The Capture of Saddam Hussein - A Non American Perspective

Published on December 28, 2003 By AJCrowley In Politics

So, at a cost of trillions of dollars to the American taxpayer, George Bush finally got his bogey-man. The broken man was pulled from his "spider hole" by heroic American troops, and the world is once again a safe place, but what did "The Butcher of Bagdad" do to deserve this? For years, he was the darling of the American right wing, but one day, he stepped out of line by threatening America's favourite dictatorship in the region, Saudi Arabia, by invading Kuwait. Of course, we all remember what happened then, a war was fought and won, and all was well with the world again. So what was the reason for going back? According to George Bush, Hussein was the world's most dangerous man, hoarding huge stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, aiding and abetting the terrorists that attacked America on 9/11/2001, seeking nuclear armament, and threatening the security of the free world. Of course, even an idiot could see that these were all blatant lies, and while Hussein was truly an evil man, he wasn't capable of threatening the security of any other nation after having virtually all of his military hardware destroyed in the first Gulf War conflict, and being worn down by a plethora of sanctions, embargos, and continued bombing of his country.

As for the terrorist connection, anyone who took the time to even do 10 minutes of research on the matter would know that Hussein ruled with an iron fist, and terrorist groups were not tolerated in the regions of Iraq that he controlled. Despite the implied and specifc connections between Hussein and the September 11th terrorist attacks constantly fed to us through the American media, and George Bush, anyone who knew anything about the matter was fully aware that not only did Hussein not assist al-Quaeda in any manner, but he positively hated them. The feeling was mutual, with one of the tenet's of al-Quaeda's beliefs calling for the destruction of Hussein's secular government. The man was clearly an infidel - he even allowed synagogues into his country.

On the subject of his alleged stockpiles of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", again, a minimal amount of research would reveal that the only WMDs that he ever possesed were supplied to him by his old ally - the USA. The reason that the UN inspections didn't reveal any stockpiles of these deadly armaments were simply that he no longer had any - not that the UN inspection teams were inefficient, or that he was a master of hiding them. Again, many people could have told you this before the sequel to the Gulf War was ever launched, but for even the staunchest believer in the deceptions of George Bush, the truth is now painfully obvious.

Though Americans will bear a burden of financial debt for this farce for years to come, the real victims are the Iraqi people who have been murdered in the course of the American lead war. The 3,000 people that died on September 11th pales in comparison with the number of Iraqis murdered in the period from the first Gulf War to the present day. We've all heard the stories of "mistakes", such as a bus load of unarmed women and children being gunned down by nervous American troops at a checkpoint, but you can rest assured that there's a great deal more that we don't hear about in the mainstream media. Every American who supported this war is guilty of one of two things - either willfully and knowingly supporting an unjustifiable war for purely jingoistic reasons, or being so staggeringly stupid as to have not seen through the lies of their government and media in building up support for this invasion. Either way, they're as guilty as the men who flew jets into skyscrapers.

Of course, the lies don't end here. Amerca's stated goal of promoting democracy in the region is yet another totally transparent deception. America's refusal to turn over control of the country to Iraqi authorities, and their refusal to allow allow free elections to take place can only be for one reason - they know that free elections won't go the way that they want, and so they continue their illegal occupation.

The severity of the wrongs done here can never be righted, but the truly right way to go is another thing that doesn't look like happening any time soon. Control of the reconstruction of Iraq should be turned over to the UN, and be funded exclusively by the countries that took part in this atrocity. Bush, Blair et al should be handed over to international authorities, and tried as war criminals, and financial reparations should be paid to the people of Iraq by the guilty coalition members. Any country that refused to take part in this debacle should be truly proud of themselves. France, Germany, Canada, and all the others that said "No" to Bush, despite the ongoing bribe of lucrative reconstruction contracts should be commended for standing up for what is right and decent, and should be the ONLY countries allowed to bid on reconstruction projects.

So, Bush caught his monster, but there is a far more evil man still at large, who poses a threat to the security of free nations unheard of since the fall of Hitler. To hope that Bush is held accountable for his crimes is a fool's hope, but we can all hope that this monster doesn't get to serve another terms as president, and that maybe somebody with at least a shred of decency will become president at the end of 2004. If you are a citizen of America, use your vote wisely, and don't allow this man to dig your country even deeper into the dirt.

Comments (Page 5)

Draginol

on Jan 24, 2004

Iraq got most of its weapons from France, Russia and China. Not the United States.

Please read up on the situation before making such reckless assertions.

Kate

on Jan 24, 2004

Well...

it seems this topic has been turned discussed throughly so I'll only add my little bit of infomation. Even if Iraq was a proxy war does not justify America giving that country weapons. Think of every proxy war the Americans took part in....Afgahistan, China, Korea, Vetinam, etc.... they all were either lost, screwed up for a number of years following to the dates of the actual war, or nothing really changed. It's hard to defend a side that says Iraq was the less of the threat. By arming these countries in the proxy wars America made these countries threats. They never had the technology before to have ever become a country to fear. America made these countries so.

Plus, I really do have another view on the Iraq war.....since almost the beginning of American's history there has always been the "common foe". The American's common for now is terrorism. What better thing is there to get one of the 'bad-guys'. The U.S got a scape goat and scarficied him on the media.

If America wanted to set up a democratic government then why haven't they let the people of Iraq to actually take part in their government?

Plus, what right did the Americans have to decide the future of an entire country? What right did the American's have in disobing the UN's orders? What right did the American's have to kill and main the people of Iraq just because they suspect that there are weapons of mass destruction?

It is also completly unreasonable to demand a country to disarm themselves. These weapons are the devices that keep foriegn armies out of Iraq. What right did the American's have to demand that Iraq explose itself to it's enemies?

So, again, U.S used the reasoning that Iraq totured it's people, had weapons of mass destruction, and was a threeat to the world. Basically, that's the jist. Well, North Korea public stated that they has WMD's, and they have been toturing it's citizens for many, many years now. N. Korea have weapons to destroy almost any city on the planet, while all the weapons found in Iraq can only reach Iraq's immediate neighbour. I would consider N. Korea a much bigger threat. So, why is Ameican allies with N. Korea? Why didn't America use this 'flawless' logic to attck N. Korea?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want another war. I'm am just using American's logic and trying to figure out why they aren't in N. Korea.

What qualifies as toture? Canada has been ignoring and supressing it's native population. is that considered toture? Canada has weapons and the threat to hurt the entire world. Why isn't Canada being attacked? You know, you could apply this idiotatic logic to almost any country in the world and be able to attack and CONTINUE TO OCCUPY these countries. the simple answer is that America wanted something from Iraq. Be that Engery (Oil - U.S uses over 20% of all engery produced in the world while only having less that 3% of it's population. it really needs this oil for engery), or the ablity to cover-up a mistake (See Proxy Wars), or prehaps to feed it's new imperialistic urges(Look at Panama Canal) U.S still wanted something. is that right? I don' think so

messybuu

on Jan 24, 2004

I just want to make it clear that it was the U.N that told Iraq to disarm all these years. I t was not only the U.S.

blindNeo

on Jan 25, 2004

PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7

Jeremy Baker

In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower.

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
[This can be heard in the audio file http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3. Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.]

Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC 7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.

[This can be heard in the audio file http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt2.mp3 taken from the video.]

This shocking contradiction is yet another curious twist in a disturbing series of events surrounding the "collapse" of WTC 7, and the WTC complex in general.

Among these is the fact that, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever resulted in a collapse. On 9/11 three such anomalies were alleged to have occurred. Those who argue that the towers were vulnerable in their top-heaviness and verticality cannot then explain the collapse due to fire of WTC 7, a broad based, 47-story steel-framed building.

There is also the fact that most of the structures destroyed by falling debris were directly under the twin towers, and none of them caught fire. WTC 7 was not only a full city block away from Tower 1 but WTC 6 stood directly between the two buildings and certainly absorbed most of the damage.

In addition, WTC 7 suffered a strangely thorough and complete collapse, leaving only a leveled lot where it once stood. Although it was a much smaller structure, WTC 6's 8-story carcass stood for months afterwards, even after being gutted by Tower 1.

There's also disturbing correlations between the collapse of WTC 7 and the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Both buildings were constructed using the same bridge beam system that, in WTC 7's case, allegedly contributed to its demise. But more importantly WTC 7, like the Murrah building, housed high-level government offices including the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service. WTC 7 was also the storage facility for millions of files pertaining to active cases involving international drug dealing, organized crime, terrorism and money laundering.

WTC 6, also known as the Customs House building, housed the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture and Labor and yet another Murrah building tenant, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

WTC 7 was also the location of a kind of a doomsday bunker (a $15 million project of Rudy Giuliani's), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown. Building 7 had apparently been bullet proofed and reinforced to withstand hurricane force winds and attacks of all kinds, a fact which makes its alleged fatal vulnerability to falling debris all the more puzzling.

Mr. Silverstein's comments imply that he and the FDNY threw together an expert demolition job in the space of a few short hours on the afternoon of 9/11. This revelation is staggering enough considering its blatant contradiction to what has been, all along, the official cause of the "collapse." But the fact that the building was buried under tons of debris and consumed in flames at the time makes his comments all the more baffling.

There's a compelling theory that bombs had been planted inside the twin towers designed to complete the job the hijacked jets had begun. A handful of seasoned professional firefighters and demolition men have commented on how neatly and evenly the towers collapsed. Mr. Silverstein's bewildering statements in "America Rebuilds" give an exponential boost in credence to this claim and, in a more terrifying light, loan credibility to growing suspicions that the attacks of 9/11 may have been an inside job.

lobstertoes

on Jan 26, 2004

Your right, Deans the Man

wrinkle19

on Jan 26, 2004

Whilst I don't really have an opinion formed on Bush or US politics in general, the "War On Terror" and particually the war in Iraq have at least a little level of importance to me. I'm from Australia, one of the countries that supported Bush both philosophically and physically. So yeah we had men and women from Oz trouping around Iraq and still do. The situation here sounds pretty similar to the situation in the US though; we've got media who refuse to acknowledge anything good about the war and constantly attack our Prime Minister, John Howard for any involvement whatsoever (except of course for any money to been gained from the rebuilding - attacking was clearly wrong but profiting from it isn't??), we've got deep left and deep right people who have been slugging it out ever since the word "war" was ever mentioned, and finally we've got our share of ignorant biggots who never engage their mental facilities.

My view, not that it matters all that much, is that Saddam had been asking for it for a decade or so. He refused to co-operate, he was pretty obvioulsy a tyrant of the first degree and he certainly wasn't friends with any one who had an open mind. Your stereotypical bad guy if you will.

But alas I stray from my reason for posting. I wanted to link to two sites, the first is simply a site that has a copy of an email sent from a Commander Officer in the Gulf to his marines. I found it to be quite the mind opener. The address is http://braden.weblogs.com/2004/01/01

The second is a blog of an actual Iraq citizen, he was there both before the ousting of Saddam and is still there now. It certainly helped me see things from a different perspective. The link is iraqataglance.blogspot.com I thoroughly recommend reading it, particularly the earlier entries. Granted his English isn't the best but that is to be expected.

Anyway my hope is people will try to keep an open mind because free speech without an open mind denigrates into a cesspool of bitching and ignorance.

FishHead

on Jan 26, 2004

AR-15

on Jan 26, 2004

>>Reply #59 By: zergimmi - 1/24/2004 12:28:07 AM
>>
>>you seem to have selective memory here Anthony, the biggest supplier of arms and aid to Iraq was in fact the US, and maybe when you show photos of leaders visiting >>Iraq, you be a little bit more honest and Include Donald Rumsfeld, for a start,
>>
>>

Zergimmi: This Rumsfeld handshake argument is tired materiel, do you even know the reason why Rumsfeld was there, what he said, and why he shook Hussein’s hand, or did you just allow one or two seething with rage, left wingers make up your mind for you?

You allowed the malcontents to mold and shape your opinion, they force fed you a warped version of extremism, which contained about 2% reality, are you going to let these hoodlums get away with that?

AR-15

on Jan 26, 2004

Another thing: No Republican figures have ever been as irresponsible as to assist a communist dictator arm with nukes with US funding while sipping cognac, Rumsfeld merely shook his hand, compare and contrast that with this.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!