Betting on Saddam
U.S. boosted the Iraqi dictator for decades
January 6, 2004
The Iranian
In his view and analysis of JFK's assassination,
Oliver Stone's controversial opinions and his subsequent
motion picture originate from a very simple but intriguing concept.
The concept is that when you consider, revisit and try to understand
a historical or social event, it is often unproductive to get bogged
down on the "how" details. The most important question
to ask and answer is "why"!
You can argue and analyze
the bullet ballistics, multi-shooter theories
and all the rest of "how"s forever and there
will always be a counter explanation for every detail. But
just begin asking why John Kennedy had to die and you can't help
but
see that it had to be a conspiracy,
no matter how the details are explained.
Applying this simple formula to Saddam Hossein
simplifies things for me. But it also creates some new questions
that may
never be answered. The "why" questions cry to be asked
when looking at the key milestones and turning points of Saddam's
history, beginning at his rise to power, all through his more
than two decades of brutal rule, his behavior with regard to
his neighbor
states and all the way to the suspicious demise of his regime.
Some of the most curious questions pose themselves when considering
Saddam's flirtations with the United States and the assistance
he certainly received from Uncle Sam all through his
bloody career! These are the type of questions that will prompt
many
people to answer with "how" answers, and then if you further
insist, they will call you a radical conspiracy theorist
and just wave you off! And that is how the U.S. and Western media
have dealt
with the Saddam questions.
We have heard all about HOW Saddam Hossein had a key role
in the Iraqi Baath Party's death squad and the failed attempt
to kill the Iraqi leader Abdulkarim Kassem in 1959 which
resulted
in Saddam's near fatal injury and his escape to Cairo.
But WHY are we not hearing more about the fact that during his
subsequent
stay in Cairo in the late 1950's and early 1960's,
Saddam was a regular visitor to the American Embassy,
occasionally
mingled in the American social circles at the time and
even lived at the American facilities for a while.
We hear HOW Saddam and his Baathist cronies returned in
1963 and took over the government in a bloody coup. But
WHY is
it that no
CNN or FOX News reports mention the credible and historical
evidence indicating that the take over of Iraq in 1963
that overthrew
General Kassem, was organized, funded and lead from a
command center that
was setup in Kuwait by none other than the CIA.
We have
heard HOW as a security officer, Saddam participated
personally in the interrogation,
torture and killing of hundreds of opponents in the
aftermath of the 1963 coup but WHY is ABC, CBS and NPR
news not
reporting that between 1963 and 1968 the names of hundreds
of communists and
anti-Baath activists
had been supplied
to Baath Party death agents by the CIA operatives
in Iraq?
This
was
the project that eventually, and through further
overlap of interests and a deal made over Iraq's oil and sulphur
mining
rights,
solidified the Baath power in 1968 and put a young
and ambitious thug named Saddam Hossein on the final stretch
of his bloody
path to becoming the dictator of Iraq.
We have seen the phrase "he attacked his neighbors"
listed as one of Saddam's evil acts and a reason
for ejecting
him from power. But given the history of Saddam-US
relations and frequent alliances, WHY wouldn't
it be possible that
attacking Iran right after the 1979 revolution, resulting
in a reduction
of the Shah's stockpiled weapons and putting Khomeini
under check
was another project cooked up by Saddam's old pals
in the CIA and US military intelligence?
We have heard HOW Saddam's army massacred
thousands of Kurdish civilians and Iranian soldiers
in the 1980's
using chemical weapons. But WHY is no one in the
US media or human
rights circles highlighting the fact that instead
of stopping Saddam
and defending the rights of the many innocent victims,
we sent high
ranking delegates, including Donald Rumsfeld among
others, to shake hands with Saddam and offered
more military
and intelligence support.
Both Iran and Iraq began the 1980's with over $100
billion in cash reserves. At the moment,
Iraq has a
national debt of over $120 billion while,
by most liberal
international accounting estimates, Iran has
less than $20 billion
in debt. If Saddam was such a menace
all along then WHY
did
he get over $120 billion in foreign aid.
And if the argument is that the mullahs in Iran
were
a much
bigger threat,
then WHY
is Saddam's regime gone and the mullahs are
still firmly in control of Iran? Wasn't the Islamic Republic
of Iran the bigger evil in the axis?
I'm not ignorant of the context within which
American foreign policy was implemented
all through
the Cold
War. I know that much of the American dealings
with the Baath
Party,
Saddam and his government can be categorized
as alliances of convenience. But the simple
and painful
fact is
that our dealings
and alliances
propelled and promoted the man along his
bloody path. We assisted Saddam in more than
one occasion
to brutalize
his political
enemies, his own innocent people and his
neighboring states through several decades. WHY shouldn't
we be held accountable?
Since the attacks of 9/11 the American people
have constantly asked "why do they hate us
so much?"
George W. Bush's
answer is "because
they hate freedom!" What a juvenile statement!
The American people are a peace loving lot and
deserve
to know the truth.
Isn't it time to be honest with them and
tell them WHY?
Though he was ridiculed in the Western media
for saying it, perhaps Saddam had
good reasons
for his
first words
after being
pulled out of his concrete hole in the
ground. "I want to negotiate," the bastard proclaimed.
WHY not?
Now, the next questions to ask are how long
will Saddam live? Will he
be given an
open trial
and the opportunity to speak?
Any bets out there?
* Send
this page to your friends
|
