I'm an American tired of American lies

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Hey when we are at it this is another interesting part of the article for those that are not bothered to read

Speaking of Saddam's difficult childhood, Stanley Rothchild, a British diplomat based in Cyprus, told WorldNetDaily, "There have been more than a few rumors in the intelligence community that Saddam was raped by a gang of homosexuals when he was a young boy. So I don't discount the fact that the plot of gay sex in the 'South Park' movie was somehow influenced or used by the powers that be as a psychological weapon to punish Saddam. I can't just believe that it's a coincidence. We are talking about one of the top-grossing films in America in 1999, a movie which has a plot that is, by far, the most psychologically cruel scenario imaginable to America's number one bogeyman."

Tracey Kinchen, a former MI6 agent who has worked in Cambodia, Hong Kong, and South Africa told WorldNetDaily, "Wouldn't it be ironic if it was the 'South Park' movie which really proved to be the proverbial 'straw that broke the camel's back' and pushed Saddam over the edge and into launching a nuclear or biological attack against the West? The people who made that film -- either they were guided by the CIA or they are incredibly stupid."

[DanS]

I have heard of that link. But to string together all of these details into a "Saddam is our guy" type of things requires a vague article and some creativity.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by MikeH
For the record I have never worn sandles and I only eat lentils in curries with meat.

Ah the exception that proves my rule

If I accuse all telegraph readers of being homophobic, fox hunters who think Enoch Powell had some good ideas, and that the British Empire was the best thing to happen to Africa.

Will that balance it up

[MikeH]

Not really, that's all true.

[Arrian]

Here's a thought: let's assume for a moment that Woody/OFITG/Che are correct - Saddam is our "boy." Therefore, if we really were interested in doing the "right thing" wouldn't it be our responsibility to take out "our boy?" Not via carpet bombing, to be sure, but somehow. Having made the mess, is it not incumbent upon us to clean it up? Just a thought...

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well they claim so , and it is not a pro-Iraq or whatever,
The article is from August 2000, so long before current Iraq frenzy.

I'll try to find more.

here is one which mentiones early CIA/ Saddam involvement

http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqhist.html

there is another one which goes into some details

http://www.newsbatch.com/iraq.htm

Hussein soon became active in the Baath party as a gun man, and he participated in the assassination attempt on the country's strong man, General Kassem, in 1959. Then he went into exile in Cairo. There is evidence that his cooperation with the CIA began at that time as he made numerous trips to the American embassy while in exile. He returned to Iraq after 1963 when Kassem was ousted by the Baaths and was elected to the National Command. There is some basis to believe that General Kassem's ouster was assisted by the CIA which was motivated by a fear of Kassem's increased ties to the Soviet Union.

When the Baath party assumed power in 1968, again with the assistance of the CIA, Saddam Hussein emerged as the primary deputy leader to Muhammad Bakr, a general who became President. Very soon, because of his hard work, most of the actual control of the government was assumed by Saddam Hussein. He surrendered everything to Saddam, because Saddam worked an eighteen-hour day. In no time at all, Saddam was head of Security, he was head of the Peasants Department, he was head of Relations with the Kurds, he was head of the Committee that controlled the oil. He was head of the committee that controlled relations with the Arab countries. He was head of the Workers Syndicate.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
Here's a thought: let's assume for a moment that Woody/OFITG/Che are correct - Saddam is our "boy." Therefore, if we really were interested in doing the "right thing" wouldn't it be our responsibility to take out "our boy?" Not via carpet bombing, to be sure, but somehow. Having made the mess, is it not incumbent upon us to clean it up? Just a thought...

-Arrian

the question is: Will you clean it up, or will it be even worse? Nobody seems to be asking that in the official lineup.

[Bereta_Eder]

Guardian

BTW stinger, im afraid to ask but you leave me no choice: r u a... tory

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Guardian

BTW stinger, im afraid to ask but you leave me no choice: r u a... tory

You've done it now, take that back.

I am certainly not a tory. You can take the piss out of the guardian without being right wing.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Taliban:

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/09/18092001112433.asp

Direct involvement by the U.S. in bringing them to power is not proven, and the situation is at least as much the fault of the USSR as it is the U.S.

However, we did support them for a time:

The Taliban was basically a group of politically inexperienced young students. Analysts, including Rashid, believe the group never would have achieved its dramatic rise to power without the guidance of more mature governments, namely Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, who offered training and initial financial support. Ironically, the Taliban was also endorsed by the United States.

Rashid says the U.S. initially perceived the Taliban as a stabilizing force, one that could ensure the flow of Middle Eastern oil to the West.

"The U.S. didn't provide arms or anything to them, but the U.S. was very sympathetic to them because they were anti-Iran, anti-Shiite. And the U.S. at that time was looking for allies in its confrontation with Iran. The U.S. at that time was also looking for pipeline routes out of the Gulf, which would be under the control of U.S. allies. And they hoped [it would be] through Pakistan to the Gulf. So that was their other objective."

I remember receiving countless human rights updates and petitions against the Taliban from American rights orgs. like NOW, Amnesty Int'l, HRW, etc back in college in 97-98.

[DanS]

"NOW"

NOW, a human rights org?

Re the Taliban, yes we were sympathetic. Huge distance between "sympathetic" and "support."

[Ming]

I'm still trying to figure out why anybody would actually care about Woody Harrelson's opinions. He's just an actor...

[DanS]

I thought we had dispensed with that very early in the thread. Now we're on to nitpicking side issues, in typical Apolyton fashion.

[walruskkkch]

But actors have so much free time to devote to examining issues that us poor working folk can't afford.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
"NOW"

NOW, a human rights org?

Re the Taliban, yes we were sympathetic. Huge distance between "sympathetic" and "support."

NOW is supporting rights for women.

Do you not consider women to be human? Not shocking...

And since "support" can also be qualified as money, we did that, too.