that war are incorrect, or perhaps the media was reporting incorrectly, but isn't it true that it was the UN, most of the member nations of the UN coalition force, and especially Saudi Arabia, who insisted that the whole shebang stop at the borders of Iraq? I do remember everyone involved repeating over and over again that it was not a war of "conquest", but that it was a just war whose objective was only to expel an invader.

If it was only the US who had decided to take it no further, I could perhaps accept your premise, but the impression conveyed by the analysts at that time is that the reverse was true -- the US was pressured by the other parties involved into stopping before the job was done.

How does that square with your hypothesis?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,203
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Phred]
    #1336275 - 02/25/03 11:44 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

You are correct.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Phred]
    #1336570 - 02/26/03 04:38 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

How does that square with your hypothesis?



The U.S. was running the show. There would have been no Gulf War I, without the U.S. By allowing Saddam to stay in power, the U.S. also had a nice pretext for maintaining an elevated level of military force in the largest oil producing region in the world....

" IV.
... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted....

... The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

* and is gravely to be regarded....

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight...
"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Evolving]
    #1336712 - 02/26/03 06:06 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Evolving writes:

The U.S. was running the show. There would have been no Gulf War I, without the U.S.

There would have been no war, true. But the US was hardly free to run all aspects of "the show" however it pleased. Significant compromises were made in order to get the cooperation of some countries, specifically some of the Islamic countries. Other compromises were made in order to assuage the Saudis. Still more were made in order to reassure world opinion that it was a war of liberation, a just war, rather than an opportunistic move to swoop in and seize oilfields.

In the opinion of many, (myself included) Bush caved to the pressure of the international community. It was sheer folly to believe Hussein had any intention of abiding by the terms of the conditional surrender. Hell, it was sheer folly to even proffer a conditional surrender in the first place. Since when has someone who has started two wars of aggression been allowed to hold onto power once defeated? Since when is anything other than unconditional surrender been the reward of one who launches a war of conquest and loses? That's like nabbing a recidivist purse snatcher, handing the (plundered and burning) purse back to the victim, and setting him free because he promises he won't do it a third time. If ever there was an example of postwar stupidity, this is it.

What is the point in even having a United Nations if, once they are finally prodded to actually act rather than just natter at each other, they pussy out at the critical moment; the moment when it would actually have been possible to make the situation in that godforsaken area of the planet a little better for Achmed Everyman?

Those whose preferred method of human interaction is through the use of force (and if ever there was someone who fits that description, it's Saddam Hussein) are a danger to the rest of us, and must be removed from positions wherein they can exercise that force. Bush should have told the rest of the world to kiss his ass and gone ahead and taken Hussein out. The whining would have eventually subsided. Let's face it, he was going to be criticized no matter which course of action he chose, so might as well take the flak for doing something worthwhile.

But no, he felt that looking "even-handed" in the eyes of foreign opinionmakers was a more valuable goal than finishing the job. He let the whiners and the naysayers deflect him from doing what he (or anyone with the sense to pour piss out of a boot) knew was right, just so he could be "popular". His mistake was not being "evenhanded", his mistake was being too weak to resist the clamor of mouths run on autopilot by minds too dim to grasp the inevitable consequences of showing "mercy" at the inappropriate moment. Too bad, so sad.

And here we are twelve years later.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (02/26/03 06:10 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLemon
SUPREME ROBOTOVERLORD
Registered: 02/25/03
Posts: 8
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Phred]
    #1336942 - 02/26/03 07:38 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Ummm... how about the obvious here? The first Gulf War was intended to reverse the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait, not to remove Saddam from power. We completed the mission and then leveled sanctions against Iraq for being a bad neigbor.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Phred]
    #1337045 - 02/26/03 08:25 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Saddam was left in power because of the results of the Battle of Rumaylah, when UN air forces bombed a 10 mile track of Iraqi tanks. The media showed footage and estimated casualties far over the few hundred that actually died. Bush wanted to pull out of the war before he had another Vietnam on his hands.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why Saddam was left in power in 1991 [Re: Phred]
    #1337058 - 02/26/03 08:31 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Since when has someone who has started two wars of aggression been allowed to hold onto power once defeated?

Not quite as simple as that seeing as Bush and Reagan wholeheartedly supported his first war of aggression.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Saddam Hussein
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 2,317 60 07/23/03 02:55 PM
by Anonymous
* Our Friend Saddam
( 1 2 3 all )
exclusive58 3,307 40 12/31/06 11:17 AM
by Luddite
* Now lets charge Saddam's accomplices....
( 1 2 all )
Alex213 3,104 37 11/30/06 05:40 PM
by Trepiodos
* Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 all )
flow 13,537 264 01/07/06 09:11 PM
by CommunismIsRight
* Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist wingnutx 768 2 01/29/14 06:52 AM
by theindianrepublic
* Why doesn't Saddam Hussein resign?
( 1 2 all )
Phred 1,864 36 02/14/03 09:52 AM
by Skikid16
* 500,000 iraqi children dead because of US sanctions. Albright: "The Price Is Worth It"...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58 5,717 79 11/09/05 07:42 AM
by GazzBut
* Sanctions and War on Iraq: In 300 words deranger 647 5 01/22/08 06:26 PM
by afoaf

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
532 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Original Seeds Store - Cannabis Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 19 queries.