Bush puts Saddam back in power

  • News
  • Thread starter pelastration
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Power
In summary: I'm not going to get into political debates with you. In summary, former Iraqi officers from Saddam Hussein's regime are being appointed to key positions in the new Iraqi army and police force. This decision has been made due to the recent unrest and reports of newly-trained personnel refusing to fight in the face of armed opposition. Despite some reservations, US Gen. John Abizaid believes that the inclusion of these officers is necessary for the success of the security forces. This has sparked criticism and comparisons to America's history of installing and supporting dictatorial governments.
  • #1
pelastration
165
0
Bush puts Saddam back in power because a number of top brass from Iraq's Baathist former regime would shortly be appointed to "key positions in the ministry of defence and the Iraqi joint staff and in Iraqi field commands. Meaning the 'tough' guys involved in torture, gasing, ...
All in the name of democraty, pacification and freedom, but ethics?


Iraqi officers 'refused to fight'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3621369.stm

Many newly-trained Iraqi police and army personnel refused to fight Shia and Sunni rebels in the recent unrest, the head of US Central Command says.

Gen John Abizaid said this was a "great disappointment" - and announced the coalition would draw top officers from the disbanded army of Saddam Hussein.

The creation of a new Iraqi army that can follow orders is seen as key to America's withdrawal plans from Iraq.

The US had barred officers from Saddam Hussein's era serving in the military.

Uneasy truce

The reversal of policy follows a week of violence in Iraq, in which US forces faced armed opponents in Sunni-dominated zones, as well as in some formerly friendly Shia-majority cities.

Gen Abizaid said a number of Iraqi police and civil defence corps staff "did not stand up to the intimidators" during the unrest.

His comments follow reports that a newly-trained battalion of the Iraqi army refused to support US forces as they besieged Sunni insurgents in the flashpoint city of Falluja.

It was also reported that some members of Baghdad's new police force turned against US soldiers during last week's clashes in the Shia neighbourhood of Sadr city.

"Clearly we know that some of the police did not stay with their posts and that in some cases, because we've seen films of policemen with Sadr's militia in particular, that there were some defections," Gen Abizaid said.

He said their numbers were not large but they were "troubling" to the coalition.

But he qualified his criticism by saying the US was largely "proud" of the way many of the new recruits had fought.

The US has trained at least 200,000 Iraqis to serve as police officers, soldiers and border guards in the last year.

Gen Abizaid said some problems would remain until more Iraqis occupied command positions in the new army and police.

A number of top brass from Iraq's Baathist former regime would shortly be appointed to "key positions in the ministry of defence and the Iraqi joint staff and in Iraqi field commands", the top officer announced.

"It's also very clear we've got to get more senior Iraqis involved - former military types involved in the security forces."


-----
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...9_troops13.html [Broken]

U.S. commanders in Baghdad said yesterday they will reach out to former senior members of Saddam Hussein's disbanded army to try to stiffen Iraqi security forces.

U.S. officials have sought to avoid relying on former senior members of the Iraq army that existed under Saddam. But Abizaid indicated this approach would change.

"It's also very clear that we've got to get more senior Iraqis involved, former military types involved in the security forces," he said. "In the next couple of days, you'll see a large number of senior officers being appointed to key positions in the ministry of defense and the Iraqi joint staff and in Iraqi field commands."

"The truth of the matter is that until we get well-formed Iraqi chains of command" for the police and the new army, "it's going to be tough to get them to perform at the level we want," Abizaid said.

The four-star general tempered his criticism, however, by stressing that many Iraqis have served valiantly alongside U.S. forces and many have died. "We're extremely proud of the way that many of them have fought," he said.

----
So top-guys of Saddam will be BACK IN POWER , and of course they are still loyal to Saddam ... which makes that Bush put's back former CIA-agent Saddam in power. BTW Saddam is now living in Qatar in US largest and most heavily fortified Gulf outpost and that makes secret negotiations much easier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I thought Saddam was in a 4 x 4 cell in Qatar?
 
  • #3
America has a history of replacing uncooperative dictatorial governments with cooperative dictatorial governments. Remember, you can think America for Both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
 
  • #4
Zero said:
America has a history of replacing uncooperative dictatorial governments with cooperative dictatorial governments. Remember, you can think America for Both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

No Zero. On both counts.

Saddam was not aided by the US in his rise to power. He was in fact, mildly hindered. In the early '70s the CIA began arming the Kurds in preparation for a coup against him. Our enmity with him was due to his hostility toward the Shah of Iran, who was totally our creature. When he made peace with the Shah in 1976, all plans against him ceased. We only started aiding him when the Shah was overthrown.

In Afghanistan, while we did aid the Taliban, we aided other organisations more, and groomed the others for seizing power. When it didn't work that way, we didn't do anything about it because Shia fundementalism was considered the real problem at the time. The Taliban were fanatically bigoted against Shia.

We did install many dictators though - the Shah, Pinochet, Batista, the Dominican who I can't remember, a whole revolving door though the "presidency" of South Vietnam and many in Africa.

Njorl
 
  • #5
Njorl,

Does the name "Pinochet" ring any bells?
 
  • #6
Adam said:
Njorl,
Does the name "Pinochet" ring any bells?
[edited by author for (just barely) unwarranted personal attacks]

Yes Adam, it does. I MENTIONED HIM IN MY POST AS A DICTATOR THE US INSTALLED!



I am beginning to think that you are really an ultra-conservative activist intent on discrediting liberalism.

I have read many things you've written. There is a glimmer of genuine intelligence there. Just PLEASE read the things you respond to and read the things you link to!

Njorl
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Yes, I know. I'm just wondering how you can possibly say Zero was wrong (eg. "No Zero. On both counts.") when the USA does in fact support, and sometimes install, brutal dictators. Including Saddam Hussein.
 
  • #8
Here we go:

USA and Saddam Hussein
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html [Broken]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/saddam_goodguy_030310.html [Broken]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
http://citizensnotspectators.org/archives/000070.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/armIraqP2W.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_1_020917.html
http://www.oilempire.us/saddam.html

USA and Taliban
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Fraud.asp
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/JihadBooks.asp
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/13QA.asp
http://www.politicsol.com/guest-commentaries/2001-09-18.html
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/cia-talib.htm
http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/AFGHAN%20CONFLICT/TALIBAN/afghanistan%20taliban%20and%20us.htm [Broken]
http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/world/w_1999_09_04.html

The Taliban and pretty much every militant faction in Afghanistan was set up by the USA to fight the Soviets.

So when Zero says:
America has a history of replacing uncooperative dictatorial governments with cooperative dictatorial governments. Remember, you can think America for Both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
He's quite correct. Apart from the typos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Adam said:
Yes, I know. I'm just wondering how you can possibly say Zero was wrong (eg. "No Zero. On both counts.") when the USA does in fact support, and sometimes install, brutal dictators. Including Saddam Hussein.
You just keep doing it.

You do not read the posts to which you respond.

You do not read the posts to which you link.

Your capacity to admit your errors is even more lacking then George Bush's.

The US did not install Saddam Hussein. The links you posted demonstrate it, as you would know if you ever had read them.

From http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm:
"...the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967."

The US Suspended relations with Iraq when Hussein took power. As I stated, and which you obviously ignored, the US did not support him until after the Shah was overthrown.

From http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/;
"The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty " Perhaps the US and USSR had the same allies then? No, I don't think so.

Your Taliban links describe the CIA arming and training the Taliban. That was never the question. The CIA did not groom the Taliban for seizing power, though. The CIA groomed the Peshawar based Mujahaddin to seize power. The Taliban was a Khandhar based force. The CIA stopped major activities in 1992, when the Taliban were a non-entity. There were those at the CIA who blamed Clinton for not interceding in Afghanistan to support the Peshawar group as the Taliban grew in power from 93-96. The CIA wanted to prevent the Taliban from seizing power.

Njorl
 
  • #10
No, the USA did not install Saddam Hussein, but as I clearly stated earlier, they did support him. I'm quite sure you can see where I said that.

And at least you admit that the USA was involved in creating and supporting the Taliban.
 
  • #11
Adam said:
No, the USA did not install Saddam Hussein, but as I clearly stated earlier, they did support him. I'm quite sure you can see where I said that.

And at least you admit that the USA was involved in creating and supporting the Taliban.

You are one pitiful piece of work. You were wrong on both counts and have the audacity to claim some semblance of victory, gatting me to "admit" the US involvment in the origin of the Taliban. You didn't have a clue about the early origins of the Taliban before I pointed them out to you. How about you just admit you were wrong and slink away with your tail between your legs. How about you promise to read things before you respond to them, or link to them.
:rolleyes:
Njorl
 
  • #12
Wow, Njorl, that's one huge ad hominem. Congratulations. And you're right, I had no idea about the Taliban as I was studying them in the military. Clever boy, aren't you? ;)
 
  • #13
Adam said:
Wow, Njorl, that's one huge ad hominem. Congratulations. And you're right, I had no idea about the Taliban as I was studying them in the military. Clever boy, aren't you? ;)

Adam,
You are a living condemnation of the Australian navy. Eventually, I believe they will obtain a court order forcing you to desist from mentioning any affiliation with them. From reading your posts, you quite clearly did NOT know anything about the origins of the Taliban.

Clearly, this demonstrates your dishonesty.

Your inability to perceive that the point I was contending was that the US installed Saddam and the Taliban in power demonstrates that you are obtuse.

Your inability to admit your inaccuracies, indeed, your near-pathalogical insistance that your inaccurate statements are true when they have so obviously been refuted, demonstrate that you are probably mentally unstable.

While these may seem to you like ad hominem attacks, they are not. They are valid points in my next argument. The previous debate had ended. The new debate is about whether it is worth even one more keystroke debating with you. It is not. You can not win an argument with an obtuse, mentally unstable liar.

Njorl
 
  • #14
Njorl, take a breather and then come back and read it all again. It'll do you a world of good. Or maybe not.

1) Zero said: "Remember, you can think America for Both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban."

2) Njorl said: "No Zero. On both counts."

3) Adam supplied information showing that the USA did in fact support both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

This is quite clear. Give up the ad hominems and try reading what is there.
 
  • #15
I agree with Njorl
 
  • #16
Ugh! For the illiterate among you, let me show what people actually said...

Zero: "Remember, you can think America for Both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban."

Njorl: "No Zero. On both counts."


The words are right in front of your eyes. What is so difficult about it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Adam said:
Ugh! For the illiterate among you, let me show what people actually said...
Njorl presented a very good argument. He's not arguing just to argue. Get a Girlfriend.
 
  • #18
The_Professional said:
Njorl presented a very good argument. He's not arguing just to argue.
Really? You mean the bit about the USA not supporting Saddam Hussein and the Taliban? I kinda showed that to be 100% incorrect.

The_Professional said:
Get a Girlfriend.
Sorry dude, I don't swing your way. I'm flattered, but no thanks.
 
  • #19
Adam said:
Really? You mean the bit about the USA not supporting Saddam Hussein and the Taliban? I kinda showed that to be 100% incorrect.

Sorry dude, I don't swing your way. I'm flattered, but no thanks.

You're not going to win every argument or debate. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

And don't start with me, I am the King of Smartasses
 
  • #20
Dude, I already won. See the above quotes.
 

1. How did Bush put Saddam back in power?

There is no evidence to suggest that Bush intentionally put Saddam back in power. In fact, the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 resulted in the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein.

2. Is it true that Bush worked with Saddam to regain power in Iraq?

No, there is no evidence to support this claim. The US and Saddam Hussein were enemies for many years prior to the invasion of Iraq.

3. Did Bush's actions directly lead to the rise of ISIS in Iraq?

While the US-led invasion of Iraq certainly had an impact on the political and social landscape of the country, it is not accurate to say that Bush's actions directly led to the rise of ISIS. There were a multitude of factors that contributed to the emergence of ISIS in Iraq, including sectarian tensions and the power vacuum created by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

4. How did Bush's actions in Iraq impact the region?

The invasion of Iraq had far-reaching consequences for the entire Middle East region. It led to increased instability, sectarian violence, and the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. It also strained relationships between the US and other countries in the region.

5. Did Bush have any intentions of putting Saddam back in power?

There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the US government and many other countries had been working to remove Saddam Hussein from power for many years prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
41
Views
4K
Replies
77
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
91
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top