Saddam Hussein: Some Historical Self Examination
January 2nd, 2007 by PerrySaddam Hussein was indeed a heinous individual, therefore he has been hanged for being convicted of killing 148 Shi’ites. So is George W Bush, yet he has not yet even been impeached!
Sounds like a radical, un-American, unpatriotic statement for me to make, does it not?
Before jumping to conclusions, let’s give a little more thought about this, a little bit of an historical review.
Saddam is alleged to have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people, his enemies, Persians (Iranians) and Kurds alike in the 1980’s during the Reagan administration, and in early 1990’s during the George H W Bush administration.
During the 1970’s, the Kennedy years, we were responsible for the overthrow of the elected Iranian government headed by Mossadegh, inserting our choice, Shah Pahlavi as dictator, leading to the Islamic revolutionary takeover of that country in 1979.
During the Reagan administration in the 1980’s, we allied ourselves with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, supplying Saddam with weapons, including WMD (poison gas), and military equipment. The gassing of “his own people†and the Iranians (Shi’ites) was done with our war materiel. Does anyone nowadays ever refer to our complicity to the very crimes against humanity that our politicians rail about today on a regular basis?
This now leads up to our current President, George W Bush. In his self-initiated Bush Iraq War, he has been responsible for the deaths of civilians, civilians of a nation that was not an imminent threat to us. Moreover, his actions let loose contrary forces, in which we have also been involved militarily, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more, not to mention our own more than 3000 dead and 7 times that many seriously injured.
Now shall we talk about culpability? Shall we talk about crimes against humanity? Could it be that George W Bush may be as culpable as Saddam? I think so! I’ll leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions. But it ain’t very pretty folks!!!
Note: The facts I have presented here are well known, and can be accessed readily from Wikipedia, as well as many other sources.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
During the 1970’s, the Kennedy years
Say what??
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Don’t confuse him with the facts.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Thanks! I should have said the Nixon years!
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
It has also been pointed out to me that I was off by a decade on the Mossadegh ousting, which was in 1953 by the CIA and the Shah, during the Eisenhower years.
A point not made is that US meddling in Middle East affairs since the end of WWII has been a destabilizing influence in the region. Bush has put a real thick layer of flaming icing on this cake, making matters much worse, in my view.
I firmly believe that like Saddam, Bush, if put on trial, would be found guilty of crimes against humanity. What difference does it make if a citizen dies by poison gas, by bombs or by bullets, if the actions were not in defense of an imminent threat? As a matter of fact, one could argue that Saddam had a particle of justification in killing the 148 — didn’t someone from that region attempt to assassinate him? Yes! Who from Iraq posed an imminent threat of attack on our soil?
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Perry–You are so right. As a matter of fact we should impeach Bush and offer the keys to the White House to the Islamic Jihad!! Immediately!!
Are you really this much of an …?
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I notice that only Republican presidents seem to get your goat when it comes to bad foreign policy, Perry. Is this accurate?
Of course, JFK’s constant attempts to off a sovereign leader (Castro) clandestinely or outright (Bay of Pigs) don’t seem to bother you. Or Jimmy Carter’s snafu in East Timor. Or the carte blanche he gave to the Sandinistas. Not to mention the entire Johnson administration’s criminal actions in Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?). And, surely, it’s immaterial that Clinton led an illegal action in Kosovo (Wesley Clark even admitted it was so), right?
There’s plenty of “bad” US foreign policy to go around, Perry. Also, the Cold War context is usually useful in considering many of these “bad” maneuvers. Your attempts to “score points” against those big, bad Republicans is thoroughly transparent.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
The difference is that the US military isn’t targeting civilians.
But, of course, you know that. It just doesn’t fit into your little agenda of hate.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Forgot to mention Carter lowering the flag in Taiwan … and raising it in mainland China.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I’d say Saddam got what he deserved for this fact alone: “The gassing of “his own people†and the Iranians (Shi’ites) was done with our war materiel.”
We should have busted him right then.
And, you’re a sick person to equate Bush with Saddam.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I have equated Bush with Saddam in only one aspect here, which is that both perpetrated death against innocent civilians. If Bush’s actions had been truly in defense of an imminent threat against our nation, then I would feel differently.
Moreover, I find it unfortunate that some people find it impossible to step above nationalism and partisan politics to examine the behavior of, yes, even our own leaders. I blame part of the problem on the propaganda to which we are subjected.
You ought to ask yourselves why it is that the Bush administration abandoned the World Court within his first year in office. Behaving above the law seems to be done willingly by these people.
We have big problems here, folks. For me, this has nothing to do with partisan politics and everything to do with the rule of law and moral behavior. I know it is difficult for some of you to understand/accept this.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 am
Moreover, I find it unfortunate that some people find it impossible to step above nationalism and partisan politics to examine the behavior of, yes, even our own leaders. I blame part of the problem on the propaganda to which we are subjected.
Yet, this is exactly what YOU have done, Perry. Your post only addressed foreign policy “transgressions” of Republican presidents.
For me, this has nothing to do with partisan politics and everything to do with the rule of law and moral behavior. I know it is difficult for some of you to understand/accept this.
Then you must agree with what I noted about the actions of the Democrat presidents. Until you do, your protestations about partisan politicking is, again, ridiculously transparent.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
I attempted to trace the origin of the important post WWII historical events in the Middle East that led to the Bush Iraq War; it happens that they do involve events that occurred during Republican Presidents.
However, let me broaden the scope of this, to show that President Bush fits a foreign policy pattern of our nation and our Presidents, not connected to political party. Truman engaged us aggressively in Korea, and Johnson likewise in Viet Nam, both Democrats. At the time, I opposed both actions. In both cases, as in Bush as well, there was not a significant coalition involved, the burden falling almost entirely on us. Bush-41 and Clinton were exceptions, in that both incorporated significant coalition efforts.
The general pattern post WWII has been based on the idea that it is better to fight them over there than over here. How many times have we heard George Bush say that? I find that attitude to be arrogant and despicable. This pattern, followed by all our Presidents with the exception of Carter, is also evident in our siding with and fully supporting Israel, a focal point of contention which is destabilizing to the entire Middle East region, and beyond.
The solution, as implemented successfully during the long cold war with the Soviet Union, is patience while building effective defensive response capability, including well controlled borders, backed up by aggressive diplomacy. “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” Moreover, instead of sluffing off the UN, the World Court, and the Kyoto Protocols, we need to be stregthening these institutions and global efforts to solve problems like conflicts, disputes, and global warming.
It is obvious that Bush & Co. do not have my support. Add to this his lack of recognition for the full spectrum of the sanctity of life moral code that I hold very dear, and you can see why I speak out so strongly against the actions of this man. There are even more reasons for my anti-Bush position, but this is not the time to go into all that.
Let us now see if a Democrat-controlled Congress will step up with forward looking peace alternatives that will catch hold and put us in a position where we can once more be respected. Tis a formidable task, considering the depths to which we have descended!!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
Perry,
Well of COURSE some of the historical events in the mid-east involved Republican presidents. This isn’t in dispute. However, if one reads your initial treatise on the matter, one would be led to believe that the domain of detestable American foreign policy is the exclusive domain OF Republican presidents.
Truman engaged us aggressively in Korea
Um, WHO was aggressor in Korea? History shows us that it was the NORTH that aggressively invaded the South, and would have conquered said South if the UN (that’s United Nations, NOT the United States) had not intervened.
In both cases, as in Bush as well, there was not a significant coalition involved
16 UN members is not a significant [Korean War] coalition (including nine First World countries), 21 if medical staff is included?? This coalition is significantly larger than that which fought in Vietnam, and the political reasons for doing so were quite different. And you know it.
The general pattern post WWII has been based on the idea that it is better to fight them over there than over here.
Making a direct comparison of the spread of communism to the current war on terror doesn’t work in many regards. Are you saying we should NOT have assisted the nations we did in fighting communists? There are more than just Korea and Vietnam, you know. Should the aggression by the North Koreans have gone unchallenged? Should Saddam’s (not communist, but authoritarian nonetheless) aggression in Kuwait have gone unchallenged? Should communist rebel actions in Latin American have gone unchallenged? Or is just American aggression worthy of criticism?
This pattern, followed by all our Presidents with the exception of Carter
Oh, well, except for direct military AID, maybe. Like to Indonesia which led to the East Timor situation, right?
is also evident in our siding with and fully supporting Israel, a focal point of contention which is destabilizing to the entire Middle East region, and beyond.
And support for Israel is a bad thing … why?? The fact that its Arab neighbors want to ANNIHILATE the Jewish state doesn’t have anything to do with our support? To “stabilize” the region, we should have forgone this support? I always liked the “It’s for OIL!” argument … when our support for Israel constantly puts that paradigm in jeopardy. Carter has gone off the deep end in his new book, to put it mildly. Sure, Israel should be criticized for some things; insisting on its right to actually exist isn’t one of them.
The solution, as implemented successfully during the long cold war with the Soviet Union, is patience while building effective defensive response capability
This was effective (and necessary) because the Soviet Union was our strategic equal. Iran, North Korea et. al. are NOT. The US and USSR knew that a scrap between them would not only lead to annihilation of just each other, but the entire planet. The loonies in Iran and NK do not possess this capability, and probably wouldn’t even care if they did. This does not mean that negotiation and diplomacy should be precluded; however, it doesn’t mean we have to treat such countries as our strategic equals, especially when then they’re clear threats.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Hube, you make some interesting points, all from our American nationalistic, self-interest point of view, all worth additional discussion.
Regarding Korea, it was a Civil War in which no foreign powers were involved at first when the North attacked the South. Five days later Truman sent in American troops, thus unilaterally entering the Civil War on the side of the South, based on his perception that the Communists were a monolith controlled by the Soviets. It was not until months later that UN forces entered the war. I opposed Truman’s unilateral action, and still do. We could have supported the South with military materiel, but we had no business fighting there in a civil war. In essence, the same mistakes were made re Viet Nam and Iraq.
My position on military aggression is that we do not attack unilaterally unless our people or our interests are attacked or under imminent threat of one. Therefore to answer you questions, apply this criterion and you have my answer to each.
Regarding Israel, yes, de facto, we have to say that they have a right to exist. However, for decades they have refused to honor the pre-1967 boundaries, being in violation of UN Res 242. Yet we Americans never even publicly acknowledge this, nor push Israel to do anything about it, except for Carter. What is it about his book that you find “off the deep end”? Have you read it or heard him interviewed about it? I have, and I think he is essentially correct on most of his points.
Regarding your point about strategic equals, I don’t think that condition is needed in order to implement the Teddy Roosevelt approach. Seriously, were you Iran or NK, would you dare to attack us with nuclear weapons. The nuclear threat to us is if the bomb gets into the hands of Islamic extremists — then against whom do we retaliate? The only effective approach is to use diplomacy to make strategic alliances, even with those we now perceive to be our enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Only then will be be able to enhance our joint intelligence to nip nuclear terrorist plans in the bud. President Bush has no understanding of this; his policies are pushing us into more danger of a nuclear attack from terrorists, in my view. Winning over the hearts and minds is the only approach I see as being effective, in the longer run. Currently, we are off track on that too!!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
How can you say that “no foreign powers” were involved in Korea? The entire peninsula was administered by the Allies and the USSR virtually right up until hostilities started. And which side was it that attacked the other? Hmm. But I see you you’ve thoroughly read the Wikipedia article! (”Communist monolith,” indeed!)
Your opinion on the war seems to contradict your statement My position on military aggression is that we do not attack unilaterally unless our people or our interests are attacked or under imminent threat of one. Not only was South Korea our interest (we administered it after WW II), it WAS attacked!
This leads into your typically “progressive” view that Israel is the bad guy b/c of 242. Y’know, if only they would withdraw to those 1967 borders and all would be peachy! (The fact that OTHER parties involved in the 1967 War are in violation of 242 doesn’t mean much, does it?) Of course, this doesn’t take into account the lack of recognition of Israel and/or “continued state of belligerency” by virtually all the surrounding Arab states (part of 242 for involved parties, mind you) and continued expressions of desire for Israel’s demise. Take a gander. Your above position on military aggression fits Israel since its very INCEPTION, Perry. Based on your own opinion, you should have little to complain about Israel’s actions, militarily.
If you think Carter is “correct” on most of his points, then you are as far-gone as he is. The problem with “progressives” like you (and Carter, now) is that your overwhelming desire to “be for the underdog” at any cost puts you in some quite precarious positions. Israel is the ultimate underdog, but it has suffered one fatal blow — it has been successful. How DARE they survive? How DARE they defeat massive Arab armies that vastly outnumber them? And, most gallingly, how DARE they ignore a UN resolution that requires them to withdraw from [some of the] land they acquired after being attacked en masse yet again? (Yeah, those UN resolutions … like all those that Saddam defied, y’know.) How DARE they defy 242 — when the Arab parties are likewise in violation!! And Carter thinks the Israel-Palestinian situation is worse than Rwanda and apartheid in S. Africa. He’s nuts, to put it mildly.
Yes, I do think the leaders of Iran and NK would make use of a nuke against us. They are crazy enough. See my last comment. Just like your naivete on the mid-east, this “making nice” with these guys that you advocate is NOT going to help thwart them from assisting terror groups. If anything, it’ll give them “plausible deniability,” enough so that if we dared retaliate, they’d most likely get a sizeable portion of world opinion on their side. That “big, bad United States” is at it again, you know!
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
What I said was that no foreign powers were involved at first in Korea.
Did we win the Truman Korean War?
Regarding Israel, that is a chicken/egg situation.
Did we win the Johnson Viet Nam War?
If you were Iranian, would you want your country to have nuclear capability? I can imagine an Iranian asking: If Israel can, why not Iran?
Are we winning the Bush Iraq War? Is a Bush ‘win’ possible without annihilating the lives of tens of thousands more?
My point is that these wars are not serving our national interests, in fact the opposite. — They are tearing apart our national moral fabric.
Now more than ever there are peaceful alternatives that have not been approached. This pattern must be changed before we have alienated so many so deeply that we will in essence be isolated, therefore more vulnerable to terror than ever. Don’t you see this?
This is not about pulling for the underdog; rather, it is about behaving in a humane, moral manner, honoring the sanctity of life by seeking peaceful compromised resolutions, by not going to war except as a final resort when under an imminent threat of attack or actually attacked.
Along these lines, I have two questions for you, Hube:
1. What is Israel’s justification for their claim to Palestinian lands? (Please do not answer the UN Mandate of 1948.)
2. In what regard are the Palestinians in violation of 242?
Finally, back to the original topical point about crimes against humanity: Saddam is responsible for murdering his own people outright, many with US supplied weaponry. Bush is responsible for the killing of Iraqis as collateral damage in a premeditated attack on a sovereign nation. One could argue that the crimes are of different degrees, Sassam being the more horrendous; but how can anyone argue that Bush has not committed crimes against humanity? Sorry, I cannot excuse his actions, nor Saddam’s! Can you?
January 4th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
My point is that these wars are not serving our national interests, in fact the opposite. — They are tearing apart our national moral fabric.
This may have been the case w/Vietnam and now w/Iraq. But I wouldn’t agree w/that was the case with Korea or other wars/conflicts. It doesn’t serve our interest to assist an ally who needs military assistance? It doesn’t serve our moral fabric to aid nations whose governments may be committing genocide and/or other crimes? How can an all-powerful country live w/itself if it doesn’t do something to get involved in such? What about THAT morality?
If you were Iranian, would you want your country to have nuclear capability? I can imagine an Iranian asking: If Israel can, why not Iran?
Why does a country that sits upon the oil reserves that it does need a nuclear capability? And here’s the fundamental difference — see if you can grasp it: Israel has not made numerous statements that it wishes to eradicate Iran off the map! Iran has about Israel. You talk about “morals” yet your moral equivalence in this regards is shocking. Israel’s nuke capability is probably one of the few things keeping a deterrent now in the mid-east.
Along these lines, I have two questions for you, Hube:
1. What is Israel’s justification for their claim to Palestinian lands? (Please do not answer the UN Mandate of 1948.)
2. In what regard are the Palestinians in violation of 242?
Why do I bother to make comments if you do not read them? I stated them previously. The main provision in Israel’s favor is the “continued state of belligerency†by the Palestinians and other Arab nations towards Israel. That, among other items, is also part of 242.
To answer the first part second, there ARE no “Palestinian lands” — Jordan and Egypt gobbled them up shortly after the partition plan! The Palestinian state that was to be wasn’t denied by Israel, it was denied by their Arab brethren! But you, like others, continually castigate Israel for their “occupation” of lands won in war while giving Jordan and Egypt a pass for their land grab in 1948. So, for 20 years, where was the outrage over THAT occupation of “Palestinian lands”? There is only outrage over Israel disregarding the portion 242 that requires it to leave those areas, yet just like the lack of outrage over Jordan and Egypt those 20 years, there is no outrage over Arab disregard for 242. Again, your moral equivalence is staggering, along with that of your last paragraph.
We will not change each others’ minds, so I see no further need to continue this. I do thank you for the debate/discussion, Perry.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I could go on, nevertheless, so be it Hube. Likewise, I thank you.