babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Most Sunnis support insurgency in Iraq

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Most Sunnis support insurgency in Iraq
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 September 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, it's so important to "stay the course":

quote:
A confidential Pentagon assessment finds that an overwhelming majority of Iraq's Sunni Muslims support the insurgency that has been fighting against U.S. troops and the Iraqi government, ABC News has learned.

quote:
Officials won't say how the assessment was made but found that support for the insurgency has never been higher, with approximately 75 percent of the country's Sunni Muslims in agreement.

When the Pentagon started surveying Iraqi public opinion in 2003, Sunni support for the insurgents stood at approximately 14 percent.


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2470183&page=1


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 September 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Like Robert McNamara said about VietNam, they should have tried plying them with liquor instead.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 27 September 2006 07:54 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you know the history behind Iraq and Iran, you wouldn't need this study ^^ Iraq (under Saddam) is Sunni led and Iran is Shi'a. How many posts have we seen regarding the Iraq/Iran war?

Then along come the Americans who toppled the Sunni Hussein and put in place a democratic Gov't... Which is now dominated by the Shi'a majority in Iraq. The good ol US of A managed to do in a couple years what cost the Iranians 400k soldiers in the 80's... And we wonder why Sunni's might be a lil ticked ^^ When the invasion of Iraq started, Bush and his senior staff weren't aware there was a difference between Sunni and Shi'a (they're all dirty muslim terrorists afterall).

Though, we do need to realize that American foriegn policy regarding Iraq includes the people basking in the light our superior values thanking us from freeing them from dictatorship! Shouldn't they be holding a parade to celebrate us yet? Hey, they aren't celebrating our superior values yet, whats going on?

I watched that Clinton town forum (or atleast the first 5 minutes) and the first words out of the hosts mouth was along the lines of 'American values which are universal values'... How arrogant are we to assume that our values are the superior universal values? I'd really like for an American supporting the Iraq war to call it for what it is... "Our values are superior to yours and we won't go away until you accept that". Even more absurd, we're surprised when they don't collectively chuck away their outdated values and takes a 'Confidential Pentagon Assessment' years later to figure out? Useless terrorists hey?


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 September 2006 08:57 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Saddam, the one-time CIA stooge, Hussein, was well-liked by western capitalists as long as he was there in Iraq and murdering communists and socialists in the Baath Party. But then something happened along the way to opening up Iraq to western capitalists and culture. Saddam was not so much a Sunni or stooge of the west anymore. He became an Arab nationalist and began spending the oil profits on the people of Iraq. He was actually leading Iraqi's away from religious fundamentalism, and may have been inspired by Moammar Gaddafi's Libya(my own impression).
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 27 September 2006 09:41 AM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I think Saddam, the one-time CIA stooge, Hussein, was well-liked by western capitalists as long as he was there in Iraq and murdering communists and socialists in the Baath Party. But then something happened along the way to opening up Iraq to western capitalists and culture. Saddam was not so much a Sunni or stooge of the west anymore. He became an Arab nationalist and began spending the oil profits on the people of Iraq. He was actually leading Iraqi's away from religious fundamentalism, and may have been inspired by Moammar Gaddafi's Libya(my own impression).

Huh? Congratulations for getting almost everything wrong about the issue.

Now perhaps checking a few facts would correct your romantic view of Saddam.

Throughout the Baathist party rule from 1967 to mid 1980s (during which Saddam was always the strong man of Iraq), the Iraqi government was a pan-Arab nationalist regime with socialist tendencies, and firmly in the left, anti-western camp of the Arab world, allied with Syria, Lybia and Algeria. The Shah of Iran was the pro-western puppet of the region, while Iraq was considered a Soviet lackey.

During Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Saddam's army was primarily supported by Soviet Union and the socialist government of Miterrand (France). It was the Soviet Migs and French Mirages that were bombing Iranian cities, and Iraqi army consisted primarily of Soviet-supplied missiles and tanks.

As Iran made progress in the wear and Saddam government was threatened, he actually tried to use pro-western and pro-Islamic tactics (such as adding "God is great" slogan to Iraqi flag) to save his regime. This continued all the way until his invasion of Kuwait. So Saddam's regime was not attacked in 1990 because it had become anti-western. In fact, it by that time it had turned from decades of leftist anti-western politics to their new pro-western, pro-fundamentalism approach as a result of the war
with Iran.

When the first Gulf war started, Saddam's regime was the most pro-western, pro-fundamentalist and pro-capitalist regime that Iraq had seen in decades.

As for distributing oil profits to people of Iraq, talk to a few Iraqi Shia or Kurd (85% of the population) to get their point before making ridiculous claims. In 1990s, Saddam was more than happy to give away Iraq's oil to any American company who might want to take it. There was just no one interested.

BTW make sure that you don't show up around Iranian communities in Toronto with such view of Saddam.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 September 2006 09:53 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel, just because Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam doesn't make Saddam's reign a good thing, or something to romanticize. Saddam was interested in power for one reason: the personality and upkeep of Saddam. He prefered a secular Iraq because he did not want to share power with any Ayatollahs or Mullahs. He had people murdered and tortured as a matter of course. He certainly wasn't using Iraq's riches to further the station of the average Iraqi citizen. And I have my doubts that he gave a flying fig about Arab nationalism, unless that Arab nationalism could be used to further entrench his own position.

Iraqis did have it better under Saddam, but that's really not saying much.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 27 September 2006 10:01 AM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:

Iraqis did have it better under Saddam, but that's really not saying much.

Correction: 15% of Iraqis had it better under Saddam. Kurds and most Shias are better off now than then. As you see, the bombings and civil war is primarily restricted to the Sunnis areas (Baghdad and central-west Iraq). The occasional bombings in the south is nothing compared to the brutality of Saddam's army against Shias.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 September 2006 11:19 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My anecdotes are bigger than your anecdotes.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 27 September 2006 11:50 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Correction: 15% of Iraqis had it better under Saddam. Kurds and most Shias are better off now than then.

For sure that's true of the Kurds. It would be true of the Shia, too, if they were not now becoming embroiled in a multi-sided civil war in which Shia unity cannot be taken for granted.

During the last two months, 6,600 Iraqi civilians died in Baghdad alone, due to this incipient civil war.

The UN Special Rapporteur on torture said recently:

quote:
A top UN rights envoy says torture in Iraq may be worse now than under the regime of Saddam Hussein.


Manfred Nowak, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, says interviews with victims and others have led him to believe that torture in Iraq today is "totally out of hand."

Nowak described a situation where militias, terrorist groups, government forces, and others routinely disregard rules on the humane treatment of prisoners.


iraq torture


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 September 2006 12:27 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
Fidel, just because Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam doesn't make Saddam's reign a good thing, or something to romanticize.

I agree, and I don't understand how you could have read that I had praise for Saddam. He was a stooge of the CIA's at one time and was participant to the murder of thousands of socialists and communists. Because he broke with his imperialist masters doesn't absolve him of guilt or make him a socialist by any means. Imperialists are often most treacherous when dealing amongst themselves.

quote:
Saddam was interested in power for one reason: the personality and upkeep of Saddam. He prefered a secular Iraq because he did not want to share power with any Ayatollahs or Mullahs.

Which is essentially what I said about Hussein leading them away from right-wing religious fanatacism and more toward Arab nationalism.

Iraqi's did have it better under Saddam than whatever it is imperialists refer to the current situation. Iraq's infant mortality was improving markedly over other Arab nations before 1991. 1991 was the beginning of a medieval siege on Iraq led by the U.S. - a period for which the UN says between 1.5 and 2 million Iraqis perished in what is a desert nation. Methods of embargo and medieval siege were practiced often in the last century in preventing an idea from sprouting up in fertile ground around the world. After the siege had weakened "Saddam" over the course of ten years, the US military beckoned Iraqi women and children to banquets of death and destruction.

Of course the imperialists in Kuwait were quite pleased about it all. Kuwait is another oil-rich nation where ten percent of the people are allowed to vote, and vote for prince al Sabah they must.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 September 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ghlobe:
During Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Saddam's army was primarily supported by Soviet Union and the socialist government of Miterrand (France). It was the Soviet Migs and French Mirages that were bombing Iranian cities, and Iraqi army consisted primarily of Soviet-supplied missiles and tanks.

As a matter of fact the USSR cut off the flow of arms to Iraq once Saddam attacked Iran. Iraq was reliant on Western armaments for three years until the Soviets switched policies and started selling him again. Saddam was never satisfied with what the Soviets sold him, and he went peddling the war with Iran to the Saudi's and western world where the death industrial complex was more than happy to supply him.

Maggie Thatcher and George Bush Sr gave their stamps of approval for western capitalists to deal with Saddam. And then they lied in their respective parliaments to the public that they knew anything about dealing with Saddam.

The western world armed Iraq as well Iraq's enemies to the eye-teeth. Canada's own Gerald Bull got in on the act too as a CIA stooge and arms dealer/weapons maker. Gerald's guns were instrumental in swaying the outcome of the UNITA-ANC war in Jonas Savimbi's favour.

Saddam was able to wage chemical and biological warfare on Iran(a Soviet/Russian-leaning nation) thanks to U.S. et al corporations doing business with Saddam, like they did with another European dictator in arming his country to the eye teeth in the 1930's. Capitalists tend to want to become rich arming the worst of the worst, and then they profit again when the people have to go to war against their "mistakes." It's called warfiteering, and it sometimes pays off better than a stock split.

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

quote:
As for distributing oil profits to people of Iraq, talk to a few Iraqi Shia or Kurd (85% of the population) to get their point before making ridiculous claims. In 1990s, Saddam was more than happy to give away Iraq's oil to any American company who might want to take it.

You must be meaning after the medieval siege of Iraq began in 1991. Because before that, not one drop of Iraq's trillions and trillions of dollars worth of oil reserves belonged to any of the connected-to-oil bigshots in the Dubya regime. Exxon was kicked out of Iraq in 1973. Their's and Haliburton stock has done nothing but soar to new heights since the 1990's - and especially since the U.S. military beckoned Iraqi women and children to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night.

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 27 September 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
BTW make sure that you don't show up around Iranian communities in Toronto with such view of Saddam.

Heh, who would think an Iranian community would dislike a Saddam suporter? I'd imagine you would fare as well walking into a Sunni community singing Hezbollah praise ^^


The inherant problem to any democracy is no matter what, you are enforcing the majorities will upon the minority. I'm curious what exactly we should have expected Sunni's to do in this situation? Can't they see the granduer of Democracy enforcing the will of the majority upon them and celebrate our superior values?

At one point in time it wasn't violence if we recall... I beleive Sunni leaders urged their citizens to protest by not voting. I guess non-violent means of protest aren't effective (I beleive the general western response was 'silly iraqi's go vote already')


Added:
Theres a Times magazine out there point out how Saddam is the US's best friend... Is that true or am I trying to take some bad joke and make it into reality?

[ 27 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 27 September 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Sunnis maybe however not the majority; Poll: Al Qaeda Lost In Iraq
From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 September 2006 09:17 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 27 September 2006 09:53 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What would happen to the US's plans for a $600M embassy in Iraq if the US pulls out now?
Link: U.S. Has Big Plans for Embassy in Iraq
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 2, 2004; Page A14

In preparation for ending its occupation of Iraq, the United States is making plans to create the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world in Baghdad, complete with a staff of over 3,000 personnel, according to U.S. officials.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 28 September 2006 06:52 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well Duh... If they pull out of Iraq, where are they going to launch an invasion of Iran from?
From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 28 September 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

As a matter of fact the USSR cut off the flow of arms to Iraq once Saddam attacked Iran. Iraq was reliant on Western armaments for three years until the Soviets switched policies and started selling him again.
...
Saddam was able to wage chemical and biological warfare on Iran(a Soviet/Russian-leaning nation) thanks to U.S. et al corporations doing business with Saddam,

I don't know where you get your information from, but it must be some fantasy world. Iran was never a Soviet-leaning nation. At the time of the war with Iraq, Iran was one of the strongest supporters of Afghan Mojahedin against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Communist parties and Soviet spies were successfully purged in Iran between 1980 and 1984, including the commander of the navy who was a Soviet spy and was executed in 1983.

As for Saddam, I can't imagine how the soviet union had stopped supplying arms to Iraq, as everything that we captured from the Iraqi army was brand new,shiny Soviet weapons and tanks all throughout the war. As I said before, the other main arms supplier of Iraq was the socialist government of Miterrand (France), which also provided Iraq with chemical weapons along with Germany. The Iraqi army did not have American weapons. The US support for Iraq came mostly in the last year of war, by patrolling Kuwaiti tankers that transported Iraqi oil, and by providing satellite information. But even at that time, Saddam was considered a radical left Arab leader.

The Iran-Iraq war was one of those rare moments when the Soviet empire and the US superpower joined hands against a third world nation.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 September 2006 10:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ghlobe:

I don't know where you get your information from, but it must be some fantasy world. Iran was never a Soviet-leaning nation.


Well that's where you're wrong again. Show ME the money this time. Prove to ME that the Soviets continued supplying Iraq with any significant weapons for three years after the start of the Iran-Iraq war. I can call you a liar just as easily and not have to do any homework to support my claim. So there.

And Iran was a socialist nation in 1953 when the CIA was just getting rolling with subverting democracy and overthrowing governments around the world. Iran's president Mossadeq nationalized British holdings in the huge oilfields of Iran. The CIA fomented a coup to remove him from power and proceeded to install the very corrupt and very murderous Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. You see, this forumula of the CIA's for murdering hundreds and thousands of socialists in both Iran and Iraq and then installing corrupt despots is nothing new. Militant Islamists promise the people social democracy in order to gain support for revolution, and then once in power they revert to oppressive militant Islam. That's what the CIA and friends have been up to in the middle East, Central and southern Asia, Africa and Latin America over the last several decades. The plan was always to kill, murder and torture an idea to death, but never by democratic means by any means.

And Iran's largest supporter today in pursuing nuclear power has been Russia. This is after Washington spent the duration of the 1970's promoting nuclear power in that country during the Shah's brutal dictatorial rule of Iran. The western world props up the worst of the worst, arms them to the eye-teeth in preventing an outbreak of democracy and then warfiteers a second time when having to declare a taxpayer-funded war on their fuckups. They've done it beginning in at least the 19th, 20th and now 21st centuries. It's what they do. Death and destruction are profitable peace is not. Do-you-un-der-stand ?.

The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 28 September 2006 10:35 PM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB]
Well that's where you're wrong again. Show ME the money this time. Prove to ME that the Soviets continued supplying Khomeini with any significant weapons for three years after the start of the Iran-Iraq war.


I am an eye witness to that war. What is your evidence?

quote:

And Iran was a socialist nation in 1953 when the CIA was just getting rolling with subverting democracy and overthrowing governments around the world. Iran's president Mossadeq nationalized British holdings in the huge oilfields of Iran.


Mossaddeq was a prime minister, not president, and his government was not socialist by any stretch of imagination. He was a nationalist. The main socialist party of the time, the Tudeh Party of Iran, had no role or power in the government. Nationalization of oilfields was done based on nationalist tendencies of the time, not any socialist plan.

quote:

And Iran's largest supporter today in pursuing nuclear power has been Russia.


Which is no longer a communist/socialist state, but a corrupt oligarchy.

Have I reminded you that I was born and raised in Iran, and lived there until a few years ago?

Please do not try to teach me Iranian history.

[ 29 September 2006: Message edited by: ghlobe ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 September 2006 10:55 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I say you're full of kaka. Show me Baghdad's receipts for Soviet weapons from 1980 to end of 1982 and you win what's behind door number three. Besides, if Saddam had all the Soviet weapons he needed, why were there so many western corporations selling him rocket, chemical and bio-tech warfare enabling technology?. Did you even look at the list of western companies implicated in arming Saddam ?.

And what was Canadian Gerald Bull doing in Iraq in 1981 if the Soviets were Saddam's main supply line ?.

quote:
The main socialist party of the time, the Tudeh Party of Iran, had no role or power in the government. Nationalization of oilfields was done based on nationalist tendencies of the time, not any socilaist plan.

And the hundreds of demonstrators killed in the streets of Tehran were anything but pro-Shah or pro-western oil companies, we can be sure. Mossadeq just wasn't friendly despot material, and so the CIA had him removed. He was too popular, and too left-leaning for the comfort of paranoid megalomaniacal capitalists in the west and CIA planners.

Tehran 1953:

Protesters filled the streets in support of Mossadegh, and the Shah fled to Italy.
The CIA paid for pro-Shah street protesters, who seized a radio station and announced that the Shah was on his way back and that Mossadegh had been overthrown. Actually, it took a nine hour tank battle in the streets and killing hundreds in the process to depose Mossadegh.

The oppressive situation in Iran and Iraq(and Pakistan and Afghanistan and so on) today are the results of years of influence and intervention in those countries by western governments and the CIA. Why ? - to suppress whole nations of people and prevent them from attaining social democracy and paying for it with oil revenues or in advancing their societies beyond that of theocratic feudalism and militant Islam.

quote:
The US support for Iraq came mostly in the last year of war, by patrolling Kuwaiti tankers that transported Iraqi oil, and by providing satellite information. But even at that time, Saddam was considered a radical left Arab leader.

A radical left leader ?. And like OBL, a one-time CIA stooge who led the slaughter of hundreds of Ba'athist socialists. Saddam is an Arab nationalist, not a socialist. Saddam? - another CIA stooge and blowback liability. Gong!

Reagan & Iran-Contra Scandal 1983 - 1988

quote:
As had been the case with chemical and biological weapons, the list of American and European companies which sold the nuclear equipment and technology to Iraq were a virtual pantheon of industry names:

  • Hewlett Packard
  • International Computer Systems
  • Siemens
  • TI Coating
  • Carl Zeiss
  • Rockwell Collins International
  • Spectra Physics
  • Unisys
  • Tektronix
  • Scientific Atlanta
  • Semetex
among many, many others. With such assistance, Iraq became a regional power during 1984-90, and developed regional ambitions.

But these companies were not, per se, Saddam Hussein's main weapons suppliers: that designation should properly go to Ronald Reagan and George W.H. Bush, the signers, respectively, of NSDD 114 and NSD 26, both of which remain classified. As the primary recipients and ultimate "customers" of the alert memos from the CIA and the U.S. intelligence community, they were currently and fully aware of the use to which the equipment and technology were being put, and of the security policy implications of the process.

And the instrument, the person, the envoy, who negotiated the process in the first instance, is the current U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld


I think the Soviets were confused as to who to support for three years after 1980 as western capitalists seemed to be supplying both sides of the war with chemical, biological, rocket and nuclear warfare technologies. And then there was CIA stooge Gerald Bull trying to make good as a warfiteer. Sometimes the snakes turn on each other, too.

[ 29 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 29 September 2006 09:11 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ghlobe, did you say you were from Iran or Ireland ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 29 September 2006 09:16 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Depends on how you spell Ireland. Do you always use all the letters?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 September 2006 03:40 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
U.S.: Guard planned Green Zone attack

quote:
The Green Zone, also known as the International Zone, is located in downtown Baghdad and is surrounded by layers of concrete blast walls and guarded by Coalition forces and the Iraqi army. The Iraqi government lives and works there, the parliament is housed there and it is also home to the U.S. embassy.

Why am I reminded of the Chinese International Settlement in Shanghai?

Couldn't be because of the symbolism of exclusion of the occupied people from the occupying authorities, now could it? No sir, it couldn't.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 30 September 2006 04:11 PM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB]I say you're full of kaka. Show me Baghdad's receipts for Soviet weapons from 1980 to end of 1982 and you win what's behind door number three. Besides, if Saddam had all the Soviet weapons he needed, why were there so many western corporations selling him rocket, chemical and bio-tech warfare enabling technology?. Did you even look at the list of western companies implicated in arming Saddam ?.

I think the Soviets were confused as to who to support for three years after 1980



Your own list included dozens of soviet and North Koraean firms as Iraq's auppliers; and the Tanks, ariplanes, missiles and rockets in Iraq army were not western. They were all Soviet or French. Iraqi forces had thoussands of Soviet Tanks, not British tanks. And Iraqi airforce was supplied Mig-29 by Soviets and Mirage by France, but no airplane from NATO countries.

There was no confusion in Soviet position. It was clear from the beginning: they were supporting a puppet regime in Iraq against a foe that was helping their Afghan adversaries. The Western countries were more than happy to see two anti-western countries fighting each other.

As to your description of the events of 1953 in Iran, you need to read a lot more about the history of Iran. The Soviets helped British toppling Mosaddegh by confiscating and keeping a significant gold reserve, belonged to the Iranian government. They refused to give it to Mosaddegh, but happily handed it to the coup government after him. Mosaddegh was no friend of Soviets, as he had already fought in the parliament against Soviet request (in 1946-47) for exclusive control the oil sources in Northern Iran.

Although one could say as usual the Soviets largely miscalculated their moves. While Mosaddegh was no friend of communists (and had ordered suppression of their violent demonstrations), the coup government that replaced him executed hundreds of the members of the pro-Soviet party, particularly within army's ranks.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 September 2006 05:57 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But I still maintain that the USSR actually cut off the sale of weapons to Iraq at the onset of war with Iran for at least three years. And you haven't provided me with any evidence to the contrary, so I have no alternative but to continue believing that this is the truth.

Iraq relied on entirely on the west to supply him with arms for at least those first three years. In fact, few people would argue that it wasn't the case that western corporations transformed Iraq into the major military threat it had become in the 1980's.

Both Iran and Iraq had Soviet SCUD missiles which were considered dated technology even then, and the Iraqi's, with help from the west, refitted those missiles to extend the range in being able to reach Iran's major cities by the end of the 1980's.

And to tell you the truth, I didn't realize that Mossadegh was just your run of the mill Arab nationalist. But nationalists like Egypt's Nasser also ran against the grain of private enterprise capitalism preached by the west. It's clear that Mossadegh stood in the way of British oil corporations, and the CIA would have none of his nationalisation agenda spreading in the Middle East like so many dominoes falling. It's clear that Mossadegh was against large multinational corporations owning oil rights in Iran. he might as well have been a communist as far as the CIA and Brits were concerned.


quote:
In 1959 the CIA put Saddam Hussein on its covert operations payroll. The CIA wanted to assassinate then-lraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim, who was buying weapons from the Soviet Union and putting Iraqi communists in positions of power. To that end, the agency hired Saddam, then 22, and five other men. The hit failed because Saddam began firing too soon, wounding Qasim and killing his driver.Qasim finally met his end in a Ba'ath party coup in 1963. After the coup, the CIA provided the anti-communist Ba'athists with a list of suspected communists, who were rounded up and executed en masse. A former CIA official told the United Press International's Richard Sale: "It was a bit like the mysterious killing of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. A11 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."


IraqGate

quote:
"The Bush administration has sent U.S. technology to the Iraqi military and to many Iraqi military factories, despite over-whelming evidence showing that Iraq intended to use the technology in its clandestine nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile programs."

No this quotation is not pulled from a conspiracy-minded website, but from the Congressional Record from July 27, 1992. They are the words of the late Congressman Henry Gonzalez of Texas.
For months in the early 1990s Gonzalez released hundreds of documents that outlined how the highest levels of the U.S. government - including Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - had secretly and illegally helped arm Saddam Hussein. The scandal was known as Iraqgate. ...

At the time, future Vice President Al Gore said, "Bush is presiding over a cover up significantly worse than Watergate."
...

In December, the White House boldly seized Iraq's 12,000-page weapons document in order to censor parts for the non-permanent Security Council states.

Among the information deleted was a list of U.S. corporations, government agencies and laboratories that aided Iraq. The companies included:

  • Honeywell
  • Kodak
  • Bechtel
  • Dupont
  • Hewlett-Packard.
Among the government agencies were the:

  • Departments of Defense
  • Dept of Energy
  • Dept. of Commerce and Agriculture.

And then there were government nuclear weapons laboratories:

  • Lawrence Livermore
  • Los Alamos
  • Sandia
which all offered training to Iraqi scientists. This information emerged only after a German news reporter obtained unedited portions of the Iraq documents.

And for special FX we have Donald "The Don" Rumsfeld shaking hands with his good friend Saddam in 1983. I don't see any Soviets in this picture, do you, ghlobe ?. Nope, I don't either.

[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 30 September 2006 06:38 PM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

And to tell you the truth, I didn't realize that Mossadegh was just your run of the mill Arab nationalist.

In case you didn't know, Iranians are not Arab.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 September 2006 07:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, but there are over two million ethnic Arabs in Iran today. And fyi, Saddam is not a socialist. He's a former anti-socialist stooge of the CIA turned blowback along the same vein as Osama bin Laden and other militant Islamists aided and abetted by U.S. taxpayers and western governments during the 1980's and 90's during CIA operation cyclone.


The Teicher Afidavit: IraqGate

quote:
Most of the Iraqi's military hardware was of Soviet origin. Regular United States or NATO ammunition and spare parts could not be used
in this Soviet weaponry.

The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as the 'Bear Spares" program whereby the United States made sure that spare
parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs. If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement.


quote:
An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease- producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American- exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

This record is no argument for or against waging war against the Iraqi regime, but current U.S. officials are not eager to reconstruct the mostly secret relationship between the two countries. While biological warfare exports were approved by the U.S. government, the first President George Bush signed a policy directive proposing ''normal'' relations with Saddam in the interest of Middle East stability.


Following Iraq's Bioweapons trail

How the U.S. Armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons

A Canadian contributes to Iraq's SCUD missile warfare with Iran Gerald Bull, CIA pawn

[ 30 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca