Wikileaks: "Saddam's Message Of Friendship To President Bush"

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
It shows an intelligent, "compassionate" side of Saddam and his desire for peace.

Not at all. It just shows he's a typical politician. Does one thing .. says another.

If he was compassionate he wouldn't have mass murdered the Kurds.
If he was compassionate he wouldn't have mass murdered Iraqis and buried them in mass graves.
If he was compassionate he wouldn't have had the rape rooms or tortured olympians.
If he was compassionate he wouldn't have stolen 'Oil for Food' millions and built his palaces with it.
If he desired peace he wouldn't have gone to war against Kuwait and Iran.
If he was intelligent, he would not have lost wars and thus lost his life.

etc etc

edit on 1/3/2011 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

Mas Murdered the Kurds you say....

What do you call having Military Personel wearing Shorts in trenchs while Nuclear Bombs were tested a few Miles away. All without any warning of what might happen. It's the same thing, except the Kurds died straight away, and troups had to live with it for the rest of their lives.

And I haven't even mentions Daisy Cutters, Phosphorus Bombs or even Napalm yet.

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.

[Caveat. I supported the invasion...at first.

I still support the troops though. I got blood over there.]


Remember, we only know what the media told us. If he did, he does deserve to burn in hell.

In WW1, allies told their soldiers that the German Landsers threw babies into the air to catch them on their bayonettes for sport...horrible lie.


If we were going in for a noble purpose such as "liberation", why didnt they state that from the get go?

(Cont from above)
So Hitler managed to find people to convince the USA to abrogate their responsibilities under the Treaty Of Versailles whilst also selling steel to Germany for Vatican-borrowed money so they could re-arm, re-occupy industrialised land ceded to French control, occupy Austria & part of Czeckoslovakia & then, despite other key signatories to the ToV, France & Britain, saying Poland is the line in the sand, get the USA to sell arms to Britain & raw materials to Germany simultaneously. Effing genius! Unless the USA didn't need convincing...

Lets check some other strategic decisions of this corporal of artillary... Despite the example of another lowly soldier who rose through the ranks to ultimate command, Napoleon Boneparte, who did actually study warfare, but still wrecked his ambitions against the Russian winter, Hitler, despite his own example of making a tit out of himself yelling "Er kompt!" just before failing miserably to conquer Britain (nevermind how close the aerial Battle of Britain was, the Germans had nothing but river barges with which to ferry troops across some pretty nasty sea into the Royal Navy's Home Fleet - yeah, right!).
Still, that didn't stop this mastermind. Who cared if he hadn't yet consolidated his gains in Europe or N Africa? Who cared that the whole point of The N African campaign was to secure oil supplies? Who cared that the Japanese would have gone ahead & disrupted the British Empire in the Far East anyway & that they couldn't supply any fuel to Germany b/c they desperately needed it themselves? Hey, its a good strategic decision to make an alliance that can only bring you into a war with the USA, right?
Oh but wait, there's more to Hitler's military genius. Not content to simply go after the Southern Russian oil-fields, which were badly needed resources, he wanted full spectrum domination: Stalin must be destroyed! So Operation Barbarrossa was launched... months late in spite of his generals telling him "No Effin Way!"

Does any of this sound familiar?

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Wikileaks: "SADDAM'S MESSAGE OF FRIENDSHIP TO PRESIDENT BUSH"

213.251.145.96

SADDAM WISHED TO CONVEY AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO
PRESIDENT BUSH: IRAQ WANTS FRIENDSHIP, BUT DOES
THE USG? IRAQ SUFFERED 100,000'S OF CASUALTIES
AND IS NOW SO POOR THAT WAR ORPHAN PENSIONS WILL
SOON BE CUT; YET RICH KUWAIT WILL NOT EVEN ACCEPT
OPEC DISCIPLINE........PICKING HIS WORDS WITH CARE, SADDAM SAID
THAT THERE ARE "SOME CIRCLES" IN THE USG,
INCLUDING IN CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT,
BUT EMPHATICALLY EXCLUDING THE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY BAKER, WHO ARE NOT FRIENDLY TOWARD
IRAQ-U.S. RELATIONS

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 2-1-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: spelling

edit on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:30:42 -0600 by MemoryShock because: Mod Edit - All Caps Title.

As other posters have said, this cable is from 1990, so it bears no relation to the second Gulf war regardless of how strong people may feel about the eventual outcome (to date) of the overall Iraqi conflict.

Now, for those of you that are seeming to say this shows how Saddam was interested in peace, history provides several precedents. In September 1938, prime minister Neville Chamberlain returned from a conference with Hitler in Munich waving a document in the air proclaiming he had secured 'Peace for our time' with Germany. Chamberlain was paraphrasing Disraeli who said something similar in the 19th century.... weeks before Germany invaded Sudetenland. Got to love these dictators, always wanting peace.

If WL went back that far and said that in 1938 Hitler was only interested in peace, would your view of him change? If it does then frankly I question your judgement.

If there's anything that the geopolitically unsavvy can take from this cable, its that Saddam Hussein was most definitely primarily concerned with economics in the lead up to his invasion of Kuwait & that the USA didn't give a rat's ass about his concerns. It is a fact that, as the cable reports, Kuwait was producing more oil than it had agreed with OPEC. Its also a fact that the oil under Kuwait is from the same reserve as under Iraq. So Iraq were getting boned twice: driving the price down & depleteting future resources.
The cable shows that the US Ambassador was only interested in telling the State Dept that he had agreed to a couple of debating points, namely that the USA had an interest in the region & that it was reasonable for the USA to ask his intentions. Where was the reference to the fact that the widows & orphans mentioned were the direct result of the US sponsored war against Iran? Where was the appreciation that despite the fact Hussein mentioned, that the USA had been caught red handed supplying arms to their enemies, Iraq still wanted an economic settlement that avoided war? Nowhere.

Well I negotiate for business often. When I get on the phone to my partners, I dont bother telling them about what we've already made our minds up about, I tell them whats new that might further our interests. Its the same deal here: the PNAC was already in full effect... its just that the USA didn't realise that it had been given enough rope to hang itself. What makes it more ironic is that the neo-cons thought they were doing that to Iraq!

reply to post by jaynkeel


Your reply could apply equally well to any recent US President.

reply to post by jaynkeel

Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard.

This is not going to be a popular post with many right wingers on here, but then again, popularity is vastly overrated in my book anyway..so.

While Saddam was *definitely* a horrible bit of work, and a cunning and ruthless dictator, he was supported and guided by the US (and allies) for decades.

And while he was *directly* responsible for the torture and murder of 30-40 *thousand* people in the Kurdish region, and used poison gas and other chemical weapons against men, women and children...he really deserved what he got in the end.

*But* let's not forget one very important point, while we are busy agreeing what a nasty and murderous man Saddam was, the US, under both Bush presidencies, together with her allies during Iraq 1 & 2 invasions are *directly* responsible for many, many more people being tortured and murdered than Saddam managed in over thirty years of tyranny.

Estimates put the casualties from both invasions of Iraq at around 1.5 Million dead, men, women and children... and the totals are still rising. In other words, the US and allies murdered *30* times more people in less than 10 years than Saddam did in over 30...or put another way, Saddam would have had to have stayed in power for 900 years (@ 50K murders over 30 years) to equal the US *current* total of people killed.

The US have also used chemical weapons on these people, (Phosphorous) *and* radiological weapons (depleted Uranium).

So let's not all get on our high horses, and imagine we are pure as the driven snow here, we're not.

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.

But what about Bush? Isnt he responsible for deaths of million iraqis?

reply to post by spikey


Your post is inaccurate, Iraq was primarily a Soviet client. (hence all the AK-47's you see in Iraqi army photos)

What happened to Saddam's 32000 elite troops?

www.usatoday.com...

reply to post by anjan


Which Bush? As far as I know neither Bush 41 or Bush 43 has ever been accused of murdering anyone although Bush 43 flew 50 some combat missions as a second liutinantt. in the USN during WW2 and was probobly responsible for the death of a few Japanese combatants although most would use a different word for his actions than "murder"

A million people huh? I guess that would put them somewhere between Idi Amin and Pol Pot on the worlds greatest genocide-o-meter?

Originally posted by conar
What happened to Saddam's 32000 elite troops?

www.usatoday.com...

They surrendered/deserted and were officially dissolved on May 23, 2003.

Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2: Dissoulution of Entities

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


OK...Covertly supported as opposed to overt.

Every knows the CIA (and probably other intel orgs) was in bed with Saddam during the 70's and 80's.

Iraq was against Iran..and of course, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that jazz.

I just wanted to clarify a few poins here:

It shows an intelligent, "compassionate" side of Saddam and his desire for peace. He was willing to communicate and compromise, but not willing to cave in to political pressure.

I made this statement because, as an American, I have never read or heard of Saddam being so concerned about his country and the well being of it's citizens. The American media has always portrayed him as a non-stop monster. It's a given that he did some real disturbing things, but he may not have been the man we have been lead to believe he was.

It's also important to admit that the sort of examples we use to condemn Saddam (the Kurds) are in no way "more evil" than anything we have allowed our government to do to our own people. Many other people have mentioned this.

In the end this cable "levels the playing field" IMO. We all try to view our leaders in a light of intelligence and compassion and to cast those who plot against us in a bad light. Perhaps we need to look past the smoke and mirrors and realize that if an American president were in a position comparable to what Saddam experienced, I would only hope that our leaders had the "testicular fortitude" to stand strong the way Saddam did.

Agree or disagree all you want with the politics and history of the situation, but we have to admit that Saddam stood strong in the face of a massive military invasion. That takes character.

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.

Wonder whats coming America's way then...

2nd

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Doesn't matter how "kind" he seemed, the man was responsible for many deaths and in my book that is one too many to disregard. I certainly hope people are not out trying to turn him into some kind of saint, because when you are in a position of power and people die under your watch no matter what country your in or ruling YOUR at fault and he got what was coming to him it's called karma.

This is also true of the last 3 U.S. presidents, where's their karma (lynch mob)?
Or, should I say, who's their karma (lynch mob)?

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Actually the part you've covered thus far reads as Adolph Hitlers greatest hits (lets call the Luftschlacht um England a draw)

You need to tell everyone the next part, starting with the Fuhrers refusal to allow Friedrich Paulus to withdraw from Stalingrad then on to Rommel's troubles at El Alamein.

reply to post by skeptic_al

You bring up a separate issue. What America did or didn't do in the past (you brought up WWII) has nothing to do with the false statement that Saddam was 'compassionate' and cared. He was just a mass murdering tyrant and politician. Nothing more. And nothing that America did or didn't do changes that fact.

It really does not matter if this is ground breaking or earth shattering from wikileaks.

It atleast shows that there is something going on behind the scenes, away from public view.

And also proves that there was a chance to save thousands of innocent lives on both sides.
Screw the ones on top.
The Bush/Clinton administration, the USG could have avoided so many wars & saved tax payers dollars and human lives.