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.


Another Letter from Saddam Hussein to the American People

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:01 PM
Obviously we should always respect two sides of an argument in the name of the evolution of wisdom, knowledge and ideas; but with pro war people there’s often a bit more to it

Originally posted by magicmushroom
you call Saddam evil but you support the killing in Iraq and Afganistan, if you want to see evil go look in the mirror.

That’s really harsh; people support the killing in Iraq because they believe it is possible to create a pro-western liberal democracy that will serve our interests as well as those of the Iraqi people. Yes there’s killing (they acknowledge) but they think that killing would be there anyway; and if only we would help the Iraqi government out through these difficult years, bring the insurgency under control just for once, then everything will work out fine in the longer term.
Then can leave Iraq; the Iraqi people will forget about the U.N sanctions, this war, the Israel Palestine conflict and centuries of religious fundamentalism. They’ll almost forget Iran exists and in fact they will be so pro us they’ll build a wall round Iranian borders; refusing to have anything to do with no matter how much Iran offers to support one side over the other. In fact as long as Iran remains anti western entity Iraqis will see Iran as a backward place perhaps longing for the same kind of regime change they have experienced.
Iraqis will start building hospitals and schools the moment they accept the only way they can elect our enemies is through democracy; and as they’ll realise this is a terrible thing so in reality the only people they’ll elect are our friends.
At the same time things like corruption and sectarian differences will of course mysteriously begin to evaporate. With security and democracy Iraq will focus on their lives, women will be allowed to work and boys be taught education as opposed to just religious education. They’ll do all this under a democracy without a dictator telling them what to do.
People are people and people are the same therefore inside every Iraqi there is an American just trying to get out.

What I Think

So magicmushroom (bar not knowing, understanding or believing a few things) pro-war people, believing "Iraqi democracy is a wonderful" does not make them bad people at all (especially when you look at their aspirations and beliefs for Iraq).
I suppose few believe everything as I described them; but most believe in most of it. Therefore inside almost every pro-war person there really is a supporter of Saddam just trying to get their understanding sorted out.

We should be confident in our belief that in the end only another regime change be it by coup or military action will sort Iraq out. That if this serves our, Israel’s or the regions interests it will only be because secular dictator like Saddam has taken power.
Meanwhile I’ll watch Iraq, hope for the best, and come up with suggestions I hope can serve this cause. But at the same time I wonder to what degree (the reality on the ground means) I’ve already been vindicated by my belief in a Secular (principally pro western, Iraqi dictatorship.
Wherever people want a religiously fundamentalists, anti western, anti freedom government I say pro western dictatorship because it’s better than worse. Currently worse is the only thing the sectarian violence is on course to delivering them and all of us; but people like Saddam have shown themselves to be capable of sorting it out because they don’t need democratic support.
Most all because a single power in charge of who exactly is in government is by far the most superior of rooting out people like the religious-sectarian fanatic out. (Differences in opinion opens the door to political corruption of this process; i.e. a sort of civil war against your own legitimate opposition by using your own countries own secret police).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
However, I am not a neocon.

I can't be a neocon if I'm against the death penalty for most cases.
I cant' be a neocon if I think the war in Iraq has been badly mishandled.
I can't be a neocon if I'm against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I can't be a neocon if I'm not a fundi.
I can't be a neocon if I'm FOR Independent Lieberman and DEM Harold Ford Jr.
I can't be a neocon if I'm for Guiliani and not Rick Santorum.
etc etc etc

Nothing you listed proves you are not a Neocon. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that to the neocon agenda the things you listed are irrelevant. They don't care about social issues, they don't care about platform, and they know it's not going too well over there. Bush admitted that today.

You are a neocon. The platform is superficial.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
- Bush was freely elected into office. YES he was and don't bother pulling anything about SCOTUS putting him in. He was elected.

The head of Diebold (voting machines company) told Republicans in a 2004 fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Committed? To the president? Republican fund raising? Yes, he is entitled to his political stance but in his personal life not work. This is an outrage and demands an inquiry.

There has been many other revelations since pertinent to electoral fraud.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Saddam was a dictator for decades and there were no free elections.

Do you know Saddam was a poor law student, when he with other civilians led a revolution against the incubment military government?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bush didn't use WMD on Americans and he didn't kill thousands with it. Saddam used WMD (gas) on the Kurds and murdered thousands.

Bush has killed thousands with his policies blocking stemcell research and promoting the death penalty. Iraq was socially and medically progressive. Its health care system was european standard, and freely avaible to 95%+ of the population. No discrimination was in effect. Rather unlike Bush's America...

Recently, a top CIA official has come out and stated that Saddam did not gas the Kurds, and in fact it was an Iranian job. When Saddam spoke in trial that he had only heard of the crime in a newspaper, he was verifyably right. Are you going to argue with your own Central Intelligence Agency? I assure you, they know alot more than you do about Iraq. Everything you hear is filtered. Or are you going to tell me your government does not classify anything?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bush didn't mass murder Americans by the hundreds of thousands just because they disagreed with his policies. Saddam did.

Does it not count, then, if Bush mass murders non-US nationals by the hundreds of thousands just because they disagreed with his policies? Bush did.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bush didn't starve to death Americans, or cause them to die from lack of medical care, while he stole their money and built palaces with it. Saddam did - Oil for Food scandle. Saddam stole billions. Google it up.

Economic policy is the US has many people living in total poverty. All while Congress approves a pay raise for Senators and refuses a minimum pay raise for citizens. Bush lives very richly - and so does alot of his friends who directly profit from the war. Saddam took a minute portion of Iraq's wealthy GDP pre the sanctions and embargos to build palaces and develop his image that was vital to the country. His people and infrastructure was getting a much higher investment than any other country in the Middle East. Iraq was a decent place to live - and don't quote me any twisted propaganda about the law there. Saddam abolished Sharia (Islamic law). When the sanctions took everything away from the country, Saddam CEASED to complete or build and palaces, and he hasn't since.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Saddam went to war with Iran and Kuwait in an agression to take over the middle east. He killed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS and cause millions more to be maimed. Bush did not do that. And anything that he has done in Iraq was defensive. You don't believe that ... but that's the way it is.

Saddam wanted to take over the Middle East? You honestly beleive that? Does it make you feel better?

Iraq's war was purely defensive - and incited by the United States. This is verifyably true. Iran is and always was a Muslim Shiite fundamentalist country, Iraq on the other hand was secular and supported Sunni's into positions of power. If anything, I can imagine that the Middle East wanted to crush this black sheep and its western values.

The death toll is not millions. The death toll however in Gulf War II is (Nov 06) 3722 US : 392,979 - 942,636 IRQ. * A proportion like that is good enough to be called genocide. The US economy thrives off blood money - read about war economy and perhaps you will see how differently the US economy operates than say, Canada's.

I also fail to see (as do the majority of people) how Gulf War II was defensive. Perhaps you can prove that to us? I do not want to hear about Al Quaeda - Iraq links (which in the context is preposterous, they were mortal enemies). Furthermore, I do not want to hear about important aluminium tubes for nuclear weapon manufacture (again, another notion that has proven to be preposterous and forged).

Official Casus belli - "Saddam Hussein was alleged to be: harboring weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorists and in violation of UN resolutions." ALL HAVE BEEN PROVED FALSE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Saddam had government run mass rape rooms.

I also heard Bush is a reptilian. I suppose I should add that to my list?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
To compare the two is silly. They aren't even close.

Finally, we can agree.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
anti-American euros and socialists.

To call Europeans anti-american because they are much more mature countries, and support peace - is utterly rediculous and shows the level on which you're thinking here.


posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:59 PM
Liberal, the Germans who stuffed men, women and children into gas chambers thought it was the right thing as well, they thought they were doing good for Germany and you know what some of them are still alive and still think what they did was right in what they did.

Has anyone bothered to ask if the Iraqi people want democracy Bush style, no this is about the parasite that controls us and those who support its actions. The people who think war is good are no different than the Nazis were, this is about exploitation of people and the asset stripping of a countries natural wealth. Dont kid yourself into thinking its otherwise I know its what us Brits did for centuries, let us rob you, let us destroy your beliefs and religion, those who dont agree end up dead simple as that.

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Mdv2
Instead he is responsible for leading and starting an illegal war, which has caused the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi citizens.

1 - There is no such thing as an 'illegal war'. War is war. And the USA does NOT need any foreign approval to go to war.

2 - Your civilian death figure is completely wrong. Seriously bloated.

Originally posted by SteveR
You are a neocon.

You are dead wrong but believe what ever makes you happy.

Bush has killed thousands with his policies blocking stemcell research

WRONG. Stem Cell research is carried on in private sectors even though the US government did not FURTHER EXTEND what it has already funded on FETAL stem cell research. Stem Cell research is carried on all around the world and the US government not expanding funding in the US has not effected the research much at all.

Your wild assertion that this has 'killed thousands' is complete BS.

Oh .. and there are just as many scientists who think fetal stem cell research is JUNK SCIENCE as there are scientists who are interested. But that's for another thread.

... and promoting the death penalty.

He believes in the death penalty. So what. He doesn't go around 'promoting it'. And each state has a 'states right' to decide if they are going to use it or not. The presidents have not interfered in that state right - not Bush 43, not Clinton, not Bush 41, not Reagan, not Carter ....

I assure you, they know alot more than you do about Iraq.

Oh please .. save your 'assurances'. You are defending the butcher Saddam. You obviously don't know anything about him. If you did you wouldn't be defending him.

is utterly rediculous and shows the level on which you're thinking here.

Right back at you.

And there we have it. You are so far left you can't see straight ... defending the Butcher of Baghdad ... as far as I'm concerned that makes ya' a troll... and I don't feed trolls.

Bu-bye. I'm off the thread.

[edit on 11/9/2006 by FlyersFan]

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan

1 - There is no such thing as an 'illegal war'. War is war. And the USA does NOT need any foreign approval to go to war.

Based on lies. According to the majority of Westerners the war would have been justifiable if Saddam did possess Weapons of Mass Destruction, then he might had been an actual threat. No evidence was found. Too bad, reality differs.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
2 - Your civilian death figure is completely wrong. Seriously bloated.

Are you a neocon or just ignorant?

The new mortality survey of Iraq that estimates 600,000 deaths by violence is startling and should alter the way America thinks about this war.

The John Hopkins University researchers were meticulous about the methods used to randomly choose the survey sites and analyze the data. It is state-of-the-art work, and its accuracy is not an issue. The survey is the only scientific account of the war dead. There is no other, and those who publicly dismiss the findings must offer an alternative. There is none. Every other account is deeply flawed in method, and this one is not. It is standard in epidemiology and disaster response.


Originally posted by FlyersFan

Bu-bye. I'm off the thread.

Easiest way out if you cannot properly defend your standpoint, since they are based on loose assertions

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 04:39 PM
Since most of the killing is Muslim killing Muslim, it would be hard for you to make your case. I'm fairly sure all those bodies did not jump into those big holes together and bury themselves. I don't think the women and children were a threat to Sadam, the Great Coward who hides behind his thugs while he orders the deaths of the innocent. Sadam, the Great Coward who hides in holes in the ground and surrenders without a fight like a pig. Forget what America has done and look in the mirror. I spent a day at the home of one of the Kuwait survivors. He held a possition equal to that of a Mayor and now teaches in an American University. Most of his family was tortured and killed. His wife was gang raped and left for dead. Everything he had worked for his whole life was stolen or destroyed. The person who ordered this done to this kind decent man and his family is who you are defending. You clearly approve of what Sadam did. You therefore hold equal guilt. Prove your loyalty and stand beside him on the gallows with a identicle noose around your neck. You deserve it. Where are you? If your in the United States I want to know about it. Better yet I think HS should have a look at this. I'll give them a call just in case. Have a nice day.

(Mod edit: Insults, abusive behavior and threats of any kind are not welcome on ATS. I have changed the status of your account to reflect this fact. --Majic)

[edit on 11/10/2006 by Majic]

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by shots

I never said it was a reprint. What I said is it was suspect.

What you said was

You are misleading people by posting something you/the website claim was dated in July of this year when it was in fact written in 2001. That alone makes its contents suspect.

You didn't use the word "reprint". But you might as well have. You said it was written in 2001. Can you back this up?

Can you offer any evidence that the letter was not written by Saddam?

And for the record: he was a tyrant, he was ruthless, yes: but as Liberal1984 says, he was secular. Before 1991, Iraq had the best levels of literacy and the lowest infant mortality rates of the region. In fact, infant mortality rates - one of the key indicators of public health - were better than some US inner cities. Women could dress in a Western fashion and hold jobs, and Sharia was limited to personal injury cases.

What has happened to Iraq since his removal is a tragedy and the US has done nothing to stop the rise of fundamentalism. Nor could they, if they are even to pay lip service to democracy (which is as much as they wanted to do).

Before the war began I was pessimistic about its outcome for Iraq but I have to say that the reality has outstripped my most gloomy prognosis.

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:30 PM
Saddam, oh exhalted Saddam.

A political career, which started with the failed assasination attempt of
Abdel Karim Kassem. He was one of the gunman that failed.

Stayed in power by killing anyone who crossed him..along with their wives, children, cousins..if you shared blood with an enemy of Saddam, your blood was spilled.

Even before Gulf war one, he killed, or ordered killed..nearly 1 million people.
30 percent Iranian, 70 precent Iraqis...
Not all were instantly killed..Some, many, were tortured, death in hideous manners.
And no, none were killed by placing underwear on their heads.

Some, he killed personally. A gun to the head..these were people opposed to him.
Remember the old newsreel of him, handpicking "traitors"? Whatever happend to THOSE guys?

And the Kuwaitis, a thousand or so? I'm not sure of those numbers, I belive it might be higher..

But now..Saddam, in Jail...Mr. Secular progressive..has found Allah...
Finding God, waving a Holy book now..Happens to a lot of DEATH ROW inmates.
I wonder WHY?
He's feeling guilty..because he IS.

Good for him..he's going to need some help after his hanging.

Space out!

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:38 PM
Originally posted by InDirectViolation

You clearly approve of what Sadam did. You therefore hold equal guilt. Prove your loyalty and stand beside him on the gallows with a identicle noose around your neck. You deserve it. Where are you? If your in the United States I want to know about it.

1. I don’t deserve-need to die for supporting Saddam (especially when my support is nothing but an individualistic opinion campaigning for change through its own merits).
Even at the worst of times having an incorrect opinion is not a capital offence, and neither should it be in any civilised society. You remind me of the most extreme “backward” Muslim fundamentalist who say death is justified against all those who offend what they know-believe to be right.

2. I don’t support the gang raping of the person you met. Neither did Saddam. Saddam may have caused it to happen but every global leader causes crimes to happen.
Olmert causes the killing of innocent civilians in Lebanon and Palestine, George Bush many fold more in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to your logic: “if George Bush goes to hell for invading Iraq then so too should every American who supported him”. At this rate the whole of mankind would surely go to hell?

3. Even if Saddam did support the raping of the person you met (then though I don’t support that) (for starters it a crime that serves no purpose to know one) then I support him on other aspects. Things like the 92% literacy, the 93% free healthcare access before U.N sanctions. Or how about (even under U.N sanctions) the security situation was such that you could walk to one end of Baghdad late at night without being shot, that and approximately 650,000 people were still alive (under a stable government).

I put saving the lives of those in the present and future before respecting the gravestones of the crimes of the past. Therefore what worries me is not what Saddam did in the past but “what’s its relevance to the future?”
The question that also confronts you and me as members of present is whether Iraqis would be better of with Saddam now without the invasion?
Because if it’s killing, torture and rapes that arouses your emotions then I ask you why there are more of these now in Iraq than in 2003? Is it because they’ve been liberated? If so was this liberation a good thing? How can it be good when even Shiites admit their lives were better of under Saddam?

Their and the regions security has deteriorated under a government that (amongst other failures) is now on course to seeing our enemies democratically elected. All of this could have been predicted because of large numbers of religious fundamentalists in the Iraqi population; people who seemingly like you, do not peacefully accept other people differences in opinions.

If so would Iraq be better of in the future, ether under Saddam or someone like him? Because right now the extremists have numbers on their sides in this violence; and did so as a proportion of population even before it starts (not that it takes many of them).

P.S: Remember that every leader has crimes under their name and that if you were in government (democratically or undemocratically) so would you or me (unless you were some kind of total pathist).

4. I support Saddam because I believe in stability. I believe that in order to bring stability it is worth a few genuine miscarriages of justice (happens in America) and the execution of those who themselves are prepared to kill or torture those who do not accept their point of views (would happen if a terrorist was on death row). Maybe if I supported Saddam because he supported rape of the innocent you would be onto something. But I don’t; and anyway I question whether he personally did. Because if its someone in his government then you can charge the President for what a few rogue troops do in say Afghanistan.

5. Saddam is not a coward. If this was so he would have helped us in our custody with our anti Resistance propaganda to boost the chances he might be spared. And anyway the Resistance is better of with Saddam alive; not just because of the recent letters but because of the nature of the whole court appearance (which those who support him can hear). Saddam’s not a coward because he pulled of visiting his suns grave in disguise despite it being guarded by American troops. He’s not a coward because even now he stands by what he clearly believes to be right. It’s something worth respecting in anyone especially when they look death in the face, and have turned down the criteria on which they might negotiate with those about to cause it.


Prove your loyalty and stand beside him on the gallows with a identicle noose around your neck. You deserve it.

Under your “logic” perhaps every person who has approved of the measures they’ve inflicted upon Iraq should prove they’re loyalty by going and living there. And if it never works out then they should always live in the hell they ideas have made the place turn out.

7. I have already risked my life standing up for what I believe is right. Some world that deserves to be without me when I choose to grass on drug dealers selling Heroin college, who got away with it and attacked me many times afterwards.
Some world that would be richer without individuals like me when I try and prevent theft of company stock at work; even though it’s risky and I get nothing but gratitude (if that) for it. It’s people like me who come up with creative solutions, generally do their best to do what’s right, and who will quickly concede defeat (when they see it) on a fair playing field. I'm a defender and a contributor not a yob, if my opinions are wrong then I point to you so are yours; and if they’re not perhaps I should address you as “Messiah” or “God?”

8. Your last reply was threatening. It sounded like if only you knew where I live you would commit violence. You certainly said you believe I should die because of the beliefs I have, you certainly asked me where I lived (although that didn’t seem to have much relevance to the debate).
P.S It’s mostly Britain: Wiltshire, Oxford and London, but also Perth in Australia, and New York and Washington (so yes I am in the United States).

However because you have this attitude (which you may again express to ATS members) I believe that you are unsuitable for ATS. It’s a shame because I don’t mind what you believe in, or who you think should die; but its when you deliberately express it against individual ATS members believe you cross the line.
Therefore for the first time ever I will be making a formal complaint about it. If you do not believe in the free expression of ideas (no matter how wrong or crazy) then I do not believe you should be on here. In fact as your attitude is so much like the extremists Muslim fundamentalists I believe that as a self declared (and demonstrated) enemy of psychological freedom what you said should be returned.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:41 PM

All points of view are welcome, provided they are expressed in accordance with the Terms And Conditions Of Use.

On the other hand, insults, name-calling, character assassination and other forms of ad hominem tomfoolery violate the T&C and are not welcome.

So let's please cease the personal attacks and focus on the topic, which is:

Another Letter from Saddam Hussein to the American People


posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:10 AM
Uh.. wasn't Russia a backward country in many ways yet it was a formidable military power. I don't see how social conditions in Iraq have anything to do with its ability to pose a threat to anybody.

All the same the US went into Iraq primarily to help the zionists.

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:28 AM

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
All the same the US went into Iraq primarily to help the zionists.

Trying not to get into the arguement here but I believe that statement is the truth. There's no other reason. No oil (maybe but a side note), no WMD, no genocide (we let every other country go that has been proven to commit genocide), no al-queda.

BTW, Cheney wanted to go to Iraq way before 9/11 happened. Not Bush. It's Cheney who we should be focusing on. Just my 2 cents. Now I'll just duck and run.

Also, please people. Stop the insults. It takes away from the real discussion. Thanks in advance.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:55 PM
Griff and denythestatusquo you seem to know a little bit too much; so please don’t get assonated by Mossad.
However what makes you think The Zionists were involved?

I remember speaking to a member of the Ba’th Party (won’t name) who said there were three things Saddam had to do in order to enjoy good relations with the West…

1. Give up all claim to re-uniting Kuwait with Iraq
2. Stop supporting terrorists and civilians in Israel.
3.Stop trying to spread Ba’thist Ideology outside of Iraq (peacefully or otherwise).
Yep you would have thought Ba’th ideology was good for America but apparently it might make the Arab World too powerful. Personally I don’t think that’s a threat to us but it could (under the wrong leadership) be one to Israel.

That and they did supply a lot of the doggy intelligence. I think anyone in the military who says "Mossad said this; therefore it must be right" is thinking in the wrong direction. Especially when evidence in the past shows they’ve already deceived us; in fact here’s something I was (coincidently) just reading:

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:59 PM
spacedoubt your casualty figures are the other way around; about 70% of the people killed where Iranian….

For example, Iran claimed to have lost 200,000 or fewer of its own citizens, while Iraq claimed to have killed 800,000 Iranians. Neutral estimates come closer to the Iranian claim but are uncertain. Because of different battlefield techniques, Iraq’s deaths were probably about half those suffered by Iran.

Also though you mention that Saddam Hussein ordered the Iran Iraq war you omit why he ordered it. So here is a good description…
I think it’s fair to say Saddam ordered the Iran Iraq war because Iran’s constant use of Iraqi Kurds to cause armed skirmishes within Iraq made the war inevitable. Both sides hated each other long before war started. In fact its ironic Iran hated Saddam for being a Secular leader who was closely allied to America. Judging by both countries behaviour it could easily have been Iran that invaded Iraq; Saddam merely took the initionative.

Also Saddam tried to negotiate with the Kurds back in 1974. Had they accepted his offer of autonomy and proportionate share of Iraq’s oil wealth they could have been partners and not “victims” of Saddam’s regime. Unfortunately because they’re tribal leaders had been corrupted by Iranian bribes they declined Saddam’s offers.

Likewise the Infamous Anfal campaighn happened at a time when Iraq was fighting for its survival in the war against Iran, Iraq was resource short so could not afford to be “generous” (no excessive troop deployments could be afforded to do the job fairly but slowly); especially as the Kurds where both armed by and working with Iraq’s enemy the Iranians.
This is significant as the Anfal campaighn has been estimated to have killed 180 thousand of the 350,000 people the U.S Pentagon alleged-estimated Saddam had killed through political oppression in over 34 years of power). Without it Saddam’s death toll would be 120,000 dead in 34 years of power. And as this is according to our own estimates the death toll may be exaggerated just as we America made up some pre-war Saddam human rights abuse stories:

Its significant given that so far the occupation has most probably caused (directly and indirectly) the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis. This makes Saddam’s 120,000 “minus” figure seem quite moderate especially as it was over 34 years of government; during which (pre U.N sanctions) Iraq had some very prosperous times (and life under Saddam even with U.N sanctions is still vastly better than it is today for almost all Iraqis accept the Iraq Kurdish region.

Let the Kurds carry on as they are is my opinion. They are “slaves” to us because they cannot survive for long without support of some kind. This is the one achievement that’s come out of the Iraq so far that looks set to last.
But for the rest of Iraq restore Saddam and when he’s dead find someone like him.

Back to Basics…
We night to fight the war on terror with regime change; but with regime from within as opposed to all out bloody conflict.
Unlike the Cold War we can use war against our enemies without starting a thermo nuclear war; but like the Cold War this is mostly pointless because (like some science fiction movie) the religious extremist monster we are fighting grows bigger in line with the firepower you throw at it.
External warfare will kill more innocent people than most forms of regime change.
For example using our own stable governments as the “ultimate example” how many British soldiers would you need to kill to equal the political effect of kill Tony Blair?
Which would we be money better spent: A nuclear bomb detonated on London? Or half that money used to launch a successful military coup? Which would bring the greatest political return?

The CIA can do things like this and it can budget for it. If it could work against our friends it could almost certainly work unstable places like Afghanistan.
Show them several hundred million dollars (never mind the billions we spent in the first few months) and they’ll think you’ve shown them all the wealth of the world (and I guess in a way you have).

<< 1   >>

log in