Saddam Said No WMD so Iran Would Not Know

[Elphaba]

Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam

Tells 60 Minutes Former Dictator Bragged About Eluding Capture

(CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam, Tells 60 Minutes Former Dictator Bragged About Eluding Capture - CBS News

Elphaba

[Moksha]

(CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. Elphaba

So it cost us trillions dollars and thousands of lives because Saddam had faulty logic?! What a maroon.

[a-train]

This demonstrates what a cut-throat mess that region is. Everyone out there is between a rock and a hard place. This is all the more reason why we have no business being out there.

Have a look at this video:

The Congressman points out Reagan's change of his mind over the Lebanon issue regularly. I think that should be a lesson to us. The middle-east is a complicated place where an interventionist policy will only lead to disaster every time. We should remember what Reagan learned.

-a-train

[FrankJL]

Umm...Ron Paul is running for president, is he not?

I know he has basically no chance, but he is still on the ballot nonetheless.

So according to my understanding of the board's rules you shouldn't be posting that.

But then again you are the moderator, so maybe you know better then I.

As to the OP:

I'm know how much faith I would put on Saddam to tell the truth, he does have a legacy to defend in his illusions of grandeur.

[Daniel]

Umm...Ron Paul is running for president, is he not?

I know he has basically no chance, but he is still on the ballot nonetheless.

So according to my understanding of the board's rules you shouldn't be posting that.

But then again you are the moderator, so maybe you know better then I.

As to the OP:

I'm know how much faith I would put on Saddam to tell the truth, he does have a legacy to defend in his illusions of grandeur.

Please help us by using the report function.

Thank you,

Daniel

[Moksha]

Please help us by using the report function.

Thank you,

Daniel

The puzzling thing is, that there is no mention of him on this thread. Should we still use the report function anyway as perhaps a preventative measure?

[Daniel]

The puzzling thing is, that there is no mention of him on this thread. Should we still use the report function anyway as perhaps a preventative measure?

Well there was we removed it I guess I didn't finish it by editing out the refrence to the refrence.

[FrankJL]

Should I have to report a moderator though??

Should they not be setting the standard for us regular users to follow?

[john doe]

Yes, Frank, we should be setting the standard. But as with all new endeavors, we are all learning how to deal with new and different rules. And sometimes even moderators get so passionate about certain subjects that we forget what those rules are and that we need to set the example. We moderators are also learning how to navigate this new board and its new and different rules. Please help us remember our duties by reporting posts you think may be problematic.

[NeuroTypical]

(CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen.

Just a sanity check on how we're interpreting this information. Are we saying that the only way Saadam 'felt safe' with Iran as a neighbor, was to make sure Iran knew he had WMD?

Two things:

1- If true, this speaks volumes to the threat posed by Iran.

2- Fortunately, it's not true. Iran has been on the defensive against multiple aggressive neighbors. The two truths about that area of the world is that muslims want to destroy Israel, and Arabs want to destroy Persia. Saadam, if you remember, had already attacked Iran in the '80's, killing millions in Iran. Iran never had the military or the will to mount any kind of serious threat to Iran. They were able to stop the flow of oil and be a pain in Iraq's side - that's about it.

Saadam was not lying about WMD because he feared Iran. He was doing it because if the world thinks you have WMD, the world treats you differently. You get a better bargaining hand, and access to higher-stakes tables.

LM

[Elphaba]

Hey LM,

Just a sanity check on how we're interpreting this information. Are we saying that the only way Saadam 'felt safe' with Iran as a neighbor, was to make sure Iran knew he had WMD?

"We're" not saying it. According to George Piro, the FBI agent who took seven months to befriend and extract information from Saddam, insists Saddam said it.

1- If true, this speaks volumes to the threat posed by Iran.

I agree. In fact, I hope Iran's resistance in the light of low odds is remembered. Especially if it is no real threat.

2- Fortunately, it's not true. Iran has been on the defensive against multiple aggressive neighbors. The two truths about that area of the world is that muslims want to destroy Israel, and Arabs want to destroy Persia.

This doesn't change what Saddam said in his interview.

Saadam, if you remember, had already attacked Iran in the '80's, killing millions in Iran.

The number of Iranians killed is closer to 600,000. In addition, around 400,000 Iraqis were killed by the Iranians.

Iran never had the military or the will to mount any kind of serious threat to Iran. They were able to stop the flow of oil and be a pain in Iraq's side - that's about it.

This is not true. When Saddam attacked Iran, he had expected the Iranian Sunnis would be loyal to their brother Sunnis in Iraq. In fact, he was shocked when the Iranian Sunnis instead put nationalism ahead of religion.

Though it is true Iran did not have the military equipment Iraq had, its people led a stiff resistance that shocked Saddam. In fact, in 1982 Iranians fought and won back some of the land initially lost in the beginning of the war. Iraq retreated, though of course Saddam didn't admit that.

This was to be the pattern of the war for the next six years. In fact, at the end of the war when the United Nation produced a treaty of peace, the Iranians refused to sign it, as their major condition was that Saddam step down as president of Iraq.

Eventually Iran gave up that condition, as it realized without the peace treaty, there never would be an end to the war, but it is wrong to characterize Iran as if it "never had any serious will to mount any kind of serious threat to Iran." Many times during the years it had Iraq in its grip, only to lose it, and start the circle again.

He was doing it because if the world thinks you have WMD, the world treats you differently. You get a better bargaining hand, and access to higher-stakes tables.

I believe this is true as well, and Prigo alludes to this in his interviews with Saddam.

Elphaba

[a-train]

Umm...Ron Paul is running for president, is he not?

I know he has basically no chance, but he is still on the ballot nonetheless.

So according to my understanding of the board's rules you shouldn't be posting that.

But then again you are the moderator, so maybe you know better then I.

As to the OP:

I'm know how much faith I would put on Saddam to tell the truth, he does have a legacy to defend in his illusions of grandeur.

My link to Congressman Paul's video made no mention of his run, nor did it advocate his candidacy. But, now you are mentioning it and talking about his chances and nobody cries. Motes and beams.

-a-train

[PentiumInside]

Every single house in Iraq was touched as a result of the Iran/Iraq war. EVERY single one. I had people tell me in Iraq that if the US declared war on Iran that they would try to join the army to fight them lol. There is alot to that region that you wont learn on CNN or paranoid radio without going there in person I am afraid

[Elphaba]

Every single house in Iraq was touched as a result of the Iran/Iraq war. EVERY single one. I had people tell me in Iraq that if the US declared war on Iran that they would try to join the army to fight them lol.

I don't understand your point. Earlier you wrote:

Saadam, if you remember, had already attacked Iran in the '80's, killing millions in Iran. Iran never had the military or the will to mount any kind of serious threat to Iran. They were able to stop the flow of oil and be a pain in Iraq's side - that's about it.

Earlier you said Iran was not a serious threat to Ir[aq] (I assumed you meant Iraq, since that was the subject of the conversation.

Now you are talking as if Iraq suffered at the hands of Iran.

That was my point. Iran was much more of a threat than Saddam realized it would be when Saddam attacked Iran in the '80s. Now you are saying the same thing.

Can you please clarify your point?

There is alot to that region that you wont learn on CNN or paranoid radio without going there in person I am afraid

Please don't assume I haven't spend a somewhat significant amount of time studying the region, including the different Islamic factions and how the interactions would make it impossible for America to ever succeed in the initial goals. Though it may not seem like it on this thread, I have studied it, as comprehensively as I possibly could.

Much of this research has been talking to people who have been there first hand. I've mentioned before if you were to go back to my threads six months on the subject of the Iraq war, you would realize I was more informed than you might think. I don't expect you to do so, but again, don't assume I am not.

Elphaba

[a-train]

'[it is] easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there and cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses ... This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.' -Osama bin Laden Nov. 01, 2004

The current bill for the Iraq war including interest on war debt and longterm veteran healthcare is estimated at $3.5 trillion. Split among the population, the average American family will pay $46,000 for this war. That is, of course, if we pulled out today...

-a-train

[FrankJL]

My link to Congressman Paul's video made no mention of his run, nor did it advocate his candidacy. But, now you are mentioning it and talking about his chances and nobody cries. Motes and beams.

-a-train

Then why was the post erased?

[a-train]

Then why was the post erased?

I guess some have interpreted the rules to mean we can't even mention anything about anyone who is running for public office, even if we are talking about them in their previous office. So with that, there can be no mention of Romney's efforts in the Olympics, McCain's war stories, Hillary's time as First Lady, or anything like that.

Under this current system, the punishment for speaking of such things would be the deletion of your post, a statement that the person you spoke of is running for office, and an estimate of their chances at election.

So please, watch the rules.

-a-train

P.S. As far as I can tell, being a moderator and having read the rules, the true rules are that we cannot advocate any candidacy or party. This would not mean that we cannot mention the name of a candidate in some other context.

Examples:

Wrong: I am voting for so-and so...

Right: Senator so-and-so introduced a bill in 2004 that would...

Senator so-and-so may be running for re-election or even a different office, but no mention of that fact or advocacy of their candidacy was given. Therefore I see no problem.

[NeuroTypical]

'...we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.' -Osama bin Laden Nov. 01, 2004

The current bill for the Iraq war including interest on war debt and longterm veteran healthcare is estimated at $3.5 billion. Split among the population, the average American family will pay $46,000 for this war. That is, of course, if we pulled out today...

Just wanted to highlight this. It's not every day you see propaganda for Al-Qaeda from a moderator of an LDS discussion board...

LM

[a-train]

Refreshing isn't it? Not to see propaganda from the neoconservative socialist movement.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

Just wanted to highlight this. It's not every day you see propaganda for Al-Qaeda from a moderator of an LDS discussion board...

Because of the way the administration rammed its way into the war in Iraq with so little forsesight, many analysts, and I, believe he played right into the hands of bin Laden. Everything the administration has done has created more fury amongst the fanatic Muslim world in the Middle East, just like bin Laden knew it would. If it's the truth, then whether we in the US like it or not, it is the truth.

And that has put the world in more danger. But I guess since other countries, but not American soil has not been attacked, that's okay.

Second, the cost of the war is not a total of $3.5 billion, but $3.5 billion per week! I don't know of A misunderstood or it was a typo, but I certainly believe A's point is that this war is sucking us into a whirpool of debt that our children are going to have to live with, and that is insane. If I misinterpreted A's intent, he can correct me.

Finally, what does him being a moderator have to do with this. He is allowed to have an opinion.

Elphaba

[NeuroTypical]

Because of the way the administration rammed its way into the war in Iraq with so little forsesight, many analysts, and I, believe he played right into the hands of bin Laden.

I agree to a certain extent. Bin Laden sought to goad us into a war, and when the towers fell, we gave him one. His two fold desire: Get the US dropping bombs and killing muslims. That would get muslims on his side. He also hoped we'd do what we've done in the past: have our usual short attention span and go home before the job was done. That would get muslims to act, thinking the US was weak.

His goal - wake up the masses of the islamic world, get them to overthrow their secular governents, and recreate the caliphate.

Well, we played into his hands so well, that he DIDN'T get what he wanted. There was no popular uprising. Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Sudan, places in Africa - none of them have changed governments. There is no caliphate - his efforts have pretty much failed. The closest thing to a binladen victory, is Iraq probably won't be the stable democratic ally we hoped for.

Everything the administration has done has created more fury amongst the fanatic Muslim world in the Middle East, just like bin Laden knew it would.

My general response: If the 'fanatic muslim world' has wanted us dead for this many decades, why on earth should we worry about whether our attempts to destroy them makes them 'furious' or not? We should be trying to make them so furious, they'll come to Iraq and get a bullet in their furious hides.

But let's look at your claim a minute. I do not believe the entire muslim population of the ME are fanatics - do you agree? For example, are the Muslims in Turkey fanatics? Are the muslims living and working in the Jewish areas of Israel fanatics? Are the governments of Qatar and Kuwait full of fanatics? I guess it comes down to how you define the term. I hear the discussion going on in the other thread, about how there is no such thing as a 'moderate muslim' that lives in an Islamic country. Is there such a thing as a non-moderate, non-fanatic muslim? Seems like a little clarity on how we each use these words might be in order.

I guess my response, assuming there are non-fanatic Muslims in the ME, is "let's look at how they've responded to our actions". The intelligence services of many countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been working with us more closely. Many former allies, or neutral parties to Al Qaeda have become their enemies. Terrorists have one fewer rich state to give them safe haven. Lybia gave up it's WMD program, and has been cooperating with the UN to let the world watch it get dismantled.

There are many, many good things that have come as a result of our actions in that area of the world.

And that has put the world in more danger. But I guess since other countries, but not American soil has not been attacked, that's okay.

Just out of curiosity, would you really change your opinion if any of the subsequent attacks planned on American soil were sucessfully carried out? If not, then why even try to make the point?

I certainly believe A's point is that this war is sucking us into a whirpool of debt that our children are going to have to live with, and that is insane.

And as I've said before, the terms "whirlpool" and "insane" makes good yellow-journalistic, sensationalistic, emotionally-swaying rhetoric, but they don't impress anyone with a grasp on the size and scope of the American economy. The war is very expensive, and we'll be burdened with paying for it. I would love to see the US practice balanced budgets and make it impossible to defecit spend. I can say these things without resorting to words that get the blood boiling.

Finally, what does him being a moderator have to do with this. He is allowed to have an opinion.

I thought I explained myself quite well: It's not every day you see propaganda for Al-Qaeda from a moderator of an LDS discussion board...

It's not an "allowed to have an opinion" thing, it's a "Dang, that guy's a fringe extremist" thing. I highlighted it, because it's the first time I've ever seen such a phenomena. I'm a relative newcomer to this board - I got here when the more good foundation's board got merged in. I've posted on a dozen LDS-themed boards over the last decade, and although I've seen hothead moderators, politically active moderators, passionate moderators - I've never seen a moderator spreading Al Qaeda propaganda before.

Maybe it's old news to you, but it was new to me.

LM

[Elphaba]

I guess some have interpreted the rules to mean we can't even mention anything about anyone who is running for public office, even if we are talking about them in their previous office. So with that, there can be no mention of Romney's efforts in the Olympics, McCain's war stories, Hillary's time as First Lady, or anything like that.

Under this current system, the punishment for speaking of such things would be the deletion of your post, a statement that the person you spoke of is running for office, and an estimate of their chances at election.

So please, watch the rules.

-a-train

P.S. As far as I can tell, being a moderator and having read the rules, the true rules are that we cannot advocate any candidacy or party. This would not mean that we cannot mention the name of a candidate in some other context.

Examples:

Wrong: I am voting for so-and so...

Right: Senator so-and-so introduced a bill in 2004 that would...

Senator so-and-so may be running for re-election or even a different office, but no mention of that fact or advocacy of their candidacy was given. Therefore I see no problem.

Hi A,

I still see a problem with your example above. Here is why.

If Senator so-and-so introduced a bill in 2004 and it passed, I guarantee she is going to mention that in her campaign of 2008, punching it where ever she can, such as billboard space. A huge success, even four years old, is a success. She would also strongly emphasize it in print materials where she could go into more details about the legislation, as well as her accomplishments during her entire political career.

In contrast, if the Senator introduced the bill and it failed miserably, her opponent is going to flood every media venue he can with that information in his campaign, as well as his print materials.

So if one of us mentions the Senator's 2004 bill, that IS talking about the candidate in a positive or negative manner, which does indicate bias. I would deem that as against the board's rules.

In other words, whatever a candidate did in his/her political career, no matter how long ago, does affect the person's campaign today. When we write about the person running in 2008. In my opinion, if we say anything about any of the candidates running in 2008, we have broken the rule.

Believe me, I wish it were not true! I am bursting at the seams!!!

Let me know if I am wrong.

Elphaba

[a-train]

He also hoped we'd do what we've done in the past: have our usual short attention span and go home before the job was done.

Can you give us a reference for that? When did he say that?

And if he did, now YOU are spreading his propaganda by your definition.

Regardless, Question: Did the Soviet Union go bankrupt? Why? Did it have to do with the expense of their war in Afghanistan? Are we following a similar path?

PS, I meant trillion, it was a typo.

-a-train

[PentiumInside]

I don't understand your point. Earlier you wrote:

I didnt say any of that..it was atrain I believe.

Sorry, been gone a couple days...wifes birthday :)

to make it short..Iraq and Iran both suffered with that senseless war they had with each other. Questions?

[Elphaba]

I didnt say any of that..it was atrain I believe.

Sorry, been gone a couple days...wifes birthday :)

Oh wow. When I mess up, I REALLY mess up. It was Loudmouth who I should have quoted.

You couldn't have just played along, so I wouldn't look so stupid?

Nah, I wouldn't have either.

to make it short..Iraq and Iran both suffered with that senseless war they had with each other. Questions?

No questions. That was the point I was making as well.

My apologies again.

Elphaba