It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Regarding His Excellency Saddam Hussein and His Open Letters to the American People

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:10 PM
The Truth is Immortal In Its Own Right

The truth is that Saddam Hussein said everything in his letters to the American people which I have shown you so far (as I have since effectively proven).
The truth is that in a functional democracy you are supposed to show both sides of an argument to your people. This is especially true on issues like whether war is a good idea or not.
In light of what I have had to show you do you think that your government-media system is even approaching this standard of showing both sides on argument? Why is it that I have had to type by hand something as important as these letters? Why have they never (even once) been common public knowledge?
When Saddam spoke directly to the Western people (as the leader-dictator of the Iraq) was he not relevant enough to have been widely and properly reported?
Because if this is so I would like to know in who’s minds this is the case. Is it really the public who sit waiting patiently for the next news bulletin? Or is it still predominantly the minds of the media controllers and barons?

From what I can tell some peoples factual understanding of Iraq seems to be extremely poor. All I can do is point you in a direction towards information I believe will help. And if you can really do the same for me then appreciation await you. The site below is one of many where the same information explaining the same facts can be found. Unfortunately many Americans in particular do not know even the history behind the recent events they are fighting in, and what they have known they have often forgotten. 24/7 news bombards you with information; but unless the important bits are reported often they are more often than not lost in the minds of its viewers. Perhaps because of this they repeat the same headlines umpteen times a day. But it’s amazing that there can be up to 50 wars in this world, yet even though our biggest national export is weapons (and has been for decades) we barely-don’t get to know enough about the war we’re fighting in.

I found the site below on: Google search “Iraqi-living-standards prior-to” (was the 2nd result). It is not my own work in any shape or form.


“Reversal of Fortune
Before the Gulf War, Iraqi living standards were fast approaching that of southern Europe, featuring free education, ample electricity, modern farming, a large middle class and, according to the World Health Organization, access to health care for 93 percent of the population. A once proud and prospering nation fell apart as 525,000 Iraqis died in wars since 1980, including 375,000 in an 8-year Iraq-Iran conflict in which the U.S. sold arms and munitions to both sides.

In 1983, Rumsfeld, then chairman of G.D. Searle, a worldwide pharmaceutical firm, presented Saddam Hussein with a pair of golden cowboy spurs as a token of appreciation from Ronald Reagan. After the U.S. State Department issued an alert in 1984 claiming Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad. Though he arrived the same day (March 5, 1984) that UN scientists confirmed their use against Iran, he lodged neither a formal nor an informal complaint. Nor did the Brits, the Israelis or any nation now supporting war in Iraq. According to an article published years later in Covert Action Quarterly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided crucial components for those weapons. Receipts can be found on the Internet from U.S. businesses that sold Iraq other key components, financed with generous loans backed by the U.S. Continued

As I was saying…
24/7 news might give information to you on a plate but it references are so few, that on the few occasions they actually given they can only serve a biased point.
Through biases like these the mainstream media serves not to reinforce our understanding of the past, but instead to “ridicule” it in sence that we are confident in what they want us to believe and educated within only the restraints of what they want us to believe.
Why else do so many people have an allergic reaction to the truth? They seem to come in two forms:
1. Denial is this real? Oh it is? Then it’s a scrap of information because my glass TV screen has told me differently every time I turn it.
2. But the worst is arrogance: Yeah it’s true all right, but I’m going to criticise it by repeating what I’ve learnt through the mainstream media. I’m not going to make an effort to use Google for the wealth of knowledge it is by my confidence in the mainstream media so high.
I know it’s owned by very people, I know that they legally do deals with politicians. But because they cannot legally make up the truth (only ignore it and bend it) I will probably watch the mainstream media more often to find out what’s really going on.

This is exactly the response Saddam’s letters have provoked on this site.

On the people’s faith in media I would ask that before you judge Saddam to look into Saddam’s history as a person. Pay no attention to mass media websites and of course no online information is safe from fantasy, but use the internet anyway.
Because Fox news might be right wing, and CNN might be left wing. But their differences are what: A matter of style? Or an angle (or degree) of truth-bending? Research the truth and you will learn they are different versions of the same mind. And why shouldn’t they be when the political pressures on our media (and problems with it in general) rise from the same legal and economic foundations which give rise to the same options to media owners across the media spectrum. They exist in the same country we do. Therefore no problem with Fox news, CNN or any other channel is an island unto itself, but virtually every other station because no other station is spared from the option.

I like Saddam because he was capitalist, secular and a very intelligent leader. I like him because although he killed many people he brought stability to Iraq. It’s for this that in spite of being aware of the killings many Iraqis still like him.
Some people are saying we should be far more brutal towards the insurgents (449 bombs in last year last time I checked). Some even say that we need a strong government inv Iraq. With reference to Iraq’s fundamentalist Shia Muslims and Iraq’s secular Sunni minority who’s this leader going to be?
The fundamentalists would vote for a fundamentalist, the Sunnis are (in numbers) a minority so they can’t stop this in a democracy. But would we be better of with a fundamentalist or secular dictator? Even a fundamentalist government (as opposed to dictator) would be bad news. If not through not giving legitimacy to Western foreign policies worst buddy, then by allowing it to exist and teach Muslims to hate-dislike us as a Muslim fundamentalist government is almost bounded by definition and doctrine to do. Iran has a fundamentalist government and can we work things out with that one?

Some people assumed that because of my views I did not like U.S troops. On the contrary I recognise them to be the cream of their society because that’s what selection for the military is all about. I know someone in Iraq and have had friends in the British military, so I doubt they are any different to Americans.
Far from disliking American soldiers shouldn’t every anti Iraq war person like myself feel sorry for them. After all they are the ones who live in a military that uses Depleted Uranium armour piercing rounds which sadly is very at the expense of the man on the grounds health. They are the ones who’ve had to deal with other 449 exploded bombs by the Resistance in the last year.
They are the ones who are doing the good and bad deeds of George Bush (and when on duty whether like it or not). Regarding Iraq the only people I feel more sorry for are the Iraqis. Are you the same?

[Trimmed quote]

[edit on 12/7/05 by JAK]

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:29 PM
So...many Iraqis still like Saddam because he was a Sunni and the majority are Shiites, correct? The majority doesn't like Saddam, they'd rather see him gone.

Thanks, but no thanks. Good try though. Saddam was a murderer, thief, and power-hungry dictator. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, if you like him so much, why not go fight for his "insurgency" that we all know is from Iraq and are not foreign fighters!


posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:36 PM
Why are you still all over Saddams junk with publishing his garbage? No body wants to read what that asshole has to say.

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:51 PM
The majority of Iraqis do not like Saddam. The majority about (60%) are Shia. The Shia are fundermentalist, and Saddam was secular. Saddam like most Western people too did not like Muslim Fundermentalist. Thats why he let Christians live in Iraq.
However it was CNN that told me some months ago that over 60 percent of Sunnis still like Saddam. The Sunnis make up less than 25% of Iraqs population but are Secular Muslims and received much support during Saddams time. Partly because Saddam was one of them.
One group who hate Saddam all round are the Kurds. Even if Saddam did'nt gas them he certainly killed very many of them. But this was because at least some of their tribal leaders where recieving bribes from Fundermentalist Iran to steer up trouble in Iraq. This was the primary reason for the Iran Iraq war which caused Saddam to invade Iran. It is also one of the reasons why we supported Saddam with his Iran war, but mostly because of the revolution and hostage situation shortly before.

As to the member who asks why i'm publishing Saddams letters. Simply because i believe in both sides of an argument being expressed. You are garbage when you say "nobody wants to hear Saddams garbage" because look at the viewing i've had not to mention responses both good and bad.

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:00 PM
There's just no gratitude these days. You build the guy up and arm him , then when the novelty and usefulness wear off you beat him down.

Fundamentally, he really wasn't too different from most other leaders in stomping out those who opposed or threatened his power base. Ok, his methods were a bit blatant and brutal but he still had our leaders support while carrying out the crimes he is now being tried for.

Such is the world of politics and spin

new topics

top topics

log in