Posted on 09/21/2014 8:46:09 PM PDT by WilliamIII
When people ask me how I feel about the latest events in Iraq, I tell them I feel sad. All these people — both Americans and Iraqis who have died since 2003 — died for nothing. And as the Islamic State insurgency unfolds, and as Iraq tries once again for a peaceful political transition, I’m mourning not just those who have died over the past decade, but for a country that I haven’t been able to recognize for a very long time.
I grew up in Baghdad in a middle-class family. My father served in the Iraqi Air Force and often traveled internationally; my mother was a math teacher; my siblings all attended college. I graduated from the most prestigious high school in Baghdad before getting my degree at pharmacy school.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Did they hire Saddam to pick up groceries ?
Is Saddam an Eagle Scout ?
If I work professionally as a computer programmer starting in 2008, and the CIA hires me in 2012, might they be possibly hiring me as a programmer ?
Or would they be hiring me as a public relations executive ?
You’re locked in an off-the-shelf dismissal of reality.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten how “Stormin Norman” was halted form finishing the job by Saddam’s man on the inside.
We’re not all limited by your darkened screen.
.
Pelham is likely one of our many control rods.
Your rhetorical questions are cute but they are also an example of your inability to back up your ‘Saddam Hussein, CIA Assassin’ foolishness. You have a habit of treating innuendo as if it were fact which contributes to your creative story telling.
“Did they hire Saddam to pick up groceries ?”
There’s no evidence that the CIA ever hired Saddam to do anything. But nice try in attempting to pass off your conclusion in the premise of your question. Make sure you try that on people who haven’t studied logic, you’ll have more success that way.
Anyone who wants a fact-based look at CIA activity in Iraq should read the 1995 interview with James Critchfield, unless they prefer the fact-optional universe that you like to inhabit.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/critchfield.html
Saddam was a very junior member of the Baath Party when the CIA had an informant inside Baath in 1963. The CIA’s role was to watch events in Iraq while keeping an eye on Soviet plans for expanding there. There is zero evidence that Saddam was their source or that he ever worked for the CIA.
When Saddam’s radical faction later gained control of the Baath party it caught the CIA by surprise- not exactly evidence of Saddam being a CIA errand boy- and it cooled American interest in Baath as something constructive for Iraq.
The closest that the US ever came to supporting Saddam Hussein was during the Iran/Iraq war when we wanted to be sure that neither side would win.
“Perhaps you’ve forgotten how “Stormin Norman” was halted form finishing the job by Saddam’s man on the inside.”
Okay, I always enjoy a glimpse into the comic environs of the alternate universe. Who do you mean by “ Saddam’s man on the inside”?
In the real world military strategy isn’t set by one man unless that one man happens to be President.
GWH Bush and his principle advisor Brent Scrowcroft were foreign policy realists whose only goal was booting Iraq out of Kuwait. They had no intention of getting stuck with the Iraq tarbaby. That ill conceived project was the brainchild of Dubya and his merry band of revolutionary utopians, who imagined that through the magic of democracy they could transform an ancient society and its violent religion.
http://washingtonnote.com/brent_scowcroft_2/
“A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.
“It would have been no problem for America’s military to reach Baghdad, he said. The problems would have arisen when the Army entered the Iraqi capital. “At the minimum, we’d be an occupier in a hostile land,” he said. “Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don’t like the term ‘exit strategy’ — but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?””
“. “This is exactly where we are now,” he said of Iraq, with no apparent satisfaction. “We own it. And we can’t let go. We’re getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there’s a fairchance we’ll win. But look at the cost.”
The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. “I’m not a pacifist,” he said. “I believe in the use of force. But there has to be a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using force.” Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force.
“I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes,” he said. “You encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neocons do it.””
Don’t you think it was naive to think if left in power, Saddam wouldn’t try to get his revenge?
Yes, Pelham, yes, that’s the Brian Williams version.
I don’t have much more time for this thread.
The new world order folks (no doubt LOL) - and those that oppose them - agree with me, those who still haven’t given up on neoconism agree with you.
The former opposition will go read new something other than party marketing from the same old tired sources, the latter won’t.
I think the elites of new world order have got to be really amazed that some conservative sheeple still don’t question what the history they’ve been fed, even when it’s widely reported that Afghanistan still - after a decade - produces 90% of the world’s heroin.
It’s like I have a nice grandma, and I refuse to believe that she would ever do anything wrong - even when I see the crystal meth being sold out her back door with my own eyes. Grandma, say it ain’t so !
I mean, these elites really think the sheeple are dumb and deserve to be ruled by the elites - but still, they’re probably always a little surprised at just how effective their mind-control/propaganda has been, even in the past couple decades, when the sheeple have had access to the innermenet and they could easily find some inconsistencies in the illusionary liberal and conservative worlds that “should” cause them to question what they’re mind is being fed.
People get the government they deserve, and if those are the only choices they see, perhaps that’s what they deserve.
But there are other choices - though they may not come easy.
_______________
"Choices" is the important word there.
Something imposed by outsiders isn't likely to last.
And though people brought up Germany and Japan when the war was going on, Vietnam might have been a better comparison.
“those who still haven’t given up on neoconism agree with you.”
I’ve disliked neoconservatives since the time they organized a hit on Mel Bradford in 1981. But feel free to add this latest fantasy of yours to your stable of crackpot theories.
“Don’t you think it was naive to think if left in power, Saddam wouldn’t try to get his revenge?”
I don’t think revenge was a realistic worry. Saddam’s main targets were his fellow Iraqis. In 1981 Israel sent a flight of F16s deep into Iraq and bombed Saddam’s Osirak reactor. In reaction Saddam executed his own air defense command. By the start of the 1st Gulf War in 1991 Saddam had done exactly nothing to Israel in revenge for Osirak.
This could be due to Saddam being preoccupied with his war with Iran. Or maybe he was worried about what Israel would do if he struck back. Whatever his reasoning, he did nothing against Israel until the 1st Gulf War when he fired Scuds at them.
I also believe that up to the First Gulf War, Saddam had no designs on harming the US. He was our pal when he was fighting Iran. He felt betrayed that the US opposed his going into Kuwait. Some suggest he had designs on Saudi Arabia, but I don’t buy it.
Perhaps, the Sauds had a design.
Damn you’re gullible, and dense.
It matters quite a bit to us as a society when we are losing much of our younger generations to lifelong addictions. (few ever kick heroin)
So... you’re an an accomplished poo thrower along with your other impressive achievements. I’m sure that we are all honored to have a intellectual giant of your stature among us.
The elite is removing the puppets to create the enemy to take our rights. Wake up America.
“I also believe that up to the First Gulf War, Saddam had no designs on harming the US. He was our pal when he was fighting Iran. He felt betrayed that the US opposed his going into Kuwait. Some suggest he had designs on Saudi Arabia, but I don’t buy it.”
I don’t think Saddam was deluded enough to seek out a fight with the United States. What he wanted was Kuwait, the same as Iraqi rulers before him. He had been receiving help from us in his fight with Iran so he may have thought that we approved of him.
In 1990 Saddam got some sort of ambiguous message from April Glaspie, our ambassador to Iraq, when he was massing troops along the Kuwait border. It didn’t contain an explicit warning to him to pull back and he appears to have taken that as a sign that we wouldn’t do anything if he invaded. It’s not like he was asking our permission, he just figured he could get away with it.
The Saudis were probably pressing us to do something about him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.