|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Hussein Pointed to Iranian Threat. No WMD's.|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Hussein Pointed to Iranian Threat
Specter of Arms Allowed Him to Appear Strong, He Told U.S. July 2, 2009 Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda. Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region." "The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," Piro wrote. "Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq." Piro raised bin Laden in his last conversation with Hussein, on June 28, 2004, but the information he yielded conflicted with the Bush administration's many efforts to link Iraq with the terrorist group. Hussein replied that throughout history there had been conflicts between believers of Islam and political leaders. He said that "he was a believer in God but was not a zealot . . . that religion and government should not mix." Hussein said that he had never met bin Laden and that the two of them "did not have the same belief or vision." When Piro noted that there were reasons why Hussein and al-Qaeda should have cooperated -- they had the same enemies in the United States and Saudi Arabia -- Hussein replied that the United States was not Iraq's enemy, and that he simply opposed its policies. read full article at... >>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html |
||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Hussein was a secular dictator (our favorite kind of world leader to do business with) who was useful to the United States (anti-communist, anti-islamist, lots of OIL).....
.... until he invaded Kuwait. After he invaded Kuwait, he was no longer useful so he was removed. Any questions?  |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
This was also the conclusion of both the Duefler and Senate Intelligence Committee reports. Dave |
|||
|
|
Member |
-
Read all of the Hussein interviews here - minus the last one which is heavily redacted (why???) *http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm - |
|||
|
|
Member |
If all that is true about his fear of Iran, Saddam should have been in partnership with America rather than have us and the UN on his back.
I knew he spread all those lies about having weapons. I didn't know he did it because of Iran, I thought he just wanted to stick it to America and the UN. That was probably just an added perk. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Saddam miscalculated on several fronts.
Saddam did not think that the CIA was so weak that it could not determine that there really were no WMDs in Iraq. Saddam did not know about the neo-conservative cabal and their idea to establish a market in the middle of the Middle East and to gain control of the oil reserves by setting up a new government in Iraq. Saddam and the world did not think that an American President would go to war based on circumstantial evidence. Things did not work out the way that Saddam planned. Sadly, things did not work out the way that President Bush planned either. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Well, that's the thing - he WAS in partnership with the US and other western countries - we backed him in the Iran/Iraq war. - |
|||
|
|
Member |
Kinda follow what you are saying... I would not say it was only the circumstantial issue, I think the attack on us is why he went to war. Meaning, if we had not been attacked then maybe Bush and the UN would have just keep letting Saddam avoid inspection, yes? No, in war I don't things ever go 100% how you plan, but we did not get attacked on our soil after that while Bush was in, we did finally finished what we started in Iraq and are pretty much leaving it up to them to run. That is good, right? Now we are back in Afganistan where everyone things we should have stayed and focused on all along. Something tells me we are going to have issues with Pakistan more than Iran and NK but I hope not and I wonder what Obama is going to do if they call him out. I agree with you though about the intel not being what it should have been, but it was not just ours, the rest of the world had been hand fed the info from Saddam too and they thought he had them. |
|||
|
|
Member |
He might have started out as a partner but when you are going against the US and the UN and running around telling everyone you have weapons and wont let the inspectors in like 17 times, that is not really the partner I want. That is like NK taking our money and promising to cool it and then shooting off the rockets a coupld times a year whenever he wants to flex his muscle. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
An interesting piece for historians to analyze in 20 years, when President Bush's policies will be truly in focus..
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Who was more dangerous to the International Community and a far greater threat to the security of the United States?
Saddam or George Bush. IMO it was George Bush. George Bush will always be what he accused Saddam of being in my opinion. Frisco |
|||
|
|
Member |
You must be high FriscoLady. A danger to all of the International Community? Please. You would have been better off just saying Iraq, since that was the big issue with the radical liberals. I don't think Africa thinks he was such a danger since he gave them more support than anyone else in history even Bono will admit that. The United States? Hardly. Sure he made some bad calls but I would not put him on the same level as Saddam. |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
If you re-read her post, she made "two" points. Her first, "Who was more dangerous to tghe International Community." I agree with her, but it's certainly arguable. Her second point: "...and a far greater threat to the security of the United States." Is undoubtedly true. He cost us a couple of Trillion bucks, and ruined our image in the Islamic AND European World. On top of that he turned the easy victory of Afghanistan into a long term gurrilla war that might go on for another decade. Almost single handidly he's been a recruiting agent for Al Qaeda. Did he intend these results? Of course not - and So what, those ARE the results. It's not a question of saying that George Bush is evil - He's Not, but in terms of damage to America, he might as well have been paid by Al Qaeda. Dave |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Saddam also said he should have been more open in communicating with the UN and west with the destruction of the WMP spelled out in the treaty 1991. His game backfired on him. Realistic, brow beating George Bush is easy for you, but think, Iran is right next door, a very Shiite neighbor, and yet Iran did not have a clue that Saddam was lying about WMD. They have to have one hell of a secret service, and one heck of a presence in Iraq before March 2003. If they were bamboozled, the rest of the world and I mean from Russia, Europe, Arab nations and the USA fell to the same scam.
The commissioner's didn't give him such a clean bill of health in their reporting as some would have you believe. His conspriacy with neighboring Arab nation did consist of training in chemical & biological, supporting and sanctuary to groups like Fatah, Hamas. The report with only a brief note that a couple of Al Qaeda may have been trained, but no proof. Don't start campaigning for this guy to be a Saint, he ain't. |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
While it seems to be a Biblical mantra to leap to the conclusion. that to criticise Mr. Bush is the same as defending Sadaam, sorry, no, such is not the case. Dave |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
  May 17,1987 ... 37 U.S. Sailors KIA.  Chemical use against Civilians! Bofore Kuwait! I really don't care what excuse they used to take him out. for some strange reason there sure was alot of those type of people that like to fill a civilian car up with explosives to kill lots of innocense...almost the same types that flew jets into the twin towers...I think someone found out exactly where they were hanging at...and put down a good portion of them. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Very disappointing Dave. A couple of trillion over 9 years and no other attack on our soil? What has Obama spent in 6 months and what will he spend in one term? News flash, the Internationcal Community has a love hate relationship with us that has been going on way before Bush and as you can well see will not even go away for Obama. What is the International Community doing so much different to support us with Obama other than wanting to get a picture with him? China controlling NK? NK going to stop shooting off rockets? Pakistan like us any better? Germany come in to help Obama? Iraq all the sudden going to thank America because Obama is head of US? You think Iran loves us any better from Bush to Obama? NOT. Afganistan and hard core radical terrorist using the muslim faith going to show us the love while we are now fighting on their soil? Please. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan is less than half of the figure published by the opposition, but our new President has already accumulated debt for this amount and more, in his fight not against something, but for croism, payback and special interest.
A sign carried by a lady in one celebration declare her interpretation of the administration Change as, "Stimulus means foreplay, and we all know what that leads to"....Screwed! |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
No logic please! Logic not allowed when dealing with lower wing |
|||
|
 |
To bad the guy turned into such a goof and we had to get rid of him. He could have been a good leader, dictator or not. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - T. Jefferson |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Hussein Pointed to Iranian Threat. No WMD's.
