The Hindsight Effect

[Tony]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-053003D ..full article


George W. Bush gave up. The search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction is over. We hardly found a thing.

Polls show most Americans don't mind, but some accuse Bush of lying, including some in the Congress. Representative Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said "This could conceivably be the greatest intelligence hoax of all time."

I think this offers an opposing views to those people that insist Bush lied.

[Lothian]

The article concludes that it doesn’t matter if Bush lied over WMD because Saddam was a bad man. He should have therefore given this as the reason for the invasion.

The problem with this is that Saddam being bad is an opinion. How do you measure badness. Is he worse that Mugabe? Should America invade every country with a badness rating greater than one Saddam ? Or should they only invade countries with oil? How does the motion get put to the UN or does it not ?

What are Americas’ rules for invasion? Unrestlessness over America’s potential actions are the cause of lots of the ‘anti-American’ feeling. If the rules were known people would feel happier, even if they didn’t agree with them.

The problem is not the presentation of America’s policy it the honest publication of it.

[Tony]

I’ve noticed how the so-called "skeptics" that frequently comment on the absence of WMD are silent on the issue of saddam the tyrant. I guess if I was looking to masturbate my ego and show that I was right, I would to ignore this too.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony
I’ve noticed how the so-called "skeptics" that frequently comment on the absence of WMD are silent on the issue of saddam the tyrant. I guess if I was looking to masturbate my ego and show that I was right, I would to ignore this too.

Why, because you don't mind being lied to and manipulated? I guess you dont 'feel manipulated if you believed the lies the first time and now you believe whaetver new lies he spouts too.

Hmm... but what about all the people that protested the war because they said that the President was lying and those people were rediculed and called un-American, yet they were correct. So I guess that being honest and correct is un-American.

As for how bad Saddam was, WE PUT HIM INTO POWER, WE SUPPLIED HIM WITH WEAPONS, IF NOT FOR US COOPERATION THER WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, as for his "evil tyrant" status, the US has aided and supported half a dozen people has bad or worse over the past 50 years, including his next door neighbor the Shah of Iran.

Now that the US has been able to move America to war with lies, it proves that there is no way to stop the leaders from doing whatever thy want. Now what's next, they just lie about everything. This isn't democracy, the people are not informed and are giving informed consent they are manipulated mod of *********** moron, being wielded by the most powerful people in the world standing behind the most powerful miltiarty in the world.

Its total *********** insanity.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Why, because you don't mind being lied to and manipulated? I guess you dont 'feel manipulated if you believed the lies the first time and now you believe whaetver new lies he spouts too.




I knew the president was probably lying or exaggerating, the thing is, I didn’t care. I never supported the war on the grounds of WMD. The fact that a murderous tyrant was going to be taken out of power was more important. IMO if Bush would have emphasized this aspect more he would have had broader support.

Hmm... but what about all the people that protested the war because they said that the President was lying and those people were rediculed and called un-American, yet they were correct. So I guess that being honest and correct is un-American.

The people protesting were irrelevant, they were content to leave a tyant in power in the name of "peace", such human trash is not worth my consideration.

As for how bad Saddam was, WE PUT HIM INTO POWER, WE SUPPLIED HIM WITH WEAPONS, IF NOT FOR US COOPERATION THER WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Exactly, we created the mess, it was our job to clean it up. This is an argument for the war.

Also, as for his "evil tyrant" status, the US has aided and supported half a dozen people has bad or worse over the past 50 years, including his next door neighbor the Shah of Iran.

Facts are irrelevant without historical context. At the time we were fighting a greater evil. Its childish to think that morals are absolute.

Now that the US has been able to move America to war with lies, it proves that there is no way to stop the leaders from doing whatever thy want. Now what's next, they just lie about everything. This isn't democracy, the people are not informed and are giving informed consent they are manipulated mod of *********** moron, being wielded by the most powerful people in the world standing behind the most powerful miltiarty in the world.

Is there a period in history when this was not the case?

Its total *********** insanity.


Accually, judging from history it seems to be the standard.

[AlH]

Originally posted by Malachi151

As for how bad Saddam was, WE PUT HIM INTO POWER, WE SUPPLIED HIM WITH WEAPONS, IF NOT FOR US COOPERATION THER WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I wasn't aware that the US place Saddam in power. Looking around with google on the rise of Saddam in Iraq gives-

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/216328.stm

The path to power
The Iraqi president was born in a village just outside Takrit in April 1937. In his teenage years, Saddam immersed himself in the anti-British and anti-Western atmosphere of the day. At college in Baghdad he joined the Baath party and in 1956 he took part in an abortive coup attempt.
After the overthrow of the monarchy two years later Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem. But the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country.
In 1963, with the Baath party in control in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein returned home and began jostling for a position of influence. During this period he married his cousin Sajida. They later had two sons and three daughters.
But within months, the Baath party had been overthrown and Saddam was jailed, remaining there until the party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. Showing ruthless determination that was to become a hallmark of his leadership, Saddam gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.
For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals.

Nothing here about the US placing Saddam into power.

From NPR http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/nov/021117.inskeep.html

Stuff like

INSKEEP: In 1959, at the age of 22, Saddam joined a group of Ba'ath Party members who tried to assassinate Iraq's president. Many of the plotters were arrested; Saddam fled into exile, but later returned. Author Edmund Ghareeb says that by the time the Ba'ath Party seized power in 1968, Saddam had made himself one of the most powerful men in the party.

Nothing about the US intalling Saddam into power but NPR is a right-wing, conservative outlet.

From http://www.theworld.org/iraq/part2.html

Jeb Sharp: President Bakr announced the nationalization of the Iraqi oil industry in 1972. His message was Arab Oil for the Arabs. A year later fuel prices shot up. Iraqs oil revenues quadrupled. The Baathist regime poured its new money into the military, but also into education and infrastructure. Roads were built, villages electrified, literacy campaigns launched. Iraq became a modern, urban state with a substantial middle class. But if Iraq was modernizing on the surface, behind the scenes something far more primitive was unfolding. Saddam Hussein turned out to be merciless in his quest for power. In 1979 he made his move on his old patron, Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr. Hussein forced his relative to resign and took over the presidency himself. No sooner had he done so than he purged the partys Revolutionary Command Council. Hussein announced the discovery of a plot against himself and the Baathist regime. Then he held a kind of show trial, which he videotaped. The footage shows party members gathered in a large auditorium. Saddam Hussein is on stage, smoking a cigar. The alleged plot leader confesses his crime. Then he reads out the names of his supposed co-conspirators. As their names are called out they are led from the hall to be arrested and shot. Members of the audience shout out their allegiance to Saddam Hussein&

Although it does say

The Baath Party returned to power for good in 1968. Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr became president. Saddam Hussein quickly emerged as his right hand man. And he turned out to be more than just a party thug. He was also methodical, and politically astute. He took over the state security apparatus. Then he and Bakr began to eliminate their rivals. Some were executed, some were shipped off to diplomatic posts, some were simply outmanoeuvered. Even as they consolidated their power, the Baathist leaders were intent on modernizing their country. And shaking off foreign influence.

if you want to claim And shaking off foreign influence. as hinting towards behind the scenes US/CIA manipulation of Iraqi politics 11 years prior to Saddam seizing power.

Part three goes into US dealings with Iraq http://www.theworld.org/Iraq/part3.html

With other interesting stuff like

Ken Pollack: In 1979 when the Islamic revolution sweeps Iran there is a tremendous fear that the Islamic revolution is going to catch fire throughout the Middle East.

Jeb Sharp: Former CIA analyst Ken Pollack is now at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Ken Pollack: We just didn't know what we were dealing with. We saw a very charismatic figure in the Ayatollah Khomeini leading the revolution in Iran, calling for the Islamic revolution to be spread throughout the Muslim world. And we took it very seriously.

Jeb Sharp: Americans felt unusually threatened by the revolution. That only intensified when Iranian students took diplomats and marines hostage in the US embassy in Tehran. They held them for more than a year. Next to Iran, Iraq didn't look so bad anymore. So when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, Washington didn't protest. But Iraqs president Saddam Hussein had miscalculated. He thought Iran would be weak. But in 1981 Iran recovered from the initial onslaught and went on the offensive. Iranian forces pummelled the Iraqis, according to Ken Pollack.

Ken Pollack: By 1982 the Iranians had regained all of their territory and were poised ready for a massive invasion of Iraq which the Ayatollah Khomeini was proclaiming would be intended not only to overthrow the government of Iraq but was intended to provide the springboard for a larger drive into the Middle East.

Jeb Sharp: Washington went on the alert. US officials made the decision to begin supporting Iraq in order to contain Iran and stop the fundamentalist revolution from spreading. Never mind Iraq's pariah status or the brutal tactics of its dictator. Policymakers argued Saddam Hussein was no different from other dictators the United States had worked with over the years: Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, the Shah of Iran. Even so, the decision to take sides with Iraq against Iran was a significant change in US policy.
and
Iraq at that point had become the second-largest recipient of government agricultural credits to buy American agriculture, second only to Mexico, and there was a lot of lobbying in Washington by those interests.


Could you please elaborate on just how the US put Saddam into power, do you have references to this?

Thanks.

[Malachi151]

Well, then you looked in the wrong places :)

The CIA helped the Ba'ath party to power in order to overthrow Kassem in 1963. Saddam was part of the Ba'ath party at that time, in fact a major part. After the Ba'aths were in power the CIA had the Ba'ath's execute and imprison thousands of Iraqi communists.

Now, the CIA did not intend on the Ba'aths taking shape the way that they did, but that's the story with just about every group they ever supported, because the CIA supports militant groups.

Here are some interviews you may want to read:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/

From a former CIA agent:

In 1961 and 1962, we increased our interest in the Ba'ath--not to actively support it--but politically and intellectually, we found the Ba'ath interesting. We found it particularly active in Iraq. Our analysis of the Ba'ath was that it was comparatively moderate at that time, and that the United States could easily adjust to and support its policies. So we watched the Ba'ath's long, slow preparation to take control. They planned to do it several times, and postponed it.

We were better informed on the 1963 coup in Baghdad than on any other major event or change of government that took place in the whole region in those years. But we did not identify a radical movement within the Ba'ath that would, six months later, stage a kind of counter-coup, and replace the moderate elements in the Ba'ath. That was our mistake--that surprised us.

Quite clearly after Saddam Hussein took power, America slowly developed, not a hostility, but enormous reservations about the ability of the Ba'ath to constructively bring Iraq along. But during those years, the oil companies continued to deal with Iraq, and there were a lot of American business interests.

Of course. We were all obviously impressed that the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Lebanese were greatly ahead of the rest of their world in education, in technology, and in development in general. So we thought that Saddam Hussein might be brought along in that sense--showing increased interest in working with United States, its instruments, its companies and its government, because of the infatuation for modern technology. This was Saddam Hussein being totally pragmatic. When he was interested in making a bigger and better missile or a bomb, he wasn't interested in it to increase American influence in the region. He was interested purely in increasing his own influence. So this theme of independence comes up again and again, and is still today a very prevalent characteristic of the Middle East.

So, no the CIA did not intend for Saddam to turn out the way he did, but it was with their help that he got where he got. What James does not say is that they were supporting Saddam because he was anti-Marxist.

Read the whole interview.

Now, for the matter of the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam became President in 1979 and when Reagan become President the US began supporting Saddam and encouraging him to go to war with Iran, we suported him in the war and strengthened his military capability, and brough legitmacy to his regime. He gassed the Kurds and the Reagan adminsitration blamed it on the Iranians, proving to Saddam that he could to anything and America would look the other way.

4 days before he invaded Kuwait he was told: “We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. "

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

So, without American assistance Saddam may never have come to power and even once in power without American support his military would never been built up. America is not the only country at fault, obviously many countries are. In fact the biggest issue is the weapons industry, which is one of the largest industries in the world. Thats what happens when comapnies make money from making and selling weapons.

"It is important to note that many glowing remarks were made about Saddam and Iraq during the 1980s. Political leaders and businessmen alike fell in love with Saddam and talked of his wonderful leadership and importance as an American ally.

Some of Saddam’s biggest American political supporters during the 1980s were Senators Alan Simpson and Bob Dole. During the 1980s Simpson and Dole met with Iraqi officials in efforts to secure lucrative business and farm deals.

Republican Senator Alan Simpson told Saddam in 1991 that, "I believe that your problems lie with the Western media, and not with the U.S. government. As long as you are isolated from the media, the press and it is a haughty and pampered press they all consider themselves political geniuses. That is, the journalists do. They are very cynical. What I advise is that you invite them to come and see for themselves.""

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony
I knew the president was probably lying or exaggerating, the thing is, I didn’t care. I never supported the war on the grounds of WMD. The fact that a murderous tyrant was going to be taken out of power was more important. IMO if Bush would have emphasized this aspect more he would have had broader support.Well.

If Saddam had cooperated fully on the WMDs (and I mean FULLY, showing how they were destroyed and/or where they were stored, if he had them, that is), there wouldn't have been a war there earlier this year.

Even if he was a murderous tyrant.

Correct? :confused:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Well.

If Saddam had cooperated fully on the WMDs (and I mean FULLY, showing how they were destroyed and/or where they were stored, if he had them, that is), there wouldn't have been a war there earlier this year.

Even if he was a murderous tyrant.

Correct? :confused:


How the hell do I know?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Tony



How the hell do I know? Do you mean that you ‘don’t know’ because you have realised you have faults in your arguments and can’t think of a way out or

You don’t know because you suspect that the ‘Compliance’ was a smoke screen and you suspect that Bush decided to invade whatever.

On an earlier point please name the other murderous tyrants that America are planning to taking out next.

In respect of murderous tyrants, Is there a lower limit on how many people do they have to murder ? What about countries with inhumane human rights records that persecute their citizens that don’t have a single tyrant in power ?

BTW. Who were you having a go at with your ‘Skeptics ignoring Saddam being a tyrant’ jibe. I have not seen anyone here deny Saddam’s appalling record. Was it a strawman ?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Lothian
Do you mean that you ‘don’t know’ because you have realised you have faults in your arguments and can’t think of a way out or

You don’t know because you suspect that the ‘Compliance’ was a smoke screen and you suspect that Bush decided to invade whatever.



I "dont know" because I dont know. How am I supposed to predict the outcome of a hypothetical situation?

In respect of murderous tyrants, Is there a lower limit on how many people do they have to murder ? What about countries with inhumane human rights records that persecute their citizens that don’t have a single tyrant in power ?

It's not as simple as you think. There are many factors that have to be considered before engaging in war.

BTW. Who were you having a go at with your ‘Skeptics ignoring Saddam being a tyrant’ jibe. I have not seen anyone here deny Saddam’s appalling record. Was it a strawman ?

They havent denied it but they have marginalized that fact and instead have focused on Bush's alleged lies about WMD.

[reprise]

They havent denied it but they have marginalized that fact and instead have focused on Bush's alleged lies about WMD.

We're focusing on Bush's lies about WMD because that issue is in dispute. That Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant is not in dispute and never has been. No-one is seeking to marginalise the issue of his tyranny, but the "coalition of the willing" was formed to disarm Iraq by force, not for the humanitarian purpose of liberating the Iraqi people from their oppressor.

Bush, Blair, and Howard all presented the military intervention in Iraq as part of the "war on terror" and used intelligence reports on Iraq's WMD to justify the need for that action.

[Tony]

Originally posted by reprise


We're focusing on Bush's lies about WMD because that issue is in dispute. That Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant is not in dispute and never has been. No-one is seeking to marginalise the issue of his tyranny, but the "coalition of the willing" was formed to disarm Iraq by force, not for the humanitarian purpose of liberating the Iraqi people from their oppressor.

Bush, Blair, and Howard all presented the military intervention in Iraq as part of the "war on terror" and used intelligence reports on Iraq's WMD to justify the need for that action.

Fair enough.

Now would anyone else want to comment on the article?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
I’ve noticed how the so-called "skeptics" that frequently comment on the absence of WMD are silent on the issue of saddam the tyrant. I guess if I was looking to masturbate my ego and show that I was right, I would to ignore this too.

i don't think anyone has done that. We are all just wondering, why, out of all the tyrants in the world, this one.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


i don't think anyone has done that. We are all just wondering, why, out of all the tyrants in the world, this one.

This has been re-hashed over and over and over. If you STILL do not understand you never will.

edit: did I mention this has be re-hashed over and over and over and over?

[Lothian]

I “dont know" because I dont know. How am I supposed to predict the outcome of a hypothetical situation?

Think back to when you were young and argued with your dad about who would win in a match between your favourite sports team and his when he was young.



It's not as simple as you think. There are many factors that have to be considered before engaging in war.

I don’t think it simple but I don’t go round calling people murderous tyrants.

Engaging in war is easier though. You go to the United Nations. Get support through a vote confirming you should start military action. (Well it used to work that way. I just want to know how it works now)



They havent denied it but they have marginalized that fact and instead have focused on Bush's alleged lies about WMD
So it was a strawman.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Tony


This has been re-hashed over and over and over. If you STILL do not understand you never will.

edit: did I mention this has be re-hashed over and over and over and over? I recall oil being mentioned . If that is not what you are referring to can you point out where it was hashed and rehashed 'why Saddam was picked and not anyone else', or if there are others who and how do America decide. Sorry if I am repeating myself but I really would like to know

[Tony]

Originally posted by Lothian



I don’t think it simple but I don’t go round calling people murderous tyrants.



Neither do I.

Engaging in war is easier though. You go to the United Nations. Get support through a vote confirming you should start military action. (Well it used to work that way. I just want to know how it works now)

Accually, it has NEVER worked that way. Only 2 in history have had UN approval.

So it was a strawman.

No, you are engaging in a strawman.

BTW. Who were you having a go at with your ‘Skeptics ignoring Saddam being a tyrant’ jibe. I have not seen anyone here deny Saddam’s appalling record. Was it a strawman ?

I never said anyone has denied that saddam was a tyrant.(read my original statement)

I’ve noticed how the so-called "skeptics" that frequently comment on the absence of WMD are silent on the issue of saddam the tyrant. I guess if I was looking to masturbate my ego and show that I was right, I would to ignore this too.

I said they were ignoring that and instead they were focusing on the absence of WMD.

[reprise]

I'm inclined to wait for the outcome of the US Senate inquiry (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/02/uweap.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/06/02/ixportaltop.html) before apportioning blame here.

To be honest, while many Aussies feel betrayed by our PM's decision to ignore the evaluations of our own intelligence agencies in order to stick his head further up GWD's bum, it's not the fact that Dubbya may have lied to the American people which perplexes us, it's that the American people don't seem to care if he did.

AUP, I think it's less a question of "why this tyrant" than "why this tyrant at this time", and I think that the simple answer to that question is probably that the political conditions in the US are such that military actions which can be linked to "the war on terror" will find widespread support in among the US population - something which was not true a few years ago and might not be true a few years hence. The political reality is that no US President wants to commit substantial troops to military action without the support of Congress and the American public and the conditions were favourable for Bush to gain both.

If we want to start the "why not this tyrant" game, then we should probably examine Australia's (and the US's) history in terms of Indonesia before we start throwing stones too hard.

It doesn't matter how much I might think that military action in Iraq was the wrong action at the wrong time from a world geopolitical perspective, I can see why it was exactly the right action at the right time from a US perspective (which is the only perspective one can reasonably ask the US government and its citizens to consider when judging the outcome)>

[Tony]

Originally posted by Lothian
I recall oil being mentioned . If that is not what you are referring to can you point out where it was hashed and rehashed 'why Saddam was picked and not anyone else', or if there are others who and how do America decide. Sorry if I am repeating myself but I really would like to know

Yes, oil and economics are a factor. So is the ease of which the war can be won. Saddam had set a precedent for using WMD and invading his nieghbors. He was on the US hit list since '91.

I would like to kill every tyrant in the world, and the idealist in me says we should. But the realist in me says that practicallity comes first.