Saddam Hussein - The Truth (Documentary)

[Mugwop]

The only truth about Saddam is that he was a piece of garbage and he is now where he belongs, under dirt. Go tell to random Iraqis in Iraq that Saddam was a good leader and they will slap you in the face so hard you won't even know what happened.

Was he against Shia's or is that a myth?

 

[Serpentine]

Was he against Shia's or is that a myth?

He killed tens of thousands of Shias and Kurds, so you can figure out yourself. But not because he hated Shias on a sect based hatred, simply because they opposed him the most. But overall, he was against Iraq, the very reason Iraq is a mess today is this lunatic who decided to launch 2 disastrous wars in 80s and 90s. Iraq would be more prosperous than UAE today if Saddam didn't rule it.

 

[Full Moon]

He killed tens of thousands of Shias and Kurds, so you can figure out yourself. But not because he hates Shias on a sect based hatred, simply because they opposed him the most. But overall, he was against Iraq, the very reason Iraq is a mess today is this lunatic who decided to launch 2 disastrous wars in 80s and 90s. Iraq would be more prosperous than UAE today if Saddam didn't rule it.

Agreed. Do you also agree that Khomeni extended the war for another 6 years after there was a cease fire attempt in 1982? This can be justified by some people (rightly or wrongly), but do you agree that Khomeni could have mitigated the damage and ended the war early?

 

[Serpentine]

Agreed. Do you also agree that Khomeni extended the war for another 6 years after there was a cease fire attempt in 1982? This can be justified by some people (rightly or wrongly), but do you agree that Khomeni could have mitigated the damage and ended the war early?

No, we discussed this before. At the time 1982 ceasefire was proposed by Arabs, Iraq's army was occupying parts of Iranian soil refusing to retreat and planning to keep them forever. I don't know about other possibilities of ending war in 1982, maybe or maybe not, we can't talk about chances. But there was no guarantee that Saddam wouldn't attack again after few months and resupplying Iraq's army. The guy was a maniac, he could do anything. Maybe if proper guarantees would be given to Iran and also full compensation for war and withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Iran, we should've accepted it. That's a big if though.

 

[camel]

Saddam inherited a prosperous state and left it destructed.

To respond to the common popular comment below which many foreigners often shout out. That 'better' was not built on his watch but during leaders like Qasim and Ahmed Hassan al Bakr, as soon as he took power he started a major war.

"Things were so much better under Saddam"

He was trash, things wouldn't even be that bad if not for Wahhabis and their suicide bombers all over the place, corruption would've been the main issue if not for that and corruption doesn't bloom as well in a stable country.

 

[Full Moon]

No, we discussed this before. At the time 1982 ceasefire was proposed by Arabs, Iraq's army was occupying parts of Iranian soil refusing to retreat and planning to keep them forever. I don't know about other possibilities of ending war in 1982, maybe or maybe not, we can't talk about chances. But there was no guarantee that Saddam wouldn't attack again after few months and resupplying Iraq's army. The guy was a maniac, he could do anything. Maybe if proper guarantees would be given to Iran and also full compensation for war and withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Iran, we should've accepted it. That's a big if though.

May be. I just have a feeling that Khomeni and the IRGC benefited from the war as it helped them to pretty much eleminate internal opposition.

 

[50cent]

Hardcore Saddam fans still present

 

[mike2000 is back]

No they didn't. It's true that Saddam's followers later continued their existence through ISIS, but still, ISIS is nowhere close to Saddam in number of innocent people he killed. Once Saddam supporters saw they woln't rule Iraq anymore, they turned into AQ/ISIS and continued their savageness through terror. In other words, Saddam is ISIS and ISIS is Saddam.

I agree. As such our invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam the butcher was justified. The Iraqi people had suffered enough under his barbaric rule and tyranny.

However, having said that I believe w shouldn't have intervened directly to remove him. We should have abstained from doing that and allow the people or regional countries to do that themselves.
Brutal tyrants and despots like Saddam, Gadaffi, Bashar Assad etc should have been (should be) left to continue ruling their country even though they are butchers/tyrants with little regards for their people's lives/opposition. They still maintain the country together , well as far as the people don't revolt against them. Even if the people do, I think. Western powers should refrain from intervening, since it only makes the local to blame the west when things goes wrong after the tyrant is deposed, instead of them taking full responsibility for their action and country.

So I believe, we were wrong in toppling Saddam. It destroyed the balance of power in the region and added more instability.

Saddam was bad..no doubt...who made him worst by arming with deadly weapons and covert diplomatic support?
If Saddam was left alone with his Revolution he would have join GCC!

LMAO. It's like an obese man blaming food shops for his obesity.

 

[somebozo]

LMAO. It's like an obese man blaming food shops for his obesity.

May be thats what you think but everyone came on purpose to take advantage of saddam stupidity..with their regional ambitions in mind..

 

[LeGenD]

No, we discussed this before. At the time 1982 ceasefire was proposed by Arabs, Iraq's army was occupying parts of Iranian soil refusing to retreat and planning to keep them forever. I don't know about other possibilities of ending war in 1982, maybe or maybe not, we can't talk about chances. But there was no guarantee that Saddam wouldn't attack again after few months and resupplying Iraq's army. The guy was a maniac, he could do anything. Maybe if proper guarantees would be given to Iran and also full compensation for war and withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Iran, we should've accepted it. That's a big if though.

Oh I get it. Saddam Hussein was evil and all that. But you guys are noble and do not meddle in the affairs of other states?

You conveniently forget that Ayatollah Khomeini was trying to export his brand of revolution to Iraq as well; Iraqi shia populace was the key. Saddam Hussein saw through this and acted before the movement would gain momentum in his country. Not just Saddam Hussein but the entire Arab world was wary of Khomeini.

FYI: http://countrystudies.us/iraq/114.htm

Now that Saddam is gone, you can clearly see Iranian intervention in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Only a fool would ignore this. Funny thing is that Saudi leadership might be realizing what a blunder it committed by facilitating Saddam's downfall; they even tried to drag Pakistan into this Shia-Wahhabi tussle but thankfully my country dodged the bullet.

 

[somebozo]

Agreed. Do you also agree that Khomeni extended the war for another 6 years after there was a cease fire attempt in 1982? This can be justified by some people (rightly or wrongly), but do you agree that Khomeni could have mitigated the damage and ended the war early?

Khomeni did not extend the war alone..both Iraq and Iraq covertly re-armed themselves through clandestine arms transfers...and sooner or later they were both in mood to go on the offensive against each other..

He killed tens of thousands of Shias and Kurds, so you can figure out yourself. But not because he hated Shias on a sect based hatred, simply because they opposed him the most. But overall, he was against Iraq, the very reason Iraq is a mess today is this lunatic who decided to launch 2 disastrous wars in 80s and 90s. Iraq would be more prosperous than UAE today if Saddam didn't rule it.

Being instrument of Irani mullahs is what sparked the Shia genocide as these zombie tried to import the blood khomeni revolution from Tehran into Baghdad..the events after the fall of Iraq in 2003 proved Saddam to be right..Shia milltias own Iraq now..Iraq is unofficially the 15th province of Iran...14 Being "arab occupied" Bahrain as per Iran logic..

Now that Saddam is gone, you can clearly see Iranian intervention in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Only a fool would ignore this. Funny thing is that Saudi leadership might be realizing what a blunder it committed by facilitating Saddam's downfall; they even tried to drag Pakistan into this Shia-Wahhabi tussle but thankfully my country dodged the bullet.

The Saudis and Emirates opposed the downfall of Saddam and were in favor of negotiation..Jordan also opposed..they even offered to open up Arar border crossing for easing trade...Kuwait was the cheerleader of whole invasion game show ..seeking to even out its humiliation of 1991 and opposing the pressure of GCC heavy weights...Kuwait unilaterally assisted all preparation for Iraq invasion...The saudis clearly knew what a hot pot it would unleash if Iraq was to destabilize..

In reality...later on Iran and Saudi arabia both played covert role n displacing Saddam...in a tit for tat proxy war against each other using Iraq as a battle ground..

US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war


Julian Borger in Washington
Guardian Weekly

An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by pas sing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi Nation al Congress, it emerged this week.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.

According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.

The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.

The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.

"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington on Monday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."

Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."

Mr Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as "a lie, a fib and silly". He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr Habib.

However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr Chalabi for more than eight years - believes that it has caught him red-handed.

"The suggestion that Chalabi is a victim of a smear campaign is outrageous," a US intelligence official said. "It's utter nonsense. He passed very sensitive and classified information to the Iranians. We have rock solid information that he did that."

"As for Aras Karim [Habib] being a paid agent for Iranian intelligence, we have very good reason to believe that is the case," added the intelligence official, who did not want to be named. He said that Mr Chalabi had had overt links with Tehran "for a long period of time".

An intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that it had been restricted to a handful of officials.

Mr Habib, a Shia Kurd who is being sought by Iraqi police since a raid on INC headquarters last week, has been Mr Chalabi's righthand man for more than a decade. He ran a Pentagon-funded intelligence collection programme in the run-up to the invasion and put US officials in touch with Iraqi defectors who made claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Laurie Mylroie, a US Iraq analyst and one of the INC's most vocal backers, dismissed the allegations as the product of a grudge among CIA and state department officials driven by a pro-Sunni, anti-Shia bias.

She said that after the CIA raised questions about Mr Habib's Iranian links, the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency conducted a lie-detector test on him in 2002, which he passed with "flying colours".

"This is people who opposed the war with long knives drawn for people who supported the war," Ms Mylroie said.



https://www.theguardian.com/guardianweekly/story/0,12674,1225859,00.html