Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush puts Saddam back in power!

  1. Apr 14, 2004 #1
    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'

    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: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 15, 2004 #2
    I thought Saddam was in a 4 x 4 cell in Qatar?
  4. Apr 15, 2004 #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.
  5. Apr 15, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.

  6. Apr 15, 2004 #5

    Does the name "Pinochet" ring any bells?
  7. Apr 15, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    [edited by author for (just barely) unwarranted personal attacks]


    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!

    Last edited: Apr 15, 2004
  8. Apr 15, 2004 #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.
  9. Apr 15, 2004 #8
    Here we go:

    USA and Saddam Hussein
    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html [Broken]
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/saddam_goodguy_030310.html [Broken]

    USA and Taliban
    http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/AFGHAN%20CONFLICT/TALIBAN/afghanistan%20taliban%20and%20us.htm [Broken]

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

    So when Zero says:
    He's quite correct. Apart from the typos.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  10. Apr 15, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.

  11. Apr 15, 2004 #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.
  12. Apr 15, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
  13. Apr 15, 2004 #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? ;)
  14. Apr 15, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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 arguement with an obtuse, mentally unstable liar.

  15. Apr 15, 2004 #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.
  16. Apr 16, 2004 #15
    I agree with Njorl
  17. Apr 16, 2004 #16
    Ugh! For the illiterate among you, let me show what people actually said...

    The words are right in front of your eyes. What is so difficult about it?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  18. Apr 16, 2004 #17
    Njorl presented a very good argument. He's not arguing just to argue. Get a Girlfriend.
  19. Apr 16, 2004 #18
    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.
  20. Apr 16, 2004 #19
    You're not gonna win every argument or debate. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

    And don't start with me, I am the King of Smartasses
  21. Apr 16, 2004 #20
    Dude, I already won. See the above quotes.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook