SomaliNet Forums

AA

I read the piece and it is exactly what I expected it to be: self-righteous non-sense suffixed with the standard middle class liberal leftie crap: It is the West's fault. These guys cant help it is genetic.

Lets start with what is a staple lie aming the liberals and hard lefties of Europe: that Saddam was america's friend and america brought him to power and armed him and told him to attack Iran. It is not the blatancy of the lie that chars but its institutionalisation; the myth is so oft repeated it becomes an accepted `fact'. These things can go into history: Every Brit believes Hitler was defeated by Britain on D Day and Napolean at Waterloo. Both are of course complete lies.

Fisk so predictably claims "we" called him Iraqi strongman "because he was America's friend"? Was this guy not in media at the time? every dictator no matter who supported him was labeled strong man at the time by all media outlets of all political hues.

And saddam was most defintely not America's friend at that time: Iraq was the only Arab country with no diplomatic ties with US and which boycotted all American goods. There was not a single American-made item in the whole country. Saddam emerged through the ranks of a fascist chauvinist nationalist party copied idea for idea almost word for word from the Nazi party. He hated America like most Arabs but unlike the Gulfie gazelles he did not need its protection so he lifted two fingers to America. His only Western friend were the French because the founder of the Ba'ath party Michel Aflak was a Christian Arab Francophone who believed Arab nationalists should forge strategic ties with France as counter balance to both US and Soviet union influence. No wonder the first country and I think the only western country Saddam ever visited is France.

Once Saddam attacked Iran on his own terms he sought Arms and ammunition not from America or britain but from USSR and france: Not a single american tank was ever used by the Iraqi army; not one helicopter; not jet fighter not one artillery piece. I dont even believe they had M16s. When the tide turned against him and Iranians met the aggression with holy blood lust of incredible tenacity the US worried justifibaly so about Khomeini not only overrunning Iraq but marching to Saudi and the gobbling up the little Gulfies. So they offered help: satellite pictures of Iranians troop movements and loans were given. But of course this was drop in the ocean: American gave him about 5 billion dolloars iin Loans Kuwait on its own gave him 10 billion grant and saudi even bigger amount. The Sunni-run gulfies paid for the war not US or Britain.

So the general point I was making about Fisk et al was proven by the very piece you were trying to quote in his defense: He still believes the world is a white man's burden. He says without any hint of irony that "We " should have removed Saddm 15 years ago. why? Who do you think you are? But the irony is he opposed his current removal so it is unlikely he would approved his removal 15 years ealier.

But then Leftie Libs dont do irony.

[quote = Galol] And saddam was most defintely not America's friend at that time: Iraq was the only Arab country with no diplomatic ties with US and which boycotted all American goods. There was not a single American-made item in the whole country. [/quote]

Saddam had no diplomatic ties with the US? Was Rumsfeld not photographed gleefully shaking hands with Saddam? Did they not meet with each other on two occassions? Was the photo a monumental hoax? Those of us rooted in history will know that Ronald Reagon's administration removed Iraq from the list of countries that supported terrorism and dispatched Rumsfeld to the Middle East envoy to re-establish severed ties with Iraq (see article below).

[quote] Not a single american tank was ever used by the Iraqi army; not one helicopter; not jet fighter not one artillery piece. I dont even believe they had M16s. [/quote]

For one whose lived longer than I have, you seem to have a bizzare conception of history. On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas.. using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83." (see article below)

[quote = Galol] So the general point I was making about Fisk et al was proven by the very piece you were trying to quote in his defense: He still believes the world is a white man's burden. He says without any hint of irony that "We " should have removed Saddm 15 years ago. why? [/quote]

To save the Kurds and the Shia from being gassed. And so that our troops wouldn't be in harms way today.

[quote = Galol] But the irony is he opposed his current removal so it is unlikely he would approved his removal 15 years ealier. [/quote]

Don't be so ridiculous. Those of us in the left were opposed to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and would have wholeheartedly supported his removal from power.

The root issue is, is Fisk a good and reliable journalist? The answer: absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt. It isn't every day you get to read the account of a man who's interviewed Osama bin Laden three times, and Saddam Hussein; a Beirut-based journalist who has covered every conflict in the Middle over the past 30 years. Fisk's reports are brutally honest and frank - I suspect that's why the right doesn't like him.

If you want a reliable source of information that attempts to scratch beneath the surface, drill behind the headlines, and get at the root issues of the day, read what Fisk has to say; if you only want halftruths, fabrications and a simple black and white commentary then I'd recommend Thomas Friedman.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

"Was Rumsfeld not photographed gleefully shaking hands with Saddam? Did they not meet with each other on two occassions? Was the photo a monumental hoax?"

AA

Do you know what Somalis have in common with Western liberals? an unshakeable belief in conspiracy theories. Lets stick with the facts shall we before we cross over into Leftie myths and legends? Iraq severed diplomatic relations with america in 1967 and did not restore it till mid 80s the last arab country to do so. The fact that Rumsfeld visited Iraq before restoration of diplomatic relations is neither here nor there: American officials visit Iran and North Korea today despite US not having diplomatic relations with either of these nations. Does that mean the Bush Administration supports these regimes too?

What is important is what, if any, did US give to Iraq during Saddam's rule. What you will find may shock you: No arms of any consequences.

So here is another challenge for you mi old china: Get me any evidence of a single American tank; jet fighter or helicopter that Iraq ever bought or received as gratis as the libleft loonies seem to wholeheartedly believe and I will sell Socialist Worker in front of the Ritz for ten days.

(Bet unenforceable unless reciprocated by one of similar magnitude agreeable to both parties)

[quote="avowedly-agnostic"]

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html[/quote]

quite an interesting read.

"Washington's political, military and economic sweetheart deals with the Iraqi dictator came under even more stress when, in August 1989, FBI agents raided the Atlanta branch of the Rome-based Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) and uncovered massive fraud involving the CCC loan guarantee scheme and billions of dollars worth of unauthorised "off-the-books" loans to Iraq.

and


"Only on August 2, 1990, did the agriculture department officially suspend the [CCC loan] guarantees to Iraq--the same day that Hussein's tanks and troops swept into Kuwait", noted Frantz and Waas. "

[quote = Galol] Get me any evidence of a single American tank; jet fighter or helicopter that Iraq ever bought or received [/quote]

If you bother to read the article I provided you with, you'll see the evidence for it. In 23 Feb 93, two investigative journalists for the LA Times Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas in the most damning account to date published a cover story headlined: "Bush secret effort helped Iraq build its war machine".

In it they reveal "classified documents obtained by the LA Times show ... a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by [George Bush senior] both as president and vice president to support and placate the Iraqi dictator."

Classified State Department files uncovered by investigative journalists Frantz and Waas described "covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83"

A fellow named Howard Teicher, "who monitored Middle East policy at the US National Security Council during the Reagan administration, told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: "There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks."

[quote = Galol] The fact that Rumsfeld visited Iraq before restoration of diplomatic relations is neither here nor there: American officials visit Iran and North Korea today despite US not having diplomatic relations with either of these nations. Does that mean the Bush Administration supports these regimes too? [/quote]

You're wrong on even that presumption. The US has a stated policy of not directly negotiating with Tehran and Pyongyang. They haven't had (to the best of my knowledge) an ambassador to Iran since the 1979 revolution. So no, the US does not hold direct talks with Iran (the EU does) or North Korea.

It 's noteworthy that Rumsfeld met with Saddam on two occasions (On December 19-20 of 1983 &, and March 24 of 1984), and on the same day as Rumsfeld's visit, the UN was reporting "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers ... a team of UN experts has concluded".

Yet knowing that Saddam was doing this, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department's list of states that allegedly supported terrorism. This was all done in order to justify US assistence to Iraq.

It's unambigiously clear and there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who looks at the official record, that the US was in cahoots with saddam during the whole 80s, by supplying him with weaponry, advising him on tactical planning for battles, as well as providing satellite photos of front line Iranian infantry positions in order to crush the newly born Islamic revolution.