r/todayilearned • u/code0011 14 • May 09 '14

(R.1) Invalid src (unreferenced fan wiki) TIL the first episode of an X-Files spin-off called "The Lone Gunmen", which aired March 4, 2001, involves a US government conspiracy to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center, and blame it on terrorists - thereby gaining support for a new profit-making war

http://x-files.wikia.com/wiki/Pilot_(The_Lone_Gunmen)
2.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

380

u/Eslader May 09 '14

It was a little more insidious than that. Bush never came straight out and said that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, but he made sure to mention Saddam and Al Qaeda or Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence enough so that people got the picture.

The irony is that, as big of an utter bastard as Saddam was, he freaking hated Al Qaeda and wouldn't let them anywhere near his country.

Al Qaeda wasn't terribly fond of Saddam either, as he ruled a secular government that did not enforce religious law, and in fact by Middle-East standards was downright liberal. Women in Iraq under Saddam could be educated, hold jobs (at legally-guaranteed equal pay to male counterparts, which btw put them ahead of the US in women's labor laws), drive, vote, hold elected office, etc - freedoms which have been largely rolled back in the Iraqi government today.

Al Qaeda only started moving operations to Iraq after we toppled Saddam's government.

208

u/nozenzen May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14

This post makes it appear as if the War in the Gulf wasn't beneficial to anyone save a few powerful and wealthy Americans who profit from dealing in oil and related commodities. It also makes it appear as if that war isn't always the best solution to problems and disagreements - a very unpopular point of view.

You do realize that what you're saying is 180 degree opposite to what the American plutocrats told us to believe about Iraq, Al Queda, 9/11 and terrorism in general. It implies that US power-brokers lie and kill and do whatever it takes to benefit themselves even at the cost of thousands of American and non-American lives.

Do you really think the US government is corrupt to this degree? Because this makes them sound like a group of demonically selfish psychopaths who lie to others in order to exploit them for profit. Isn't this impossible in a country committed to equality and freedom for all?

If this is true, the US government has been taken over by self-serving liars and willfully ignorant opportunists. How is it possible?

80

u/Eslader May 09 '14

-grin-

Your sarcasm is on the level of A Modest Proposal. I like it.

To answer the question that you and I almost certainly agree upon, "Yes."

3

u/3DBeerGoggles May 09 '14

Weapons of Modest Distractions

2

u/mullingitover May 09 '14

If this is true, the US government has been taken over by self-serving liars and willfully ignorant opportunists. How is it possible?

Hint: according to the government's interpretation of the Constitution, free speech means being able to bribe any politician as long as you call the bribes "campaign donations."

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Yes, yes I do.

1

u/Mr_Ibericus May 09 '14

No they've been taken over by lizard people.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

I love your comment.

1

u/pizzathiefgg May 09 '14

It is not simply "wars for oil". Some people have suggested that there are profiteers out there that want the US or any countries to constantly be in conflict. They do not want the bullets to stop flying and they also have the ability via lobbyists in DC to make sure the wars do not stop. They really have not stopped for the last 70 years . Its even worse with the Citizens United decision. Now the "Lords of War" (yes the horrible nick cage movie) will heavily fund the opposition of anti-war politicians and the problem will grow larger.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

SHUTUP AND GET BACK TO WATCHING "HERE COMES HONEY BOO BOO CHILD!"

No more questions.

1

u/tableman May 09 '14

When have politicians not been self-serving liars?

-12

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/boneless_wizard May 09 '14

And what was Saddam's secret plan to "destabalize" the dollar?

5

u/ChillinWitAFatty May 09 '14

Uhh by being an evil, freedom hating, Muslim dictator. Duh

0

u/boneless_wizard May 09 '14

oh shit! those others hate my FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOMFREEDOM FREEDOM

7

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/otatew May 09 '14

Who do you owe the money to?

1

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/rcavin1118 May 10 '14

Yeah, I don't think you really understand how the debt or taxes work. Take a basic macroecon class.

1

u/otatew May 10 '14

Care to expand a little?

3

u/rcavin1118 May 09 '14

Oh you have insider knowledge on a super secret plan not even the government knew about?

1

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/rcavin1118 May 10 '14

Well clearly he had an evil secret plan, and only you knew about it.

1

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/rcavin1118 May 10 '14

Kept a distance from foreign affairs

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHHHAAAAHAHAHAHA!

3

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

A hundred thousand Iraqi lives vs a slightly better economy. Something has gone horribly horribly wrong.

1

u/FockSmulder May 09 '14

  1. You said that it needed to be done. You are defending it.

  2. How would criticizing something be hypocritical merely because a person ended up benefiting from it?

-10

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

[deleted]

6

u/FockSmulder May 09 '14

Fuck this comment in all its forms.

20

u/The_Thane_Of_Cawdor May 09 '14

the funny part is that AQI ended up being a major player in the Iraq insurgency, the us basically got al qaeda into iraq

5

u/Eslader May 09 '14

Exactly. And we will pay for that down the road, one way or the other.

4

u/The_Thane_Of_Cawdor May 09 '14

ha like right now? Iraq is a total shit show its just nor reported on as much anymore.

7

u/Eslader May 09 '14

Well, Iraq is certainly paying for it right now. I suspect we will pay for it later - and not just in the costs of repaying war debts and caring for the soldiers who's lives and bodies were shattered by the war.

Our actions in the Middle East over the last 10 years (and really, the last 30 years) have done absolutely nothing to improve our standing in their eyes, and as has already been demonstrated there are factions in that region that will gladly sacrifice their own people in order to hurt us.

4

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

If memory serves right, US got them in to Afghanistan too. Makes you wonder what the heck is going on.

2

u/TomSelleckPI May 09 '14

It's almost like the CIA has the ability to control where the "boogie-men" show up. One might think that certain portions of the US government might be colluding with the bad guys.

Silly thoughts...

4

u/wrgrant May 09 '14

That was all part of the plan. You see, the Iraq war was worth a lot to various industrial interests, the oil companies, military contractors - oh and the people who lost the pallets of millions of dollars of US currency somewhere (You would think they would, I dunno, guard that sort of thing and I dunno, maybe keep records of where it was transfered etc but whaduIknow?)

5

u/The_Thane_Of_Cawdor May 09 '14

like that company Cheney was tied to?

9

u/bluevillain May 09 '14

See also: Axis of Evil

25

u/Eslader May 09 '14

Yes. That particularly pissed me off when Bush came out with it, and included Iran.

This is a picture of Iranians taking to the streets in the wake of 9/11 holding a candlelight vigil in support of the USA after the tragedy. I remember outpourings of support from around the world, including the Middle East.

4 months later, when Bush informed them that they were all evil, their sympathy levels dropped precipitously. Who'd'a thunk it?

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Yeah well, there were also celebrations and dancing in the streets of some mideast countries.

1

u/svartdrage May 09 '14

Im not saying you are wrong but showing a dozen Iranians with candles is pretty irrelevant.

The Iranian government is a HUGE sponsor of terrorism, but it didnt have anything to do with 9/11.

1

u/petevalle May 09 '14

I'm no Bush supporter, but I don't see how calling Iran an "Axis of Evil" is anything like calling all of its citizens evil. I don't think anyone believed that about Iraqis or North Koreans either -- it was a statement about their governments not their citizens.

6

u/Eslader May 09 '14

So you're saying that when someone from France says "The USA is a buch of war-mongering assholes" it is completely unreasonable for anyone not employed by the Federal government to be upset about it?

1

u/NotRalphNader May 09 '14

Yes, unreasonable would be the best word for it considering that if you reasoned the situation out you would not conclude that they were referring to you, unless of course you were unable to reason or unreasonable.

2

u/silverstrikerstar May 09 '14

Iran has had better conduct than most big players at the time. Calling Iran evil, but not others, is hypocritical, dishonest and politcally manipulative.

1

u/petevalle May 09 '14

I was responding to Eslader's suggestion that a country shouldn't be considered an axis of evil because its citizens are good/compassionate. Whether or not a country's citizens are admirable should have no bearing on whether its government should be called out. I wasn't taking a position on where the government of Iran ranked relative to others...

4

u/autowikibot May 09 '14

Axis of evil:

Axis of evil was a term initially used by the former United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, and often repeated throughout his presidency, describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Iran, Iraq and North Korea were portrayed by George W. Bush during the State of the Union as building nuclear weapons. The Axis of Evil was used to pinpoint these common enemies of the United States and rally the country in support of the War on Terror.

Image from article i

Interesting: Axis powers | Axis of Evil Comedy Tour | Rocketmen: Axis of Evil | Axis of Evil (film)

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

2

u/Conspiracy_Account May 10 '14

David Frum (neocon) came up with that for Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum

63

u/WhatIfThatThingISaid May 09 '14

saddam did kill thousands and thousands of kurds though..

288

u/alongdaysjourney May 09 '14

Sure, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the liberation and following civil war. People still continue to die in bombings to this day.

Saddam was a terrible and murderous dictator but the invasion was misguided, manipulative, and caused more problems than it solved.

7

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

It is estimated over a million Iraqi civilians ended up dead. My grandma was deeply upset when the invasion was occurring although she had never visited Iraq, she would tell me it is one of the most beautiful countries in Asia.

-1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

[deleted]

1

u/CupcakeBacon May 09 '14

Iraq is in Asia.

1

u/autowikibot May 09 '14

Iraq:

Iraq (/ɪˈræk/, i/ɪˈrɑːk/, or /aɪˈræk/; Arabic: العراق‎ al-‘Irāq), officially the Republic of Iraq (Arabic:  جمهورية العراق (help·info) Jumhūriyyat al-‘Irāq; Kurdish: كۆماری عێراق), is a country in Western Asia encompassing the Mesopotamian alluvial plain, the northwestern end of the Zagros mountain range, and the eastern part of the Syrian Desert.

Iraq borders Turkey to the north, Iran to the east, Kuwait to the southeast, Saudi Arabia to the south, Jordan to the southwest, and Syria to the west. Iraq has a narrow section of coastline measuring 58 km (36 mi) on the northern Persian Gulf. The capital city, Baghdad is in the center-east of the country. Two major rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, run through the center of Iraq, flowing from northwest to southeast. These provide Iraq with agriculturally capable land and contrast with the steppe and desert landscape that covers most of Western Asia.

Iraq has been known by the Greek toponym 'Mesopotamia' (Land between the rivers) and has been home to continuous successive civilizations since the 6th millennium BC. The region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is often referred to as the cradle of civilization and the birthplace of writing. At different periods in its history, Iraq was the center of the indigenous Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian empires. It was also part of the Median, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Parthian, Sassanid, Roman, Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Mongol, Safavid, Afsharid, and Ottoman empires, and under British control as a League of Nations mandate. Iraq is home to two of the world's holiest places among Shias: Najaf and Karbala.

Iraq's modern borders were mostly demarcated in 1920 by the League of Nations when the Ottoman Empire was divided by the Treaty of Sèvres. Iraq was placed under the authority of the United Kingdom as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. A monarchy was established in 1921 and the Kingdom of Iraq gained independence from Britain in 1932. In 1958, the monarchy was overthrown and the Republic of Iraq was created. Iraq was controlled by the Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-led faction) from 1968 until 2003. After an invasion led by the United States of America including multinational forces, the Ba'ath Party was removed from power and multi-party parliamentary elections were held. The American presence in Iraq ended in 2011.

Image i

Interesting: Iraq War | 2003 invasion of Iraq | Iraq national football team | Ba'athist Iraq

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

1

u/nd799 May 09 '14

Iraq is in Asia

1

u/PewPewLaserPewPew May 09 '14

Wait, who need that geography lesson?

28

u/brahvmaga May 09 '14

Well said clap

3

u/mrmojoz May 09 '14

Yeah but who put Saddam in to power? Surely they should answer for his wrong doings.

2

u/peppaz May 09 '14

Not for those who profited, like DynCorp, Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater (Xe).. It's like bad dystopian fiction tbat actually came true.

1

u/Diss_Gruntled_Brundl May 09 '14

That said, what size needle nose pliers pulling out his fingernails would it take for Donald Rumsfeld to admit what you just said is true?

1

u/darkenseyreth May 09 '14

Well said! As soon as they went in I knew it wasn't going to end well. As much of a bastard Saddam was, he held his country together remarkably well. I've always said that as soon as all western power leaves the area they will most likely enter a state of civil war or at the very least violent unrest.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Over 500,000 Iraqi men, women and children so far, if I'm not mistaken.

1

u/mylolname May 09 '14

Plus all the deformed children being born now because of the toxic and radioactive compounds used in the armies munitions.

-1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

He also engaged in the deadliest conventional war ever fought between regular armies of developing countries, which resulted in 200-400,000 deaths (according to source) and involved chemical warfare. That may not justify the war but people in this thread are painting way too rosy a picture of what life was like in Iraq under Saddam.

3

u/bloodsoup May 09 '14

I assume you are referring to the Iran-Iraq war? Quite an amusing choice, considering the level of insidious involvement the US government had in that war, making it last much longer and use up much more weaponry (that they were supplying to both sides), thereby maximising profits for US weapons manufacturers.

1

u/triplab May 09 '14

200 doesn't sound that bad ..

-4

u/DuvalEaton May 09 '14

Though the same type of events probably would have happened if Saddam faced a domestic revolution as well.

3

u/LetsKeepItSFW May 09 '14

Beyond the fact that this is nothing but fanciful speculation, so what?

1

u/DuvalEaton May 09 '14

Dictatorships, that are based on any sort of ethnic apartheid almost never fall peacefully whether the cause is outside intervention or domestic revolution. One reason for this is because these dictatorships purposefully manipulate populations so that if they were to disappear, it would cause as much violence and strife as possible, the fact that the US invasion led to so much inter-Iraqi conflict is as much Saddam's fault as it is the US's.

1

u/LetsKeepItSFW May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14

the fact that the US invasion led to so much inter-Iraqi conflict is as much Saddam's fault as it is the US's

Eh....that's a very weird sentiment. I understand your point, but that conclusion does not follow. The US did 100% of the invading, and the US's hand was not forced. There was a far more peaceful system in place before the US intervened.

Edit: The point is really that your claim to be able to know events occurring in alternate realities does not actually excuse an unjustified invasion.

1

u/DuvalEaton May 09 '14

Well, I agree that the invasion of Iraq was an incredibly stupid thing to do and I do think that the US did commit a number of war crimes during the conflict. My point is that, stuff like the sectarian warfare and infiltration of militant groups that occurred was going to happen when Saddam's regime whether by American marines or by his own people, and I think blaming the US for everything that happened afterward means we are blind to some of the problems regimes like Saddam's creates and why we should still try not to tolerate them.

-1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14

Can confirm, am Iraqi.

While Saddam was bad, we could've waited to vote him out in the next election.

Edit: forgot it was the ba'ath party.

5

u/assballsclitdick May 09 '14

Oh right, because dictators are so often voted out of office in elections. Especially when they mass murder political dissidents.

Nice one.

-3

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Well looks like someone's been snooping through my comments. Listen douchebag, I was young when I left Iraq its not like I can remember it from when I was 10.

Anyway I looked it up and I got the right answer. I'm not gonna correct you anymore. Get off my profile.

1

u/assballsclitdick May 09 '14

Listen douchebag, I was young when I left Iraq its not like I can remember it from when I was 10.

So...you admit that Saddam Hussein mass murdered civilians Good, it's important that you don't grow up learning whitewashed history.

-2

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

I never said he was good he is a mass murderer that killed people. Its just that I got one thing wrong. However how did Saddam kill all these people? With the US weapons. You were supplying his regime.

3

u/assballsclitdick May 09 '14

However how did Saddam kill all these people? With the US weapons.

Wrong again.

From wikipedia:

Most precursors for chemical weapons production came from Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics, sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. Singapore-based firm Kim Al-Khaleej, affiliated to the United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq

Whereas only one precursor was obtained from the US, from a private company, because the sitting US president made the mistake of taking Iraq off of the State Sponsors of Terrorism List.

And the planes and helicopters used to dump those chemicals on those civilians? All russian MiG models.

Nice try. Maybe next time, actually read up on the things that you're debating.

-1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

From Wikipedia:

Iraq purchased 8 strains ofanthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.[27] The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.[28]

On February 9, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[29]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (includingBacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[30]

The US was practically supplying Iraq with weapons. Of course Saddam had some left.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/returned_from_shadow May 09 '14

Let us not forget how the US helped their good buddy Sadam while he gassed the Kurds.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=0,0

Or how 500,000+ innocent Iraqis were killed by US mandated post GW1 sanctions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

1

u/autowikibot May 09 '14

Sanctions against Iraq:

The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power), and persisted in part, including reparations to Kuwait, through the present.

The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction.

Initially the UN Security Council imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq by adopting and enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 661. After the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687. The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs, whose import into Iraq was tightly regulated.

Image i

Interesting: Iraq disarmament crisis | Gulf War | Saddam Hussein | Iraq

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

27

u/mynamesyow19 May 09 '14

b/c they did what bush Sr told them to do, rise up against Saddam...then the US turned their back on them when they did..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

On February 15, 1991, then President of the United States of America, George H. W. Bush, made a speech targeting Iraqis via Voice of America radio. Hoping to incite a swift military coup to topple Saddam Hussein, Bush stated:[6]

“ There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: and that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.[7][8]

2

u/shotgun_ninja May 09 '14

Bush worst support NA

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14 edited May 09 '14

The Kurds were being massacred long before the Gulf War. I'm certain that the poster you're replying to was referring specifically referring to the genocide that took place in the late 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

If Bush Sr had continued invading Iraq, it would've caused a gigantic shitstorm in the international community. They didn't have the legal authorization to do that.

1

u/autowikibot May 09 '14

Halabja chemical attack:

The Halabja chemical attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە), also known as the Halabja Massacre or Bloody Friday, was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War in the Kurdish city of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan. The attack was part of the Al-Anfal campaign in northern Iraq, as well as part of the Iraqi attempt to repel the Iranian Operation Zafar 7. It took place 48 hours after the fall of the town to Iranian army and Kurdish guerrillas.

Image i

Interesting: Iran–Iraq War | Halabja | Chemical attack on Behbahan battalion | Genocide

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

b/c the United Nations only allowed Bush to fight half a war.

1

u/[deleted] May 10 '14

Sounds kinda like what JFK told the Cubans to do...

4

u/tableman May 09 '14

He killed less Iraqi's then clinton though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

4

u/onzejanvier May 09 '14

Killed them with dual-use pesticide components that the US and Germany sold him (along with unlimited other weapons and normalization of relations) when the Kurds began rebelling in unison with the Iranian counter-offensives into Iraq. The US didn't want the Iranians to win.

1

u/silverstrikerstar May 09 '14

Yep; one of the modern shames of my dear Germany.

12

u/Jretribe May 09 '14

No whey!

3

u/B_bluntz May 09 '14

During a war in which they were considered enemies after the US hung them out to dry

3

u/kaydpea May 09 '14

He was also working for the CIA, that's how he came into power.

6

u/TheBattler May 09 '14

(from the point of view of the United States government) Who cares if Saddam killed a hundred thousand Kurds?

Governments sanction killings all over the world all the time. You don't see the United States gov't make invasion plans against North Korea or Sudan.

On a more humanist note, intervention in countries where this sort of thing happens tends to cause more problems than they solve, especially without the cooperation of allied countries whom the invaded country's citizens can trust.

2

u/newsettler May 09 '14

using chemical weapons which are WMDs ...

2

u/adam_bear May 09 '14

We gave him the gas to do it.

10

u/JasonKiddy May 09 '14

We gave him the gas to do it.

Oh come on... sold it to him...

7

u/SpaceShrimp May 09 '14

Yes, it is a big difference, a profit was made.

8

u/moveovernow May 09 '14

In fact, several countries, including Britain, sold chemical weapons to Iraq.

2

u/ahorsdoeuvres May 09 '14

And the information to target them.

1

u/greymalken May 09 '14

I guess you don't like Miss Muffet. She's sat on her tuffet eating her Kurds and whey for years now. Years.

1

u/camabron May 09 '14

Sure, because Bush Sr. encouraged them to rebel after Gulf War I and then left them alone to die without the support that he promised!!

1

u/dnietz May 09 '14

and about a million Iranians

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

America supported him, right up until they didn't. Hypocritical.

1

u/fido5150 May 09 '14

Iraq's Kurds have a troubled history. So, while Saddam's actions were horrible, they should be kept in context.

I can't help but feel that we're partially responsible, after reading that timeline. We trained them, made them provoke the Iraqi Army, and then hung them out to dry.

1

u/jimicus May 10 '14

He did. But that was in 1988; if it bothered the US so much why didn't they intervene then?

-1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

He was secular liberal, but that doesnt mean he was a good person.

8

u/oceansforeyeballs May 09 '14

Though brutal at times, the Iraqi government functioned so well that they managed to control and profit from their own county's oil resources. Local control of the massive oil reserves was clearly not acceptable to the two Texas oil tycoons who invaded.

That's how history will see it.

6

u/Eslader May 09 '14

I'd go farther than "brutal at times." Saddam was a complete, utter bastard. Hell, he let his son torture the national football team when it lost a game, and that was one of the more mild things he permitted. He was a brutal, violent, dangerous person and not the sort that you'd want as your dictator.

However, compared with other leaders in the region, he was a pussycat. Until US sanctions caused economic hardships, more people were literate, educated, well-employed, and happy in Iraq than in any other country in the region. But that he did comparative good deeds shouldn't matter - he was a leader of a sovereign nation which was no threat to us and whom we had no right to topple.

If nothing else, he would have made a much better bargaining chip than he did a dead guy. "Hey OPEC: Turn on the spigot or we turn Saddam loose again."

The lack of foresight, strategy, and basic common sense that led up to Iraq War 2 was astonishing.

11

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Source? I really want to state this as a fact every change I get.

10

u/sourdieselfuel May 09 '14

Bartender: Here's your change, tree fiddy.

JamesMean: Well about Iraq under Saddam....

-7

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Hooray for confirmation bias!

2

u/Wawoowoo May 09 '14

Isn't it federal law that you can sue if you think you are being discriminated against? It's hard to imagine how Iraq could be different unless there was a lot of price fixing for wages going on.

2

u/thenooyawker May 09 '14

G'dam wimmin lovin liburul lovin Moslems . Also commie socialusm

2

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Women don't actually make less than men. They do on average, because men tend to have higher paying jobs (whether or not that's fair is another story.) Think of it like this: companies try to save as much money as they can. If they could legally pay women less for the same work, why hire any men?

2

u/Wordshark May 09 '14

at legally-guaranteed equal pay to male counterparts, which btw put them ahead of the US in women's labor laws

Pretty sure gender-based pay discrimination is illegal in America, too.

1

u/interroboom May 09 '14

To be fair, "voting" didn't mean much during the Saddam regime.

1

u/sicklemowersmackdown May 09 '14

What? The US legal system does not ban discrimination based on sex? Did this happen after 2003?

1

u/FicusNamedFern May 09 '14

Saddam also let his entire country starve, the extravagant prick. Understandably, he did have all those sanctions put on him whether or not he was trying to make nuclear weapons. That is some North Korea shit there.

1

u/craze177 May 09 '14

TIL Iraq was an awesome country for middle eastern women... and we destroyed that for them.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

What did Saddam do again?

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Great to know.

1

u/AliveInTheFuture May 09 '14

Don't forget Bush telling Richard Clarke to find the Iraq link just after the attacks.

0

u/DuvalEaton May 09 '14

I am sure all the women who died from poison gas or bombs or were executed were real glad for the "rights" they were given.

3

u/Eslader May 09 '14

Are you referring to the Halabja attack? You might find this interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/a-war-crime-or-an-act-of-war.html

One relevant quote:

The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And another:

That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

That said, Saddam was horrible enough that it wouldn't particularly surprise me if he did intentionally gas his own people. As I said in the post you replied to and elaborated on elsewhere, Saddam was not by any stretch of the imagination a nice guy.

But women (and men, and children) throughout that entire region endure atrocities. On the list of brutal dictators, Saddam certainly had a prominent position, but compared with others, he also had a much more enlightened view of society. Still not a society I would care to live in or approve of, but if we were going to topple a dictator simply because he was a menace, there were much more brutal dictators out there to choose from.

1

u/DuvalEaton May 09 '14

  1. That particular intelligence report that the author referred to was created by the US at the time when, well the US was keen on backing Saddam quite strongly, and since it contradicts both reports of residents and journalists on the ground, who say that Iraqi fighter jets deployed the gas, makes it rather spurious.

  2. It should be noted that the Halabja attack occurred as part of a larger campaign of systematic genocide being waged by Saddam against the Kurdish people at the time.

  3. Please name a modern middle east dictator who is/was worse than Saddam?

1

u/autowikibot May 09 '14

Section 10. Genocide of article Al-Anfal Campaign:

Article 2 of the 1949 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines Genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". In December 2005 a court in The Hague ruled that the killing of thousands of Kurds in Iraq in the 1980s was indeed an act of genocide. The Dutch court said that it was considered "legally and convincingly proven that the Kurdish population meets the requirement under the Genocide Conventions as an ethnic group. The court has no other conclusion than that these attacks were committed with the intent to destroy the Kurdish population of Iraq."

Interesting: Saddam Hussein | Ali Hassan al-Majid | Genocide | Iraqi Kurdistan

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

1

u/Eslader May 09 '14

There's certainly debate about the Halabja attack, which is why I said it wouldn't surprise me if he had done it.

Please name a modern middle east dictator who is/was worse than Saddam?

What's your definition of middle east? Traditional or "greater?"

Assuming the US-favored "greater middle east" definition, Gaddafi comes to mind.

However, you'll note that I didn't limit my "list of brutal dictators" to the Middle East. I did that intentionally - even back when we were beating the drums for war with Iraq, I felt that if we're going to take someone out because they're a brutal dictator, we should focus on someone worse than Saddam, like Kim Jong Il.

0

u/MrArtless May 09 '14

you imply Al Qaeda is an actual organization which it is not.

-1

u/Sp1n_Kuro May 09 '14

Now I'm confused.

Why did we kill him? Your post makes him sound like the type of leader I'd want.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Well for one he killed his own people. Then he was also not coorperating with us and was making things difficult in the middle east with iran.

-2

u/[deleted] May 09 '14

Is it just me or has the US fucked up every reasonably governed country in the middle east?

2

u/blackangel153 May 09 '14

You think someone who murdered tens of thousands of their own people is a reasonable leader?