During Saddam's trial, will they mention that Reagan was his biggest supporter? - GoFuckYourself.com

Hawkeye · 12-14-2003, 03:03 PM

You know, when Saddam launched an offensive war against Iran, Reagan/Bush backed him up with weapons, money, and intelligence.

When Saddam gassed the Kurds, Reagan/Bush knew all about it and did nothing.

So if Saddam is guilty of war crimes, doesn't that make Reagan/Bush accessories?

J-Reel · 12-14-2003, 03:07 PM

Blaah Blah Blaaaaah Blah Blah Bla

Serge_Oprano · 12-14-2003, 03:08 PM

of course they will..if Regan can testify to that
;-))))

Webby · 12-14-2003, 03:13 PM

Just Regan??? :-)

Saddam has been the "best friend" of the US for years!

I can't be bother typing all this again (from prev post), but a quick lesson in history is meaningful!

He was involved in the overthow of democracies, assassinations and plenty more on behalf of these cherished "US interests"

Quote:

On Saddam - sure, he was a brutal dictator???

Who put him in power knowing full-well that he was a thug? The answer to that is the CIA. For those who can't accept this, the CIA engaged him to assissinate the then Prime Minister, Qasim.

Qasim had conspired against the monarchy and in a bloody coup and displaced the monarchy in Iraq. That was fine with Washington at the time. The problem arose when Qasim decided to change sides during the Cold War and turn to the Soviets for military supplies. It was then that the CIA decided it was time for him to go.

The US then enlisted a six man team to assassinate Qasim in 1959. This first attempt was botched. Meanwhile, they maintained Saddam in an apartment in London and in 1963 a second team succeeded in the assassination.

At the time, the US government was aware Saddam was a cutthroat, - he was chosen for exactly that reason. The US had no objections to a cutthroat ruling Iraq up until 1973 when Saddam nationalized the oil fields in that country. Then the US tried to persude him to re-privatize by embargoing his oil. He turned to the Soviet Union and found a new customer for oil

Later, the US, once again teamed up with their "protege" after the Iranians reversed a regime change that the US manuiplated in Iran. Saddam wanted to establish himself with some regional power.

That played into the hands of the Washington "dreamers" who wanted to destroy the Iranian government and find someone to make an oil deal with.

In 1954 the US had succeeded in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran. That democracy wanted to nationalize their oil holdings and did so. At the request of the UK and, showing a mutual interest, the US staged a coup to destroy this Iranian democracy.

The CIA obliged and sent Kermit Roosevelt to Iran to stage the coup. US oil corps got a 45% cut, the British another 45% and the Shah recieved a personal trust fund with the remaining 10%.

In 1979, Iranian students overthrew the Shah and the power went to the Mullahs who immediately re-nationalised the oil industry.

Apparently there is nothing worse in "US foreign policy" than to reverse a regime change in an oil-bearing country where the CIA has established as "our oil domain". Who does the US approach to attack this blight on their foreign policy?? Of course, they choose their cutthroat friend from Iraq

In order that this "best friend" in Iraq do the work, he needs weapons of mass distruction. He needs chemical weapons, biological weapons and the US can't rush these out their quick enough to enable Saddam to get to work.

Not only does the US government supply him with WMD, but this same government breaks it's own laws in doing so.

The first Bush admin waived the requirement that US loans for argiculture be used on for the purchase of farming equipment blah. This allowed Saddam to buy WMD instead.

If anyone ever thinks that this is not manipulation to further enhance the oil interests of US multinationals, they need a new set of braincells.

SO! :-) Why did the US go to "war" in Iraq?? To make, yet another "US regime change" to eliminate the possibility that Saddam had WMD?? Yes, the US knew he had WMD, since they supplied this. Or did the US go to war because they wanted to control Iraqi oil?

The history of US involvement , "manipulation", assasinations, destruction of democractically elected governments resulting in the killings and torture of many thousands, - well.. it speaks for itself! That may just be a clue to some, not so bright, US citizens as to why some nations do actually "hate America" :-)

PS.. In a way, it is funny to see a government make statements asserting Saddam has WMD (with no actual evidence produced) - since they, themselves supplied those weapons. I can see them sitting in Washington wondering where they went!! *lol* Tho I suspect most of these weapons were destroyed during the IAEA weapons inspection era. It is also transparent why the US are not keen on IAEA returning to Iraq - it could be kinda embarassing.

69pornlinks · 12-14-2003, 03:22 PM

This will be the last time i ay this...'he will be oswalded'

12-14-2003, 03:03 PM	#1
Hawkeye Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,291	During Saddam's trial, will they mention that Reagan was his biggest supporter? You know, when Saddam launched an offensive war against Iran, Reagan/Bush backed him up with weapons, money, and intelligence. When Saddam gassed the Kurds, Reagan/Bush knew all about it and did nothing. So if Saddam is guilty of war crimes, doesn't that make Reagan/Bush accessories?

12-14-2003, 03:07 PM	#2
J-Reel Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Boneprone's guest house Posts: 3,782	Blaah Blah Blaaaaah Blah Blah Bla __________________ Scheck out the new girls at www.hawtmoney.com ICQ 177-447-671

12-14-2003, 03:22 PM	#5
69pornlinks Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Heranus Posts: 5,560	This will be the last time i ay this...'he will be oswalded' __________________ It IS what it IS

12-14-2003, 03:08 PM	#3
Serge_Oprano So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,820	of course they will..if Regan can testify to that ;-))))