[lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens' Hypothetical Iraq War
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:08:05 -0800
Andreas.
We never gave Saddam WMDs. During the Iraq/Iran war we encouraged our
allies to help Iraq against Iran. We gave Iraq equipment like trucks. I've
got a list of what we supplied him in one of my books but haven't the time
to search for it.
Iraq was attacking America daily by shooting at the planes that lawfully
over-flew that nation to prevent his attacking the Kurds and Shiites. Iraq
attacked one of our allies, Kuwait, and threatened another Saudi Arabia.
That first war wasn't over. It was in pause conditional upon the
cooperation of Saddam - and he clearly didn't cooperate. So should we have
abrogated this agreement he was violating? The agreement that implied that
war would resume if he violated it?
Saddam had never given up his desires for a Pan-Arabia with himself in
charge. Perhaps that's why he pretended to be more powerful than he was, so
he wouldn't lose so much face that such a future occurrence would be ruled
out. He supported terrorist activities. He inhibited our search for Al
Quaeda agents. You are only presenting the anti-American reasons why Saddam
should have been left alone.
You might argue that every important person that believes his sycophants and
press clippings is self-deluded, but that doesn't render him harmless when
he is the tyrant of a nation with military ambitions.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 8:47 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens' Hypothetical Iraq War
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Everyone I read or heard from at the time thought Saddam had WMDs.
1) Everyone in the US government thought he had them because the USA gave
them to him. If it
was illegal for him to have them, then certainly it was illegal for the USA
to give them to
him. So the accusation against Saddam is an admission of guilt. "Officer,
arrest that man!
He has 2 kilos of cocaine! I know, because I sold them to him!"
2) But having them meant... what? He used WMDs against Iran under US
training, supervision,
and direction. But that was for his local wars.
There was no indication that Iraq planned to attack the USA. He had no
capability of
delivering the weapons. Any usage whatsoever would have gotten a devastating
response.
Saddam was a CIA client for decades. He had no intention or desire to attack
the USA.
> I listened to a CIA expert on C-Span a while back and he objected to the
> White House not having utter confidence in their reports. No, they hadn't
> predicted the fall of the USSR, and no they hadn't predicted 9/11, but
that
> was no reason for the State Department to bypass the CIA and rely on
> information from such places as Britain. He seemed to be whining.
You should know the answer to this one. I finished Fukuyama's End of
History. Fukuyama
explains very clearly why the Neocons had zero respect for the CIA, State,
and others.
A reply here would take far too long. In short: The CIA (and basically the
ENTIRE government
(State Dept., US military, think tanks, professors, etc.) had a realist
worldview. They saw
the USSR as an existing object. There was no plan or intention whatsoever
for attacking,
invading, and changing the Soviet government.
The CIA (and the everyone else) overestimated (by factors of thousands) the
Soviet economy
and military, because it was in their interest to exaggerate the threat. The
more dangerous
the Soviets, the trillions more dollars would flow into the US
military/industrial/intellectual complex.
There was zero interest in peace, cooperation, etc. Zero. It was
militarization against an
enemy, without intention to attack.
The Neocons came along from an entirely different direction: they thought it
was important
to know that the Soviets were bad and therefore, an invasion was morally
justified and
morally obligated. If your neighbor's house is on fire, you are obligated to
rush over and
save the kids.
When the USSR collapsed, the Neocons had two positions:
a) The CIA (and the entire US establishment) were incompetent idiots who had
no idea of the
facts. They had lied, etc., and never expected or predicted the collapse.
b) Reagan's "Bring down that Wall!" and military buildup had cause the
collapse of the USSR.
The US buildup (hundreds of billions for weapons) forced the Soviets into a
matching
buildup, and they collapsed.
This is the Neocon's understanding of the collapse. Of course, it's wrong,
but they don't
see that. From archives and interviews, we now know the USSR collapsed
because of its
inefficiency, corruption, etc. Reagan and the Neocons had nothing to do with
it.
So that's why Bush and Gang were contemptuous of the CIA and ignored their
warnings and
facts. And the US military as well. Rumsfeld despises the military, and they
hate him too.
> You should start reading about the Iraqi papers being translated. (...)
> New stuff is coming out every week. All of it disclosing Saddam to be
more
> of a rat, and far more dangerous than anyone realized. Some of the
> translations show him talking about WMDs. There are hints that he was
> moving stuff about. But none of this stuff was written so that we could
> have all our questions immediately answered.
Yes, I am reading them. And it shows that Saddam was delusional, not really
in control, etc.
The generals had no strategies. It is deeply embarrasing to the USA: it
proves that Saddam
and Iraq were not a threat.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
