Hussein Was Sure Of Own Survival

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Nov 3, 2003.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    "BAGHDAD, Nov. 2 -- Saddam Hussein refused to order a counterattack against U.S. troops when war erupted in March because he misjudged the initial ground thrust as a ruse and had been convinced earlier by Russian and French contacts that he could avoid or survive a land invasion, former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz has told interrogators, according to U.S. officials."

    "The former deputy prime minister has described an argument he had with Hussein in 1999, in which the Iraqi president insisted that U.N. Resolution 687, enacted to limit Iraq's armaments, prohibited long-range missiles only if they were armed with weapons of mass destruction.

    Aziz said he countered, "No, it's a range limit," and all Iraqi missiles able to fly beyond 150 kilometers (about 93 miles) were banned, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the interrogation reports. Hussein demanded in reply, "No, I want to go ahead," according to the senior official."

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...washpost/20031103/ts_washpost/a55022_2003nov2
     
  2. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You forgot this part Jim...
    From your article
    >>Aziz..has also said Iraq did not possess stocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on the eve of the war<<
    Can we stop looking for them now? I think the Department of Education could probably use the money we're giving Kaye.
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I didn't forget it. That stuff has been being discussed ad nausea as of late, I quoted the 2 parts that were of most interest to me. I always link the articles I discuss so that everyone can read them in their entirety.

    I think this shows a further trend of defiance on Saddam's part. He was defiant about the war and article 687 itself.

    I'm still not convinced that there are no WMD over there, but it's becoming obvious that there wasn't a huge "stockpile" as some originally thought.
     
  4. lilcountriegal
    Offline

    lilcountriegal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,633
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +59
    I read that article this morning too Jim.... I think its notable to mention that the whole WMD deal was caused by Saddam himself. In that article, it states that Saddam led EVERYONE to believe that he did, in fact, have prohibited weapons just to make everyone feel threatened by him.

    It all boils down to the boy who cried wolf.
     
  5. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yes, and the boy who cried wolf is Bush. "Everyone knows Saddam has WMDs", he said, and the American public believed him. Saddam was bluffing from the beginning (and the boy who cried wolf was not "bluffing", but lying to produce a desired response from the townspeople.) Now, if all we had supporting the existence of WMDs was that Saddam said so, (which isn't even true: in the days before the invasion materialized, he was squealing like a stuck pig that he had nothing.) I'd say we need to seriously revise our intelligence gathering standards. I don't think we had enough to justify the invasion. There was no immediate threat, and we can't go around invading every country that pretends to have WMDs and getting stuck with the bill for reconstruction. Yet the WMDs was the most consistent argument in favor of invasion. Since the start of the war, some officials have even acknowledged that the only reason for paying so much lip service to the WMD argument was because it was thought to have the most impact on public opinion. In other words, they manipulated the information to sway public opinion. They exaggerated the threat in order to call out the American Public. In other words, Bush is the boy who cried wolf.

    Just out of curiosity, jim, what theme was it that you wanted to discuss in this thread? You didn't provide any analysis, so it's difficult to discern what it was exactly that you wanted to draw our attention to. Simply that Saddam was being deffiant? no surprise there. That he drew a distinction between WMDs and long range missiles? Yes, but his reasoning seems perfectly clear on that point. If others (namely Israel) can strike him from long range, he should have the capability of striking back. Otherwise, it is a violation of his nation's soveriegnty (ie. not permitting him to fulfill his country's ability to defend itself. I notice we didn't have any qualms about invading a country whose military capability had been severely reduced by our, the UNs, mandates. It turns out, then that he was right.)
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Can you provide proof that Bush lied about the data that was presented to him?

    And I think there was more than enough. The thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqi's in mass graves alone is enough. We might not have uncovered them prior to war, but we knew those thousands were dead. "What, no WMD? Ok, continue your killing then" :rolleyes:

    Can you say the same for the Iraqi citizens?

    You can cry foul about the lip service aka sales pitch all day long, but there were still hundreds of good reasons to invade Iraq and rid them of this evil dictator and his regime. Focusing on one element of the pre-war decisions won't change the fact that there were still resolutions broken, citizens being murdered, planes being shot at, bio-weapons missing, terrorist training in progress, elaborate labs being built...

    That there is more to this than just WMD. Saddam was a murderer and a liar. Murderer's need to be stopped and hopefully apprehended. He lied to strengthen his position and it came back to bite him in the ass! But, none of that changes the facts laid out previously.

    I didn't think I needed to, I thought it spoke for itself. It read to me, yet again, that Saddam was a lying scumbag who was hell bent on spreading fear and would break resolutions quicker than the blink of an eye.

    And resolution 687 was even clearer, no weapons that had a range over 150km. One of his top advisors pointed this out to him and he was still defiant. No reasoning is acceptable to break a resolution enacted by the international community.

    No, he lost that right with the resolutions. He showed the entire world that he wasn't responsible enough to command those responsibilities in a civilized manner.

    And his sovereignty was overruled by the international community. He was slowly having his grasp on the country taken away, and I might add that it worked quite effectively.

    So, should we have had a 6 month moratorium to allow him to rebuild his defenses before we invaded, to give him a fair shake?

    And he wasn't right, not even the Iraqi's that are currently rebelling against the US military want Saddam back.
     
  7. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Bry let me start by saying that I agree that the WMD argument was pumped up to sway public opinion. Notice that I said pumped up not made up. Sadam did posses WMD that everyone, including the UN and EU, agreed on. That said, in my humble opinion I do believe there were a multitude of reasons for the invasion, some more palatable than others. Being realistic, major policy decisions are rarely based on one or two factors alone but rather a combination of many factors. Herein the problem lies, most of our population does not poses the necessary skills to take all factors considered and procure good judgments. For god sake many people do not know who Colin Powell is! So it is understandable to make one emotional issue the focal point for public consumption.


    Could not agree with you more on this issue! Time to take the wasted money from many of our social programs and start putting it to good use. We can mostly thank our left leaning friends for continually cutting the Intel/military budgets. While we are at it, why not thank the brilliant person who who decided that the CIA cannot hire outside contractors who have a criminal record.

    No, he forfeited those rights by his previous actions against his neighbors. Following your logic, since the US possesses Nuclear weapons, should not every nation posses them to defend themselves from us. I hope you do not think this to be so!


    Lets not take cheap shots Bry; during Desert Storm we invaded Iraq when it was the 5th ranked military in the world, so don’t insinuate any cowardly premise on our part. Lest we also forget that the cease-fire agreements that we signed at the conclusion of Desert Storm were based on the absolute compliance with UN Resolutions, which I think we can all agree he violated time and time again, thereby bestowing the legal right upon us to resume hostilities.
     
  8. lilcountriegal
    Offline

    lilcountriegal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,633
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +59

    Please see: (from Jim's link)

    "Hussein was unwilling to reveal that his cupboard was essentially bare, these detainees said, according to accounts from officials.

    In separate interviews with The Post, several former high-ranking Iraqi generals not held in detention offered similar views. Hussein "had an inferiority complex," said Maj. Gen. Walid Mohammed Taiee, 62, chief of army logistics as the war approached earlier this year. "From a military point of view, if you did have a special weapon, you should keep it secret to achieve tactical surprise. . . . But he wanted the whole region to look at him as a grand leader. And during the period when the Americans were massing troops in Kuwait, he wanted to deter the prospect of war."

    The only consistent pattern we've gotten -- 100 percent consistent -- is that each commander says, 'My unit didn't have WMD, but the one to my right or left did,' " said the senior U.S. official involved. This has led some American interrogators to theorize that Hussein may have bluffed not only neighboring governments and the United States, but his own restive generals"


    If he was "squealing like a stuck pig" that he had nothing, why did his generals not even know that there were no WMD? Each believing the unit next to theirs had them.

    I know its a long article Bry, but just because it doesnt support your views, take the time and read it... it really is a good read.

    I do agree with that. I believe any country has the right to defend its own soil. The problem with "tit-for-tat" is, where and how to draw that line. "I want it because he/she has it" doesnt work in every instance. Some countries have nuclear capabilities and have had them for years... those countries do not launch nukes into other countries just because the feeling strikes them. Giving Saddam long range missiles (pick a kind, any kind) is like waving a T-Bone steak in front of a tiger.
     
  9. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    >>there were still hundreds of good reasons to invade Iraq<<

    The whole "he was a bad guy" argument has a large inconsistency. If we invaded him because "he was a bad guy" we must then ask, was he the worst guy. The most inhumane despot on the planet (uh uh, not even a semi-finalist). Some of the worst dictators are racking up the unmarked grave count at a pace that would make Qusai Hussein blush.
    I have a lot of respect for the opposing posters on this board, so I'm just going to say this one time and you guys can agree or disagree with me as you like.
    We went to Iraq for a number of reasons, no doubt. It wasn't the WMDs', and it obviously wasn't to get the worst dictator on the planet (he doesn't live in Iraq). As a citizen, I have the right to know why we went to war, hell, I have a duty to find out why. Can any of you honestly tell me that you would have supported an invasion of Iraq based on the argument that Hussein is a bad man. If so, why Iraq and not Rhwanda (where a 21st century "Killing Field" is being played out)?
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    And were these others violating UN resolutions for the past 12 years? Are any of them firing on US warplanes or surveillance planes? Do the others have terrorist training camps on their soil, especially of those that were involved in 9/11? Have the others used chemical weapons on their own citizens?

    I think your desire to make the invasion based on one thing only is a little bit of over simplification. As I've already stated, there were MANY factors involved in the decision.

    Whether or not there are other countries that can benefit from "regime" change or not really has nothing to do with Iraq. Each case would be separate, and none of them will make the decision about Iraq any more wrong or right.
     

Share This Page