A dictator created then destroyed by America

[TranceNRG]

Robert Fisk: A dictator created then destroyed by America
Published: 30 December 2006

Saddam to the gallows. It was an easy equation. Who could be more deserving of that last walk to the scaffold - that crack of the neck at the end of a rope - than the Beast of Baghdad, the Hitler of the Tigris, the man who murdered untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis while spraying chemical weapons over his enemies? Our masters will tell us in a few hours that it is a "great day" for Iraqis and will hope that the Muslim world will forget that his death sentence was signed - by the Iraqi "government", but on behalf of the Americans - on the very eve of the Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, the moment of greatest forgiveness in the Arab world.

But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men?

No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don't gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn't invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead - and thousands of Western troops are dead - because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality.

In the aftermath of the international crimes against humanity of 2001 we have tortured, we have murdered, we have brutalised and killed the innocent - we have even added our shame at Abu Ghraib to Saddam's shame at Abu Ghraib - and yet we are supposed to forget these terrible crimes as we applaud the swinging corpse of the dictator we created.

Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.

And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted uranium shells and our "bunker buster" bombs and our phosphorous, the murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of our "victory" - our "mission accomplished" - who will be found guilty of this? Such expiation as we might expect will come, no doubt, in the self-serving memoirs of Blair and Bush, written in comfortable and wealthy retirement.

Hours before Saddam's death sentence, his family - his first wife, Sajida, and Saddam's daughter and their other relatives - had given up hope.

"Whatever could be done has been done - we can only wait for time to take its course," one of them said last night. But Saddam knew, and had already announced his own "martyrdom": he was still the president of Iraq and he would die for Iraq. All condemned men face a decision: to die with a last, grovelling plea for mercy or to die with whatever dignity they can wrap around themselves in their last hours on earth. His last trial appearance - that wan smile that spread over the mass-murderer's face - showed us which path Saddam intended to walk to the noose.

I have catalogued his monstrous crimes over the years. I have talked to the Kurdish survivors of Halabja and the Shia who rose up against the dictator at our request in 1991 and who were betrayed by us - and whose comrades, in their tens of thousands, along with their wives, were hanged like thrushes by Saddam's executioners.

I have walked round the execution chamber of Abu Ghraib - only months, it later transpired, after we had been using the same prison for a few tortures and killings of our own - and I have watched Iraqis pull thousands of their dead relatives from the mass graves of Hilla. One of them has a newly-inserted artificial hip and a medical identification number on his arm. He had been taken directly from hospital to his place of execution. Like Donald Rumsfeld, I have even shaken the dictator's soft, damp hand. Yet the old war criminal finished his days in power writing romantic novels.

It was my colleague, Tom Friedman - now a messianic columnist for The New York Times - who perfectly caught Saddam's character just before the 2003 invasion: Saddam was, he wrote, "part Don Corleone, part Donald Duck". And, in this unique definition, Friedman caught the horror of all dictators; their sadistic attraction and the grotesque, unbelievable nature of their barbarity.

But that is not how the Arab world will see him. At first, those who suffered from Saddam's cruelty will welcome his execution. Hundreds wanted to pull the hangman's lever. So will many other Kurds and Shia outside Iraq welcome his end. But they - and millions of other Muslims - will remember how he was informed of his death sentence at the dawn of the Eid al-Adha feast, which recalls the would-be sacrifice by Abraham, of his son, a commemoration which even the ghastly Saddam cynically used to celebrate by releasing prisoners from his jails. "Handed over to the Iraqi authorities," he may have been before his death. But his execution will go down - correctly - as an American affair and time will add its false but lasting gloss to all this - that the West destroyed an Arab leader who no longer obeyed his orders from Washington, that, for all his wrongdoing (and this will be the terrible get-out for Arab historians, this shaving away of his crimes) Saddam died a "martyr" to the will of the new "Crusaders".

When he was captured in November of 2003, the insurgency against American troops increased in ferocity. After his death, it will redouble in intensity again. Freed from the remotest possibility of Saddam's return by his execution, the West's enemies in Iraq have no reason to fear the return of his Baathist regime. Osama bin Laden will certainly rejoice, along with Bush and Blair. And there's a thought. So many crimes avenged.

But we will have got away with it.

source

[majortrepak]

Didn't read it and don't need to, we didn't put saddam in power he took power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...#Rise_to_power

[DanielBell]

You obviously didn't read the very first sentance. The CIA helped numerous parties because the CIA hates commies. Ba'ath party got power, with saddam as thier leader. CIA assisted this.

[Seraphil]

Originally Posted by DanielBell

You obviously didn't read the very first sentance. The CIA helped numerous parties because the CIA hates commies. Ba'ath party got power, with saddam as thier leader. CIA assisted this.

does that make it right?

[DanielBell]

Originally Posted by Seraphil

does that make it right?

Does that make what right?

[.Sunny]

Fisk is a powerful writer!

[mjfan12]

Bringing him to justice is all well and good, but Im super pissed they did it on a huge religious holiday. This was definately done on purpse. why didnt they do this a week ago?

The world want going to end if they waited another couple of days or something.

[Chowboy]

Ever heard of a "Fiskie?" Look it up.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by mjfan12

Bringing him to justice is all well and good, but Im super pissed they did it on a huge religious holiday. This was definately done on purpse. why didnt they do this a week ago?

The world want going to end if they waited another couple of days or something.

more joy for the believers?
This eid, muslims get the cake AND the cherry on top

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by DanielBell

You obviously didn't read the very first sentance. The CIA helped numerous parties because the CIA hates commies. Ba'ath party got power, with saddam as thier leader. CIA assisted this.

Saddam was not the ba'ath party leader when th ba'ath party took power.

Stop making **** up

[majortrepak]

Sorry for the long post but I have to break it down barney style for tools who don't know ****.

Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam Arif (So saddam wasn't the leader or the prez of the ba'ath party when they took power) became president. Arif dismissed and arrested the Ba'athist leaders later that year. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964. Just prior to his imprisonment and until 1968, Saddam held the position of Ba'ath Party secretary. [10] He escaped prison in 1967 and quickly became a leading member of the party. In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by both Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr and Briyan Al-Reddyb that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. Saddam soon became the regime's most powerful player. According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Ba'athist government, which informed his measures to promote Ba'ath party unity as well as his ruthless resolve to maintain power and programs to ensure social stability.

Foot notes
The ba'ath party first took control of iraq in 1963 and again in 1968 BOTH times Saddam wasn't the leader and wouldn't be a decade unitl he took power by force

Saddam became the leader of the ba'ath party and Iraq July 16, 1979

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27at...d_Iraq.2C_1963

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...#Rise_to_power

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by majortrepak

Sorry for the long post but I have to break it down barney style for tools who don't know ****.

Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam Arif (So saddam wasn't the leader or the prez of the ba'ath party when they took power) became president. Arif dismissed and arrested the Ba'athist leaders later that year. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964. Just prior to his imprisonment and until 1968, Saddam held the position of Ba'ath Party secretary. [10] He escaped prison in 1967 and quickly became a leading member of the party. In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by both Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr and Briyan Al-Reddyb that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. Saddam soon became the regime's most powerful player. According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Ba'athist government, which informed his measures to promote Ba'ath party unity as well as his ruthless resolve to maintain power and programs to ensure social stability.

Foot notes
The ba'ath party first took control of iraq in 1963 and again in 1968 BOTH times Saddam wasn't the leader and wouldn't be a decade unitl he took power by force

Saddam became the leader of the ba'ath party and Iraq July 16, 1979

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27at...d_Iraq.2C_1963

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...#Rise_to_power

There's information that the CIA actually aided Hussein back in the late 50s, its kind of sketchy, but interesting nevertheless. However, as far as the chemical weapons go, its not the US that sold the chemical weapons to Iraq, it was Western pharmaceutical companies that provided the active ingredients. The US, for its part, put up little protest, as they valued having something to curb Iranian power more than stopping Iraq from having chemical weapons at that time. In 1984, Iran even put out an international protest against Iraqi chemical weapons use, and the US basically looked the other way.

The US didn't provide Hussein the weapons, but they didn't protest when others, including French, American and Germany companies did.

[majortrepak]

Originally Posted by ElMariachi

There's information that the CIA actually aided Hussein back in the late 50s, its kind of sketchy, but interesting nevertheless.

Yes we did help the ba'ath party but in any case we didn't put him in power or put the ba'ath party in power with him as the head.

[etech]

Originally Posted by DanielBell

You obviously didn't read the very first sentance. The CIA helped numerous parties because the CIA hates commies. Ba'ath party got power, with saddam as thier leader. CIA assisted this.

Saddam was not the leader of the Ba'ath party at that time.

[etech]

Originally Posted by .Sunny

Fisk is a powerful writer!

He also ignores the fact that part of the Allies in WWII was Joseph Stalin to which the US sent aid and weapons.

Is he also condemning that aid?

If not, then it's hypocritical to condemn aid to Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war in which Iran was seen as the greater threat.

[Drzman]

watch Syriana, your holy CIA is involved in all the bull****, assasinations, power struggle in the Middle East. Everyone is but a puppet. They bring you to power and when you become disposable, they take you down.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by Drzman

watch Syriana, your holy CIA is involved in all the bull****, assasinations, power struggle in the Middle East. Everyone is but a puppet. They bring you to power and when you become disposable, they take you down.

LOL, YES, A FICTIONAL Hollywood liberal fantasy will shed light on everything...YES!!!!!