Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a terrorist threat to the US

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 22:55
VIEWED: 12725
PAGE 6 of 7

Sure, SignyM, it's easy to right all the time.

Have you no compassion for those souls who argue having hollow, fallacious or circular reasoning as their only tools?

Unlike you, I have feelings for our [non independent-minded] brothers and sisters of this board, and try not to incorporate too many facts into my posts.

(..in other words, I don't know as much as you, Dreamtrove, Rue, etc. )

Just Chrisisall, being obtuse as usual

Edit: look at the time on my post; I swear it was unintentional...Just a RWED anomoly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Know??? HA! I just scarf all the best ideas from my colleagues and my SO and this RWED- including you Chrisisall- who are ever so much brighter than I- and pass them as my ideas! Clever plan, what? Heh heh heh.

And BTW I haven't the FAINTEST idea what Jaytee is saying. Jaytee- care to elaborate????

EDIT:
Ok- and now I am at home and I have an hour or so....I'm going to reprise my previous post a bit, which is in reponse to Dreamtrove's lucid description of how we've painted ourselves into an Iraqi corner w/ apparently no way out.

"However, it's also clear that we can't stay in Iraq, since our presence is destabilizing. So... how can we w/draw from Iraq and assure our security in the area?

The current {Admin} plan seems to be to ditch at least one of the "legs" of the three stated {governmental} goals (unified, secular, democratic) and possibly two: We are no longer insisting on a secular government, and may be okay with a government that oppresses 70% (women plus Sunnis) of the population. In other words, we are throwing our weight behind a Shiite theocracy. I suspect that this is exactly what the Sunni insurgents fear- payback being such a b*tch and all that.

I would suggest that it would be best if we simply allowed Iraq to break up. Iraq now is like former Yugoslavia: a synthetic nation created for the convenience of an empire. And Hussein was like Tito: A strongman holding together a pastiche of ethnic, language, and religious minorities through sheer terror. It took seventy years and over 250,000 deaths until the Yugoslavian fantasy was allowed to dissolve. http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011998.htm

What are the possible repurcussions, and how could we control them in our favor?"

Well then, who are the players and how are they likely to repond?

In Iraq:

The Kurds have been autonomous for a decade. I think they would LOVE to take control of their oil fields. The Shiites are not as organized as the Kurds. But if they controlled oil fields they would prolly not be too interested in vengeance on the Sunnis, since the Sunnis have nothing to offer. The Sunnis would be ambivalent. OT1H they would be able to control their own internal security and not have to fear domination by and reprisal from Shiites. OTOH they would lose thier oil revenue and their ethnic pride. How could we get them to favor this approach? Simple: offer them aide to rebuild and restore Baghdad as a (SECULAR) center of learning and industry. The foreign fighters- presumably of Al Qaida and Syrian- would not have the USA to fight. They might try to find a safe harbor in Sunni central Iraq, but if the restoration plan is meaningful and effective then Sunnis would prolly not provide haven.

NEIGHBORS
Turkey would b*ch like hell. But having an independent Kurdistan might actually take pressure off Turkey by providing a relief valve. Iran would only gain control of a PORTION of Iraq, not the entire nation. Many of the neigbors- themselves consisting of rammmed-together factions- might take a lesson from the division that they need to provide more democracy for their subjects. Later....

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

RUSSIA, CHINA, EU
I don't think that any of these nations would have a problem dealing with a separate Kurdistan, Golden Iraq (central Sunni) and Mahdi Iraq (Southern Shiite, to make up some names). In fact, Kurdistan is ALREADY making separate oil deals with foreign nations www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=10727. When Sittes have formal control over their oil they will likely be just as happy to sell to whomever.

UNITED STATES
Looking at the USA security interests: Kurdistan would likely be friendly or at least neutral to the USA. Mahdi Iraq would be less hostile to the USA than they are trending now. Altho considerable help is flowing into southern Iraq from Iran, this would prolly slow down once the irritant (USA and British troops) are removed. Sadr's claim to fame evaporates. Golden Iraq would likely be hostile to the USA until their national pride, living standards, religious and national security are restored. But being flanked by potential enemies, Golden Iraq wouldn't make much military trouble.

The only faction in the USA that would actively work against this is the Halliburton/ Chevron-Texaco faction. Their concept was that they would grab Iraq oil and the Iraq economy by imposing a single puppet government (with rules set up the the CPA). All of that would go down the drain if three new governments were formed.\

So: Iraq is already "broken". We can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and until we can meet the legitimate concerns of the Sunnis they will continue to resist our (puppet Shiite) government.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Signym:

Well, and of course Putin would NEVER lie because he would NEVER want to see our troops tied up in Iraq, and would NEVER want to see us spending hundreds of billions of dollars, bankrupting our economy, and diverting both world and Islamist fanatic attention

from Chechnya! And being the ex-head of the KBG, Putin is an honest man who only has our interests at heart! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Snort! Guffaw!

---

Signym, also Rue,

You know what I find works really well? Googling conspiracies before posting them. I'm not being snide here, or if I am I don't mean anything by it. But I'm serious, this is a good way to get extra info.

Putin is getting the Kurd's oil. It's all pretty much a sealed deal. Putin opposed us initially because Saddam was giving him a sweetheart deal on Kurdish oil. about a yer ago Bush met with him and said "Oh, you can keep the kurds oil." It was big news, it's no

conspiracy theory, the Russian news was full of headlines that basically said "Yay! We get to keep the oil." Now added to that the fact that if we lose, and Al Zarqawi gets this oil and then his boss is Al Zawahiri, and his boss is Osama Bin Laden, and guess who is

funding the Chechens, it's clear, option America is a trillion dollars for me, and option anti-America is ten trillion dollars to my enemy. So, while your theory may also be correct, Putin doesn't need any more motivation.

This was all news last year, I guess I picked it up because I was following the whole Yukos case. Another interesting conspiracy thing is how the situation in Chechnya is all about Russneft stealing Chechen oil. Al Qaeda is of course the ones helping them fight it by

blowing up school children. Yeah, those are guys you want on your side :( .


Piratenews,

I needed to nitpick a couple of points

1. The CIA is not a threat to the united states.
2. No one ordered Saddam to invade Kuwait. He's many times the fool that it takes to do that on his own without any encouragement. And yeah, I've read this conspiracy theory. I have a theory about it. Someone being Rumsfeld told Saddam nothing would happen

because he was hoping Bush Sr. would invade Iraq which he didn't do which is why we got Clinton. But Saddam Hussein came up with the idea himself. It wasn't as if he'd never invaded a neighbor on a mad oil grab before.
3. I like Larry Craig, he's a decent guy
4. This cracked me up "Bush Gang's New World Order Satanic Commie/Nazi dictatorship." I think that's very much on target. Well put.

But I disagree that Bush Sr.'s action in Kuwait was about this. I think this is a new game. Kuwait was about defending the innocent people of Kuwait who needed defending from a lunatic named Saddam Hussein. It happened these Kuwaitis had a lot of oil.

I'm making a point here. The take I hear so often, usually from the left sounds like "the Kuwaitis shouldn't be defended by the United States." I totally disagree. Yes they should. But once in a while, in addition to that, I'd like to see some people who do not have oil

also get the same priviledge.


Giant Evil Head,

I disagree, our main point should be how do we get out without creating the Al Qaeda state of infinite cash.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Signym:

I know this is hard to keep in mind, but Iraqs were not "our enemies" until we invaded. Their interests are vitally different from the (less than 5% of) foreign fighters, who really are terrorists and who migrated into Iraq specifically to fight the great Satan. If you lump

them all together, you will eventually find that every Iraqi becomes an "enemy" in any policy that you might propose, and you simply can't win that kind of fight.

---

Agreed. Totally.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Moqtada Al Sadr is not a terrorist. I'm not so sure about George W. Bush, or for that matter Dick Cheney.

Let's all take a moment to get a handle on what we're talking about here.

Terrorism

Quote:

---

Full entry from dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunc

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

HAYWARD79

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:45 AM

---

nor do I believe democracy can be created at swordpoint. ]


Except for post-war Germany and Japan, where enforced democracy has seemed to work pretty well. I think that pretty summarily destroys your view on this point.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hayward79:

Except for post-war Germany and Japan, where enforced democracy has seemed to work pretty well. I think that pretty summarily destroys your view on this point.

---

Hey, way to come to the party late, out of context, and wrong. Glad you could pick me as your date.

First point, our goals were in WWII were the unconditional surrender of Axis forces who began the war, not "regime change for our own personal amusement." We were not 'creating democracy.'

Second, and most importantly, Germany had a democracy before we invaded (though, admittedly, a fledgling one - you are aware of the Reichstag, right?). We were not completely introducing a foreign system of government to them. They were also a Western culture, with shared values and beliefs.
As far as Japan went, though ruled by its emperor Japan had a governmental system including ministries and a parliamentary diet (though, admittedly, a rubber stamp for the military). Again, even with the removal of the emperor, not introducing a foreign system of government or a new governmental body. Japan still kept the emperor (although not divine), still kept a parliament, etc.
The two countries also were not created by oil interests involving mashing together ethnic groups with violent histories and putting absolutists in charge of them (everyone remember how the same thing worked out in Yugoslavia? What happened there when the dictator was removed and the Soviets left? Look it up if you don't know, it's going to happen in Iraq).

Comparing creating democracy in Iraq to the aftermath of WWII is like comparing apples to carburetors (not the same shape, not the same fruit, and -in the words of Julius of PFic that I hold so dear, "not even in the same motherfuckin' ballpark"), but I see this comment a lot on the wingnut sites like Newsmax or Free Republic. Usually, those comments are passed around as jokes by my historian colleagues.

Iraq has three different ethnic groups that hate each other who (as judging by polls, word of interview, and insurgency) would rather be ruled under the religious rule of their peers in the area.

The other, more important metaphorical idea that I was getting across, which you seem to have missed completely (one reason I hate arguing on the intarweb), is that you can't make people adopt a system of government that they don't want to adopt. If someone told you today that a monarchy was the best way to go, and brought in troops to insure that you installed one, how long do you think that monarchy will last once those troops are gone? My bet is about 5 minutes - which is how long it will take Iraq to break out into civil war once we pull our troops out (and then promptly form a government ruled by Shia law).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME