What do you all think of this? Personally, I think the news is making a ghoulish spectacle out of the whole event. Wouldn't it have been better to just do it quietly?
I think Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, has been assassinated. I think the redneck lynchmob mentality is alive and well in American culture. I think the rich, white, slaveowners in the Whitehouse (and their Zionist masters) have once again made a mockery of truth and justice. I think the man who built up, stabilised and refused to sell out Iraq - right to the end - has today been made a martyr. Decdmber 29, 2006 In the past, I was, as you all know, in the battlefield of jihad and struggle. God, exalted by He, wished that I face the same again in the same manner and the same spirit in which we were before the revolution but with a problem that is greater and harsher. Oh beloved, this harsh situation, which we and our great Iraq are facing, is a new lesson and a new trial for the people by which to be judged, each depending on their intention, so that it becomes an identifier before God and the people in the present and after our current situation becomes a glorious history. It is, above all, the foundation upon which the success of the future phases of history can be built. In this situation and in no other, the veritable are the honest and faithful and the opposing are the false. When the insignificant people use the power given to them by the foreigners to oppress their own people, they are but worthless and lowly. In our country only good must result from what we are experiencing. To the great nation, to the people of our country, and humanity: Many of you have known the writer of this letter to be faithful, honest, caring for others, wise, of sound judgment, just, decisive, careful with the wealth of the people and the state… and that his heart is big enough to embrace all without discrimination. His heart aches for the poor and he does not rest until he helps in improving their condition and attends to their needs. His heart contains all his people and his nation, and he craves to be honest and faithful without differentiating between his people except on the basis of their efforts, efficiency, and patriotism. 'Sacrifice’ Here I am speaking today in your name and for your eyes and the eyes of our nation and the eyes of the just, the people of the truth, wherever their banner is hoisted. You have known your brother and leader very well and he never bowed to the despots and, in accordance with the wishes of those who loved him, remained a sword and a banner. This is how you want your brother, son or leader to be… and those who will lead you (in the future) should have the same qualifications. Here, I offer my soul to God as a sacrifice, and if He wants, He will send it to heaven with the martyrs, or, He will postpone that… so let us be patient and depend on Him against the unjust nations. In spite of all the difficulties and the storms which we and Iraq had to face, before and after the revolution, God the Almighty did not want death for Saddam Hussein. But if He wants it this time, it (Saddam’s life) is His creation. He created it and He protected it until now. Thus, by its martyrdom, He will be bringing glory to a faithful soul, for there were souls that were younger than Saddam Hussein that had departed and had taken this path before him. If He wants it martyred, we thank Him and offer Him gratitude, before and after. 'The enemies’ The enemies of your country, the invaders and the Persians, found that your unity stands as a barrier between them and your enslavement. They planted and grounded their hateful old and new wedge between you. The strangers who are carrying the Iraqi citizenship, whose hearts are empty or filled with the hatred that was planted in them by Iran, responded to it, but how wrong they were to think that they could divide the noble among our people, weaken your determination, and fill the hearts of the sons of the nation with hatred against each other, instead of against their true enemies that will lead them in one direction to fight under the banner of God is great: The great flag of the people and the nation. Remember that God has enabled you to become an example of love, forgiveness and brotherly co-existence… I call on you not to hate because hate does not leave a space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking and keeps away one from balanced thinking and making the right choice … I also call on you not to hate the peoples of the other countries that attacked us and differentiate between the decision-makers and peoples… 'Forgiveness’ Anyone who repents - whether in Iraq or abroad - you must forgive him… You should know that among the aggressors, there are people who support your struggle against the invaders, and some of them volunteered for the legal defence of prisoners, including Saddam Hussein… Some of these people wept profusely when they said goodbye to me… Dear faithful people, I say goodbye to you, but I will be with the merciful God who helps those who take refuge in him and who will never disappoint any faithful, honest believer… God is Great… God is great… Long live our nation… Long live our great struggling people… Long live Iraq, long live Iraq… Long live Palestine… Long live jihad and the mujahideen. Saddam Hussein President and Commander in Chief of the Iraqi Mujahid Armed Forces [Additional note:] I have written this letter because the lawyers told me that the so-called criminal court - established and named by the invaders - will allow the so-called defendants the chance for a last word. But that court and its chief judge did not give us the chance to say a word, and issued its verdict without explanation and read out the sentence - dictated by the invaders - without presenting the evidence. I wanted the people to know this.
Nursey, I am trying to be a little sensitive here, believe it or not. Purposely executing the former Leader of a soveriegn nation is chilling business, no matter what he may or may not have done to deserve it. I can see that the term "Assinasion by proxy" could apply. I do have one question - if the role was reversed, and it was GW Bush being hung for crimes against humanity, would you feel just as strongly
barry.. gwbush is not saddam hussein bush is a weak man and a weak leader of a powerful nation with military firepower and technology that vastly outstrips those of any other nation in the world.. saddam was a strong man and a strong leader of a proud nation that, having once been a beacon of enlightenment and advancement under his stead in the 80's, was subsequently weakened and impoverished by outside players... though i must say that i would not rejoice at an execution of gwbush, rather i would be saddened at the sacrifice of a man who is merely the puppet
Better yet, Kim Junkg Il. Ahmadinejad. Bashar al-Assad. Do you feel these guys are strong men in unfortunate circumstances too, while Bush is just some buffoon who happens to have inherited the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth to lead? Crazy how things work out.
what about blair? what about putin?.. what are you asking? how i regard them as leaders under their circumstances a'la your follow up question about jong-il, ahmedinajad and assad? or how i'd feel if it was them at the end of the noose?...
THE LIVING MARTYR Malcom Lagauche December 28, 2006 The decision to uphold the death sentence of Saddam Hussein by the sham Iraqi appeals court has gained worldwide condemnation, except for the U.S., of course. The court took two days to read 1,500 pages of documents presented by the defense. No court in the world can decipher this number of pages in such a short time, not even a legitimate court. No one was surprised by the verdict against Saddam because of the knowledge this was a foregone conclusion. However, the court outdid itself by ruling on the Iraqi vice president, Ramadan. He was sentenced to life in prison, but the appeals court took it upon itself to change the sentence to death, even though his case was not on the docket. From the time Saddam first set foot in court until today, the entire system was stacked against him and conducted so many breaches of the law that it would take an expert mathematician to give us a tally. Dr. Curtis Doebbler, a noted international human rights attorney, was on Saddam’s legal team from the start. I spoke to him today to get his opinion on the appeals court decision. He stated: We’re trying to point out that if an execution takes place, it will be an ex-judicial, arbitrary execution outside the law in violation of the law. It’s somewhat ironic that this individual who will be executed has proven to have much more integrity than the individuals who are executing him, including the U.S. president who exhibits more evidence that he has committed crimes against the Iraqi people than there was against the president of Iraq in the first trial in which he was brought before the U.S.-created court and there has still has been no investigation of the U.S. president. As you’ve seen the Iraqi president has maintained his dignity and also maintained his peace of mind in belief that he personifies the will of the Iraq people to continue to fight against this occupation, which they believe, and the majority of the international community believes, is illegal and the consequence of the illegal invasion of Iraq. It’s quite a sad day, I think, for international justice and, unfortunately, an another example of how the United States is unwilling to conform with international law; to show respect for international law. What hurts me most, as an American, is that we’re the ones who benefit the most from respecting that law. When we set this example, we essentially tell people that the law cannot be used to try to get the United States to respect their rights. They have to use other means. That’s what got us into many of the problems that we’re in today. Almost everybody in the U.S. is in the lynching mood. Pundits are frothing at the mouth while they discuss the upcoming execution. There is a collective air of insanity today in the U.S. Even former anti-war proponents are cheering on the future execution. Many Democratic politicians have said they were happy about the decision and that Saddam "deserves" it. Not one, however, has discussed the legality or the fairness of his trial. Leftist journalists are trying to outdo each other in demeaning Saddam. Not only are they talking about his "brutal dictatorship," they are making up even new fables of atrocities committed under his regime. I challenge all journalists who advocate the hanging of Saddam Hussein to take a few hours and research reality. * The standard figure of deaths attributed to the Ba’ath regime during the Anfal campaign is 182,000. Why have there not been any bodies found? If 182,000 people were killed, there must be piles and piles of bodies, yet none has appeared. * If 148 people were sentenced to death in 1982 for attempting to assassinate the president of Iraq, why are at least 24 still alive? And, those who were executed received a lengthy and fair trial that lasted about three years. They were fighting on the side of Iran while Iraq was engaged in a war with its eastern neighbor. In the U.S., this would be considered high treason. With Saddam Hussein, it was called mass murder. George Bush himself signed off more execution orders while the governor of Texas than did Saddam in the Dujail case. * If Iraqi military personnel gassed and killed 5,000 Kurds in Halabjah, why were only 300 bodies found? And, why was the gas used to kill the citizens cyanogen, a gas that Iraq did not possess but Iran did? Why have the CIA, the U.S. Army War College, Greenpeace, the main CIA analyst in 1988 (Stephen Pellitiere), the late Jude Waniski, the U.S Marine Corps Historical Report, and various other individuals and organizations blamed Iran for the gassing of the Kurds? * Why has not one Iraqi come forward and stated he was part of the gassing campaign? Today, with the Ba’athists out of power, one cannot use the excuse that no one would step forward because of threats of death from the Ba’ath administration. Huge sums of money have been offered for someone to state that he knew about or was part of the gassing: a pilot, or a supply specialist, or an observer, anyone. Not one person has emerged to claim the bounty. * In November 2003, the U.S. stated that 400,000 bodies were found in mass graves in the south of Iraq. The following June, Tony Blair admitted to the press that only 5,000 bodies were found. He "mis-spoke" when he used the original figure of 400,000. Subsequent investigations showed that many of the 5,000 were killed by U.S. bombs in Desert Storm. Why has no one taken the ball and run with this story? I have reported extensively on the above anomalies. Unfortunately, few others have. To me, investigating and disproving accepted myths are the marks of an astute journalists. No, today we still hear all the beastly acts attributed to Saddam Hussein from the mouths of people who should know better. Many people have stated that George Bush has lied about everything to do with Iraq: weapons of mass destruction; the Bin-Laden/Saddam link; the Iraqi involvement with 9-11; the fictitious biological weapons trailers; the imprisonment of an American POW since 1991; etc. Yet, the same people broadcast the myths about Saddam Hussein’s barbaric actions. I again issue a challenge to the leftist press: Please explain if Bush has lied about everything, why is he telling the truth about Saddam’s brutality? That’s a hard one for the pundits to answer. For someone with any amount of intelligence and logic, it is easy: Bush lied about Saddam as well. Here are a few questions that are not heard today, but should be crucial in discussing Iraq: * Why don’t we hear about Iraq being designated "free of illiteracy" by the U.N. in 1982, when in 1973 the country’s literacy rate was below 40%? * Why don’t we hear about the proclamation of the U.N. in 1984 that Iraq’s education system was the finest the world had ever seen from a developing country? * Why don’t we hear about the New York Times calling Iraq the "Paris of the Middle East" in 1987? * Why don’t we hear about Saddam Hussein visiting houses in the south of Iraq in the 1970s just to make sure each one had a refrigerator and electricity? * Why don’t we hear about the several million foreign Arabs who went to Iraq to take advantage of the land program the Ba’athists instituted in which the person would be given land to create crops? * Why don’t we hear about the Iraqi educators and doctors who were sent to Arab countries to assist them in developing their own programs? * Why don’t we hear praise from Arab countries for Iraq having lost so many soldiers in the Iran-Iraq War, all for the defense of these countries who were scared about Iran exporting its religious fundamentalism to their shores? * Why don’t we hear about the several approaches made to Saddam in the 1990s by U.S. sources to recognize Israel and allow U.S. military bases in Iraq in trade for lifting the embargo? * Why don’t we hear that every U.S. person on the U.N. inspection team from 1991 to 1998 was a spy, not an inspector? The list could go on and on. In my upcoming book, The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War, I go into detail about these and other matters left untouched by the cliché-ridden, myopic and gullible media. The current scenario just does not make sense. The people who lied through their teeth (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Bremer, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al) and stole tens of billions of dollars that belonged to the country of Iraq, are proudly speaking of creating a new Middle East or conducting booksigning tours for their memoirs. The results of their lies led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; a cost of about a trillion dollars so far to the U.S. public; and the destruction of a country’s culture and infrastructure. Even the history of Iraq has been re-written by people in Washington D.C. On the other hand, the guy with the moustache who told the truth about all the lies and adhered to the U.N. request for inspections, as well as supplied a 12,000-page report that documented in detail every aspect of Iraq’s former WMD programs, sits in a jail cell awaiting execution. Something is fundamentally wrong when things can get so far out of hand. Today, Saddam Hussein is the freest man in Iraq, although he is behind bars. His mind is clear and his integrity is nothing short of incredible. He awaits death with dignity. Not once has he cracked under torture or pressure. Even when offered a "get out of jail free" card by the U.S. if he stopped the resistance, Saddam refused to capitulate. Other leaders, such as Ghadaffi and Noriega did succumb to U.S. pressure. Ghadaffi, once a revolutionary, today is nothing more than the head inspector of the transfer of his country’s oil to the capitalist giants. He no longer has a grand view of society. He may not be in jail, but he is a slave. Noriega quickly began singing when the U.S. put on the pressure. He admitted to trafficking in drugs, despite the U.S. being his partner. And, he made a big deal of stating that he had found Jesus after he was incarcerated. He is a slave behind bars. Saddam Hussein is not a slave, although his incarceration keeps him imprisoned. He is not allowed to see his family, unless, like his sons and grandson, they are shot to death with hundreds of bullets. The U.S. prides itself on "family values," but not for foreign individuals. A U.S. family is sacred, but an Iraqi family is merely cannon fodder. On January 17, 1991, Saddam Hussein proclaimed to the world, "The mother of all battles has just begun." Despite two U.S. presidents declaring victory over Iraq with a New York parade and a U.S. aircraft carrier celebration, the mother of all battles now roars more fiercely than ever. In about three weeks, it will be the 16th anniversary of the beginning of the bombing of Iraq. Despite U.S. denials and proclamations, the battle still rages. The bombing did not stop with the signing of a cease-fire agreement on March 2, 1991. It continued until March 2003 from the illegal "no-fly" zones the U.S. created. Soon, Saddam Hussein will be hanged. He will be dead, but his legacy will not only survive him, it will be enhanced. The mother of all battles is a long way from being terminated.
Yeah, I wanted to know how you think these other guys compare. What do you think America would be like if one of these other leaders was put in charge? Maybe a better question would be, take Bush and put him in Saddam's place. How would he have handled trying to keep control? I'm not arguing with you. It's interesting to think about the circumstances in which people have to operate.
The execution of the President Statement by Abdul Ilah Albayaty, Ian Douglas, Hana Albayaty, Dirk Adriaensens, Inge Van De Merlen December 30, 2006 The execution of President Saddam Hussein would be a grave war crime imputable under international law The US-orchestrated tribunal that sentenced President Saddam Hussein has no legal standing The imminent execution of Iraq’s lawful president is testimony to the gutting of international law by the Bush administration and its criminal partners President Saddam Hussein is a prisoner of war with protected status under international law. Further, he is the lawful president of the Republic of Iraq. He cannot be executed legally by the US occupation. Under the Interim Constitution of Iraq of 1990 — which remains in force despite the illegal imposition of a permanent Iraqi constitution written by the United States — President Saddam Hussein, like heads of state worldwide, including in the US and Europe, is afforded sovereign immunity to prosecution.[ii] That the US invaded Iraq illegally and established an illegal political process and a quisling Iraqi government only exacerbates the violation of President Saddam Hussein’s personal and sovereign rights and the affront to the whole of Iraq. His imminent execution is an attempt to establish, de facto, a global state of exception to law. Force cannot make just what law denies. The US-led invasion of the Republic of Iraq was illegal and cannot be made legal by the execution of Iraq’s lawful president. The occupation is illegal and cannot survive by authoring new atrocities. This mockery of law The Iraqi Higher Criminal Court that passed a death sentence on President Saddam Hussein is a farce. Not only is it grounded on illegality (occupying powers under international law are expressly prohibited from changing the judicial structures of occupied states[ iii ]); the trial itself stands distinguished in legal history by its sheer number of due process and international standard of fairness violations.[ iv ] These violations have included, often with systematic effect: American imposed censorship of court proceedings; withholding evidence from the defence; forcible ejection from court of defence lawyers and the placing of defence lawyers under house arrest; denial of defence counsel access to defendants; blatant lack of impartiality of court judges; overt political interference in the selection of court officials and the prejudicing of the trial and trial outcome by statements made by invested political figures — including George W Bush — affirming progress towards, or demanding, execution; the replacement of four of the five originally selected court judges; lack of equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence; refusals to accept key defence submissions, especially motions challenging the competence and legality of the court; violations of key fair trial principles and standards and international humanitarian law[ v ]; violation of Iraqi law[ vi ]; intimidation of witnesses; failure to ensure the security of the defence leading to the murder of three defence lawyers. Created by Paul Bremer, the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court was never anything but a US-orchestrated puppet court.[ vii ] The imposition of a death sentence after an unfair trial stands in direct violation of international law.[ viii ] The truth about this court From day one, this court has been nothing but a smokescreen: an attempt to establish a veneer of legality to an illegal invasion of a sovereign state. From day one, the final conclusion — the illegal execution of Iraq’s lawful president — has been a fait accompli. The only question has been when. As 2006 ends, the United States is desperate. Defeated militarily on the ground, long defeated politically and morally, the occupation is preparing to open the year 2007 with a barrage of atrocities, including the open murder of Iraq’s lawful president. This, like all other US-authored atrocities in Iraq, will not allow the US and its criminal partners to impose on Iraq a future that is contrary to the fundamental interests of the Iraqi people. The imminent execution of President Saddam Hussein is a challenge to the world. Its occurrence would mark a watershed in the imposition by force of a global state of exception to law and to international standards of justice and due process. States are obliged to protect international law and oppose acts that undermine it.[ ix ] International law is the arbiter and final guarantor of world peace. When states cannot or fail to act to protect it, or when they act resolutely to destroy it, it is the duty of citizens everywhere to oppose global tyranny by direct action. Urgent action demands We demand that legal institutions worldwide, governmental and non-governmental, act now to prevent the illegal execution of President Saddam Hussein. We demand that all states and the United Nations speak up immediately and oppose and prevent the illegal execution of President Saddam Hussein. We demand an immediate meeting of the UN Security Council in which must be affirmed the legal basis governing international relations and in particular the fundamental jus cogens norms of international humanitarian law. We call upon the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to defend its November 2006 conclusion that the detention of President Saddam Hussein is illegal and act to prevent his illegal execution. We invoke the mandate afforded to the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution to intervene to prevent the illegal execution of President Saddam Hussein. We call upon the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to defend his March 2006 conclusion that the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court is questionable, has limited competence and has given rise to serious breaches of international human rights principles and standards. We call upon the rapporteur to intervene to prevent the illegal execution of President Saddam Hussein — a further insult to justice. We demand that the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights personally intervene to prevent this grave war crime from occurring. No one in authority can claim ignorance as to its imminence. We affirm that international law is the bequest of generations and an expression of the development of human civilization and that people worldwide, individually and in groups, have a stake in protecting it, and the world peace that depends on it. We call upon citizens and individuals everywhere to stand up in defence of international law and Iraqi sovereignty and act to prevent the execution of Iraq’s legal president. The execution of Saddam Hussein would not only be a war crime against one individual and state. It would lend an illusion of legality to illegal acts — both the execution of a lawful president and the invasion and destruction of Iraq. It would be nothing less than a declaration of the death of international law, slain by this criminal Bush administration and its collaborators. If the execution of President Saddam Hussein will not lead to an international or global war, it sows the seeds, in its overt illegality, and in conjunction with Washington’s exclusion of international law from international relations, for precisely this outcome. Abdul Ilah Albayaty (BRussells Tribunal Advisory Committee) Ian Douglas (BRussells Tribunal Advisory Committee) Hana Albayaty (BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee) Dirk Adriaensens (BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee) Inge Van De Merlen (BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee) Ctd...
i didnt read any of this post at all: all i can say is that is the US news ought to show it. we are sick fucks and we want to see a man hanged. GO USA! WHOOO HOOO! YEAHHHAWWW! FUCK YOU!
1) Presidents are elected, who elected Saddam? 2) Iraqis killed saddam, not the US. If he had been tried in a US court he would have been sentenced to death and then eventually he would have died in prison from old age, in his sleep, wearing out his apeals. 3) They should have televised it. Of course I think they should have sawed his head off with a rusty blade. Of course I am just a German/Irish American who likes to drink beer, watch football, and eat bratwurst (in no particular order).
To be fair they should have just put him in a 4 by 6 cell 8 foot ceiling with no windows and an opening in the door one foot square. Then gather all the skulls and bones of people he killed and put them one at a time into the cell with him. I would estimate that so long as he killed no more than say 500 people. The sweet, little, meek, and fragile, kindly, Saddam would be ok just a little uncomfortable. Of course if there were more than say a 1000 at some point likely about then you would have to come up with some sort of hydraulic ram to force the next bone into the cell. Then by 5000 or so people worth of bones the heavy duty reinforced walls would likely smash open from the pressure. Then he would be free to escape. Of course if he were crushed by the bones of the people he executed then I do not think the Propagandist assholes trying to make the gullible people of the world feel sorry for him would have any success arguing against his death.
Nice video. Chop it up and reverse it and you'd see masked insurgents blowing all kinds of shit up followed by an American retaliatory strike. It's fucking propaganda and can be spun. If we spiced it up with a few pics of contractors' bodies being burned and hanged from structures, it'd have a nice touch. Were they not innocents or, by virture of them trying to feed their families by working for the coalition, aggressors and infidels? I'm not a big fan of this war but I don't believe that everything coalition forces are doing in Iraq is bad nor do I beliieve they are infallible. They people getting killed over their, on either side, aren't the ones calling the shots necessarily. Most US soldiers are doing the jobs asked of them by the leaders they are sworn to follow. Yes, there are bad soldiers, just like there are bad policemen, bad politicians, bad clergy, and whatver else. Am I ashamed of some of the things Americans have done? Certainly. Am I ashamed to be an American? Certainly not. *steps down from soapbox* Carry on.
Audio: Free Range Thought's hosts Adam Roufberg and Robert Johnstreet interview Saddam Hussein's US Attorney, Dr. Curtis Doebbler
Whether you like it or not, despite whatever faults he may have had, Saddam represented Iraq - a strong, unified Iraq, and (on the whole) the best interests of the Iraqi people. Yes, he was severe and ruthless, but he couldn't have built up and stabilised a place like Iraq by being a spoilt, rich, cowardly puppet or a simpering, beureaucratic eunuch. People like that aren't going to last a day in such an intensely volatile, charged region. Unless they get Airforce-1 or Blairforce-0 to drop them for 'surprise visits' into the so called 'greenzone' every few years where they can strut around all-importantly and act the part of great leaders (well, for a few hours anyway) before exiting in haste with shit-streaked breeches. People like that are only capable of 'ruling' in countries where the general populace is socially engineered and brain washed into complete subservience, such as exists in the "first world". The Iraqi people wouldn't tolerate it. They expect a real leader. The main reason Saddam Hussein stayed in power isn't because he was some sort of bloodthirsty, crazed barbarian, or whatever sensationalist fantasy you wish to cling to in morbid enthrillment and horror. If he really was as bad as he is made out in the West, not even the Republican guard could have contained a popular uprising. He stayed in power because the country needed and accepted his leadership. For thirty years. Because, as well as providing the people with a badly needed level of stability in the previously week-to-week coup run country, he also (unlike the squanderous British installed puppet monarchy) delivered. Handsomely. In fact, things were starting to look so good for Iraq at one stage, with the best health service, standards of education and rights for women in the entire middle east, that it was fast becoming on a par with European standards of living. Allowed to continue at that rate, Iraq was soon poised to become a pivotal, modernising force throughout the entire region, and would have stood out as a positive model to emulate throughout the entire Arab world. The unification of Arabs through Pan-Arab nationalism was set to lead the way forward, with Iraq spearheading it. Considering what Iraq (as we are currently witrnessing in the most extreme, worst case scenario) and Arabs everywhere had to lose from Saddam's downfall, is it any wonder he exercised what - to our safe, comfortable 9-5 perspectives - seem overly severe methods to safeguard his position? You'll find that nowhere is a tea party in that region. Iraq wasn't any worse (and was in some ways much better) than many of the West's allies in the Middle East. So, ironically, the real reason he had to be eliminated from the picture wasn't because of what he was doing wrong, but because of what he was doing right - empowering the Arabs through Pan-Arabism.
The speech that made the U.S hate Saddam David Hungerford, Arab-European League This speech was delivered by Saddam Hussein to the Amman Summitt meeting on Feb. 24, 1990. Present were the heads of state of the key Arab allies of the United States: the president of Egypt and the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The president of Syria was also present. In its sweeping proposals for Arab unity against U.S.-Israeli domination, it was a blunt challenge to imperialism. It is this speech that was the flash point of the U.S.-U.N. aggression, not the Kuwait crisis which was engineered in response. (David Hungerford) Since it is difficult in a meeting such as this to deal with all that is negative or positive in international developments during 1989 and prior to then, and during the period from the beginning of 1990, you might share my opinion that discussions should deal with the most urgent and important of these issues and within the limits of time allowed us. Among the most important developments since the international conflict in World War II has been the fact that some countries which used to enjoy broad international influence, such as France and Britain, have declined, while the influence and impact of two countries expanded until they became the two superpowers among the countries of the world--I mean the United States and the Soviet Union. Of course, with these results, two axes have developed: the Western axis under the leadership of the United States, with its known capitalist approach and its imperialist policy; and the East bloc under the leadership of the Soviet Union and its communist philosophy. Among the results of World War II: The Zionist state has become a reality, and the original owners of the land, the Palestinians, have become refugees. While the imperialist Western world helped the expansionist scheme and aggression of the Zionist entity in 1967, the communist bloc sided with the Arabs in the concept of balance of interests in the context of the global competition between the two blocs, and sought to secure footholds for the East Bloc against the Western interests in the Arab homeland. The East bloc, led by the USSR, supported the Arabs' basic rights, including their rights in the Arab-Zionist conflict. The global policy continued on the basis of the existence of two poles that were balanced in term of force. They are the two superpowers, the United States and the USSR. And suddenly, the situation changed in a dramatic way. The USSR turned to tackle its domestic problems after relinquishing the process of continuous conflict and its slogans. The USSR shifted from the balanced position with the United States in a practical manner, although it has not acknowledged this officially so far. The USSR went to nurse the wounds that were inflicted on it as a result of the principles and mistaken policy it followed for such a long time, and as a result of the wave of change it embarked on, which began to depart from the charted course. It has become clear to everyone that the United States has emerged in a superior position in international politics. This superiority will be demonstrated in the United States readiness to play such a role more than in the predicted guarantees for its continuation. We believe that the world can fill the vacuum resulting from the recent changes and find a new balance in the global arena by developing new perspectives and reducing or adding to this or that force. The forces that laid the ground for filling the vacuum and for the emergence of the two superpowers, the United States and the USSR, after World War II at the expense of France, Britain, and Germany can develop new forces, which we expect will be in Europe or Japan. America will lose its power just as quickly as it gained it by frightening Europe, Japan, and other countries through the continuous hinting at the danger of the USSR and communism. The United States will lose its power as the fierce competition for gaining the upper hand between the two superpowers and their allies recedes. However, we believe that the United States will continue to depart from the restrictions that govern the rest of [the] world throughout the next five years until new forces of balance are formed. Moreover, the undisciplined and irresponsible behavior will engender hostility and grudges if it embarks on rejected stupidities.... We all remember, as does the whole world, the circumstances under which the United States deployed and bolstered its fleets in the Gulf. Most important of these circumstances: The war that was raging between Iraq and Iran; Iranian aggression had extended to other Arabian Gulf countries, most notably the sisterly state of Kuwait. At the time, beyond the conflicting views regarding the presence of foreign fleets in Arab territorial waters and foreign bases on their territory and their repercussions for pan-Arab security, that excessive deployment was somehow comprehensible. But now, and against the background of the recent world developments and the cessation of hostilities between Iraq and Iran, and with Kuwait no longer being the target of Iranian aggression, the Arabian Gulf states, including Iraq, and even the entire Arabs would have liked the Americans to state their intention to withdraw their fleets. Had they said that under the same circumstances and causes they would have returned to the Gulf, it might have been understandable also. But U.S. officials are making such statements as if to show that their immediate and longer-term presence in Gulf waters and, maybe, on some of its territory, is not bound to a time frame. These suspect policies give Arabs reason to feel suspicious of U.S. policies and intentions as to whether it is officially and actually interested in a termination of the Iraq-lran war and thus in contributing to much needed regional stability. The other side is the immigration of Soviet Jews to the occupied Palestinian land. How can we explain the Americans' support and backing for Jewish immigration to the occupied Arab territories, except that the United States does not want peace as it claims and declares. If it really and actually wants peace, the United States would not have encouraged Israel and the aggressive trends in it to adopt such policies, which enhance Israel's capability to commit aggression and carry out expansion. We the Arabs, proceeding from a long-standing friendship with the Soviet Union, did not expect that the Soviets would give in to this U.S. pressure in such a way that it would lead to these grave consequences for the Arabs and their pan-Arab security. As we tackle these challenges, it would be just as compromising to the destiny and cause of the Arabs to feel fear as it would be to be lax in our evaluating and working out a reaction to them. Therefore, there is no place among the ranks of good Arabs for the fainthearted who would argue that as a superpower, the United States will be the decisive factor, and others have no choice but to submit. At the same time, there is no place in our midst for those who fail to take note of recent developments that have added to U.S. strength, thus prompting it to the possible commission of follies against the interests and national security of the Arabs--either directly or by fanning and encouraging conflicts detrimental to the Arabs, irrespective of their source. We are only making the point that the Arabs seek peace and justice throughout the world and want to forge relations of friendship with those who show respect to what friendship is all about--be it the United States or any other nation. It is only natural that the Arabs take a realistic approach to the new posture and power of the United States that has led the Soviet Union to abandon its erstwhile position of influence. However, America must respect the Arabs and respect their rights, and should not interfere in their internal affairs under any cover.... Against the backdrop of the vital issue related to the substance of national Arab security, the question arises as to what we the Arabs have to do.... It has been proven that Arabs are capable of being influential when they make a decision and set their minds to it for actual application purposes. We have much evidence of how effective they can be; for example, the joint Iraqi-Saudi resolution of August 6,1980, and the warning the two countries issued together that embassies must not be moved to Jerusalem, one of whose direct results in less than a month--the duration of the warning--was not only that the concerned countries did not transfer their embassies to Jerusalem, but also that embassies that had already long been transferred to the city returned to Tel Aviv. The reason the United States stays in the Gulf is that the Gulf has become the most important spot in the region and perhaps the whole world due to developments in international policy, the oil market, and increasing demands from the United States, Europe, Japan, Eastern Europe, and perhaps the Soviet Union, for this product. The country that will have the greatest influence in the region through the Arab Gulf and its oil will maintain its superiority as a superpower without an equal to compete with it. This means that if the Gulf people, along with all Arabs, are not careful, the Arab Gulf region will be governed by the United States's will. If the Arabs are not alerted and the weakness persists, the situation could develop to the extent desired by the United States; that is, it would fix the amount of oil and gas produced in each country and sold to this or that country in the world. Prices would also be fixed in line with a special perspective benefitting U.S. interests and ignoring the interests of others. If this possibility is there and it is convincing, those who are convinced by it must conclude that peace in the Middle East is remote from the United States point of view because U.S. strategy, according to this analysis, needs an aggressive Israel, not a peaceful one. Peace between Iraq and Iran could be far off as long as Iran does not react favorably from an aware and responsible position and with the peace initiatives proposed by Iraq. The region could witness inter-Arab wars or controlled wars between the Arabs and some of their neighbors, if tangible results are not achieved on the basis of the principles of noninterference in others' internal affairs and nonuse of military force in inter-Arab relations. Agreement should be reached over clear and widespread pan-Arab cooperation programs among Arab countries in the economic, political, and educational fields, as well as other fields. Love and peace of mind will take the place of suspicion, doubt, mistrust, and giving in to information and speculation propagated by rumor-mongers, such as prejudiced Westerners and some rootless Arabs. Brothers, the weakness of a big body lies in its bulkiness. All strong men have their Achilles' hell. Therefore, irrespective of our known stand on terror and terrorists, we saw that the United States as a superpower departed Lebanon immediately when some Marines were killed, the very men who are considered to be the most prominent symbol of its arrogance. The whole U.S. administration would have been called into question had the forces that conquered Panama continued to be engaged by the Panamanian armed forces. The United States has been defeated in some combat arenas for all the forces it possesses, and it has displayed signs of fatigue, frustration, and hesitation when committing aggression on other peoples' rights and acting from motives of arrogance and hegemony. This is a natural outcome for those who commit aggression on other peoples' rights. Israel, once dubbed the invincible country, has been defeated by some of the Arabs. The resistance put up by Palestinian and Lebanese militia against Israeli invasion forces in 1982 and before that the heroic Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal in 1973 have had a more telling psychological and actual impact than all Arab threats. Further, the threat to use Arab oil in 1973 during the October war proved more effective than all political attempts to protest or to beg at the gates of American decision-making centers. The stones in occupied Palestine now turn into a virtual and potentially fatal bullet if additional requirements are made available. It is the best proof of what is possible and indeed gives us cause to hold our heads high. Just as Israel controls interests to put pressure on the United States administration, hundreds of billions invested by Arabs in the United States and the West may be similarly deployed. Indeed, for instance, some of these investments may be diverted to the USSR and East European countries. It may prove even more profitable than investment in the West, which has grown saturated with its national resources. Such a course of action may yield inestimable benefits for the Arabs and their national causes. Our purported weakness does not lie in our ideological and hereditary characteristics. Contemporary experience has shown our nation to be distinguished and excellent, just as our nation's history over the centuries has shown this to be the case. Our purported weakness lies in a lack of mutual trust among ourselves, our failure to concentrate on the components of our strength, and our failure to focus on our weaknesses with a view to righting them. Let our motto be: All of us are strong as long as we are united, and all of us are weak as long as we are divided. link
Is it wrong to be turned on by this? Or is that the reason we are hated, cause we went into the cold war, probably behind the U.S.S.R. and now, they are a dissolved and all living in squalor(SP?)? It isnt balanced. I think the whole world police job is bullshit. And it puts us in bad situations the world over.
