Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Saddam Tells Iraqis to Unite Against U.S.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
ckramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 07:38 PM
Original message
Saddam Tells Iraqis to Unite Against U.S.
Edited on Sun Dec-19-04 07:39 PM by ckramer
AMMAN, Jordan - From his prison cell, Saddam Hussein urged his compatriots to remain united against the U.S. occupation and warned that upcoming elections could divide the country, his lawyers said Sunday after the legal team's first meeting with the ousted Iraqi leader since his capture.

Iraqi lawyer Khalil al-Duleimi met with Saddam on Thursday, his Jordan-based legal team said, as the Iraqi government has begun to push forward the process for trying Saddam and 11 of his top deputies.

"Our representative in Iraq told us that the president warned the people of Iraq and the Arabs to beware of the American scheme aimed at splitting Iraq into sectarian and religious divisions and weakening the (Arab) nation," said Bushra Khalil, a Lebanese member of Saddam's defense team of 20 attorneys.

"The president sent recommendations to the Iraqi people to remain united and not fall in the trap of America's slogans," she said. "He said Kurds, Arabs, Shiites, Sunnis and Christians are all Iraqis who all have to stand united against the American plot."

AP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ckramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Anybody found this piece of news interesting?
That is - Saddam now knows that there's going to be an election in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babydollhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. why are they referring to him as "the president"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's one of his defense lawyers.
They'll call him the president; the prosecutors will call him the dictator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Hey, we have one of those. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I just noticed that too! What do they know that we don't? Things that
make you go hmmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Because he is the president, despite our illegal overthrow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Who else thinks that Saddam
will suddenly suffer a "stroke" or have a "heart attack," so he can't stand for trial?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babydollhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. what if they decide to return saddam to power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:43 PM
Original message
babydollhead, I really hope that this does not happen because I think
it would be a big slap in the face to our troops and fallen troops too. The families would feel all of this was definitely for nothing (or finally realize it was just for the oil). What do you think?

Oh, and welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Saddam said he was going to run.
Edited on Sun Dec-19-04 09:44 PM by NYC Liberal
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/03/1096741904199.html?oneclick=true

The elections, which are scheduled for January, are parliamentary, so Saddam would not have to run nationwide, only from a district, presumably Tikrit. Even nationwide, Saddam seems to be making something of a comeback. Mr Di Stefano said a recent poll indicated that 42 per cent of Iraqis wanted Saddam back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. That is a heck of a statistic
Very damning for Bush, if the poll is an accurate reflection of Iraqi sentiment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
26. That reflects more on the destruction wrought by Bush--
--the 'support' is probably more wanting the infrastruction they had then, and freedom from random violence than actual affection for Saddam. There may also be a "He may be an asshole, but he's our asshole" factor involved also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Hi, babydollhead.
Welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Waiting for it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. saddam is still the President.
The U.S. invasion was illegal under Intl Law. Hell even Richard Perle admitted this. Saddam is legally still the Presl of Iraq.

Underestimating Saddam's influence is a huge mistake. In spite of all the demonizing that the U.S. has done many Iraqis don't buy that Saddam was another Hitler. They may also recognize that the U.S. supported Saddam for many years and then punished the Iraqi people for Saddam's position regarding Kuwaite. The situation in Iraq is not as simple as the Fascist Govt. of the U.S and the majority of the Mass Media have been propagandizing for many years. A study of the 1st Gulf War is essential in understanding what has occurred since then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yes. And now he gets to start talking to the Iraqi people again.
Kinda sounding like Gandhi with his appeals to not let the U.S. use Iraqis against each other.

Maybe he's going to get to debate W. after all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4MoreYearsOfHell Donating Member (943 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Debate bunnypants? Why, W would chew him up
with his super-dooper on the back hidden receiver, and Saddam, of course, bound and gagged...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nordic65 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Demonizing Saddam?
The guy really is a demon. And a very bad one at that.

Not even the atrocities of George W Bush can rival this guy in scale and pure evil. Please, don't even make a hint of excusing Saddam. I know you don't, but your argument can be seen as doing just that. Not a least because you accuse the US of being a fascist government in the same paragraph. Right or wrong, it makes for a lousy argument...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4MoreYearsOfHell Donating Member (943 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Gee, it all sounds so simple
when you put it like that...A demon, put into power by our very own, and backed by Rummy and Reagan during the 80's...

Did I leave out Cheney and GHWB?

Of course, he was fighting the people who overthrew one of our other favorites, the much beloved Shah of Iran...

I always wondered why the gassing of the Kurds (in 1988) was not such a huge issue until these last 4 years...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nordic65 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. No, it's not simple at all
You are, of coarse, right. Saddam was a true puppet for the west in the context of the cold war. Paid for and supported by some of the very same people in power today (not just in the US).

But that is in no way any excuse for his cruel actions, and more to the point, no justification to even hint at any form of legitimacy behind them.

Just because we bitterly disagree with Bush about the invasion of Iraq, we must not be caught arguing in any way, even remotely, in defense for one the worst dictators in history.

I, for one, would punch the living daylight out of anybody suggesting that my resistance to the war could be seen as a defense for a dictator responsible for more than a million dead human beings. On the other hand, I would be very careful to waste credibility in order to ride a political dead horse (read, the US and others involvement in Iraq during the 1980's).

I know, that is a cruel proposition regarding the victims, but we need to look forward, not re-live the horrors of the past. Even if some of the bastard from the yesteryears still run the show...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4MoreYearsOfHell Donating Member (943 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. And what is exactly is looking forward at this point?
If the country is poised to erupt into civil war? A longer occupation?

Do you not think that Saddam was being held in check by the sanctions? And by the aggressive inspection process underway?

I remember the US govt telling Hans Blix that we knew that Saddam had WMD's, and when Blix asked us for more info, we said we couldn't tell him because it would expose our sources...

Powell and Rice, in early 2001, said Iraq was under control...

And, even though I am a Big Dawg fan, why didn't Clinton try some of his famous diplomacy (it worked in N. Ireland and almost in Palestine) to try to talk with Saddam?

Having said that, I do wish the Big Dawg was still there...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Saddam was "one the worst dictators in history?"
I disagree. Now, are you going to punch me?

"I know, that is a cruel proposition regarding the victims..." - How quickly you discard their suffering for political expediency.

"... , but we need to look forward, not re-live the horrors of the past." - Forget the past so that we can re-live first-hand what the Germans experienced when their country was taken over by the fascist Nazis?

"Even if some of the bastard from the yesteryears still run the show..." - Isn't that the logic behind keeping people like Saddam in power?

Welcome to DU and good luck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarchy1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
27. You are not long for this forum.........
Welcome anyway.

We have many more demons right here in the good ole US of A.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nordic65 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. You know, that would solve a lot of problems...
It's not the proper way to do it, but without that piece of human waste declared dead, the elections in January don't stand a chance of succeeding. Imagine his attorneys issuing statements like this every other day. It would have a devastating effect.

And for all our sour grapes about Iraq, we should all hope for the best come January. There's some 15 million people that deserve a glimmer of hope for a better future...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazzgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Can you say dioxin??
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. Or
Decide to "spend more time with his family."

Or declare he had a "nanny problem" and recuse himself.

Or declare victory in the war on crime and terrorism and decline to serve another term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. No defense of Saddam.
I realize it is more complicated than what I wrote. The fact remains that now the U.S. has boxed itself in by going about the Saddam Regime in the incorrect manner. Saddam was contained and the atrocities he and his sons and regime perpetrated on the Iraqis, most Shi'ites and Kurds were done while being supported by the U.S. It is quite hypocritical of this Fascist Regime in the U.S to keep spouuting about Saddam and how Iraq is the front line of the War On Terror. It's a sham!

Iraq is going to be a colony of the U.S. or all of their cities will suffer as Fallouja is suffering and become Warsaw ghettos as Falloujua is being turned into. How long will the Amerikan people and the world's people go along with this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Not too long, IMHO
The world's people haven't been going along with it.

Turning Iraq into a colony would imply a basic responsiblity for the place which we're never going to get.

It's an unbelievable sham and anyone who argues that Bush isn't a dumbass can take Iraq as a direct refutation. He thought he'd have a cute little war like his dad did.

His dad really botched the first Gulf War, and history was just about to let him off the hook except for Gulf War Part Duh. And the really tragic thing is that we set Saddam up, just like we set bin Laden up, 'cause we thought we could turn them into our bitches, like so many other people around the world.

Saddam was a world class asshole, but so are lots of people. The difference is that we gave him all his weapons and kept him in power. He needed to be gone a LONG, LONG time ago, but we kept propping him up.

We're the prison guards arranging fights among the prisoners and then shooting them for causing a disruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Iraq will turn into this.
America's Sinister Plan for Falluja
by Michael Schwartz


The chilling reality of what Falluja has become is only now seeping out, as the American military continues to block almost all access to the city, whether to reporters, its former residents, or aid groups like the Red Crescent Society. The date of access keeps being postponed, partly because of ongoing fighting -- only this week more air strikes were called in and fighting "in pockets" remains fierce (despite American pronouncements of success weeks ago) -- and partly because of the difficulties military commanders have faced in attempting to prettify their ugly handiwork. Residents will now officially be denied entry until at least December 24; and even then, only the heads of households will be allowed in, a few at a time, to assess damage to their residences in the largely destroyed city.

With a few notable exceptions the media has accepted the recent virtual news blackout in Falluja. The ongoing fighting in the city, especially in "cleared" neighborhoods, is proving an embarrassment and so, while military spokesmen continue to announce American casualties, they now come not from the city itself but, far more vaguely, from "al Anbar province" of which the city is a part. Fifty American soldiers died in the taking of the city; 20 more died in the following weeks -- before the reports stopped. Iraqi civilian casualties remain unknown and accounts of what's happened in the city, except from the point of view of embedded reporters (and so of American troops) remain scarce indeed. With only a few exceptions (notably Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post), American reporters have neglected to cull news from refugee camps or Baghdad hospitals, where survivors of the siege are now congregating.

Intrepid independent and foreign reporters are doing a better job (most notably Dahr Jamail, whose dispatches are indispensable), but even they have been handicapped by lack of access to the city itself. At least Jamail did the next best thing, interviewing a Red Crescent worker who was among the handful of NGO personnel allowed briefly into the wreckage that was Falluja.

A report by Katarina Kratovac of the Associated Press (picked by the Washington Post) about military plans for managing Falluja once it is pacified (if it ever is) proved a notable exception to the arid coverage in the major media. Kratovac based her piece on briefings by the military leadership, notably Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commander of the Marines in Iraq. By combining her evidence with some resourceful reporting by Dahr Jamail (and bits and pieces of information from reports printed up elsewhere), a reasonably sharp vision of the conditions the U.S. is planning for Falluja's "liberated" residents comes into focus. When they are finally allowed to return, if all goes as the Americans imagine, here's what the city's residents may face:

* Entry and exit from the city will be restricted. According to General Sattler, only five roads into the city will remain open. The rest will be blocked by "sand berms" -- read, mountains of earth that will make them impassible. Checkpoints will be established at each of the five entry points, manned by U.S. troops, and everyone entering will be "photographed, fingerprinted and have iris scans taken before being issued ID cards." Though Sattler reassured American reporters that the process would only take 10 minutes, the implication is that entry and exit from the city will depend solely on valid ID cards properly proffered, a system akin to the pass-card system used during the apartheid era in South Africa.

* Fallujans are to wear their universal identity cards in plain sight at all times. The ID cards will, according to Dahr Jamail's information, be made into badges that contain the individual's home address. This sort of system has no purpose except to allow for the monitoring of everyone in the city, so that ongoing American patrols can quickly determine if someone is not a registered citizen or is suspiciously far from their home neighborhood.

* No private automobiles will be allowed inside the city. This is a "precaution against car bombs," which Sattler called "the deadliest weapons in the insurgent arsenal." As a district is opened to repopulation, the returning residents will be forced to park their cars outside the city and will be bused to their homes. How they will get around afterwards has not been announced. How they will transport reconstruction materials to rebuild their devastated property is also a mystery.

* Only those Fallujans cleared through American intelligence vettings will be allowed to work on the reconstruction of the city. Since Falluja is currently devastated and almost all employment will, at least temporarily, derive from whatever reconstruction aid the U.S. provides, this means that the Americans plan to retain a life-and-death grip on the city. Only those deemed by them to be non-insurgents (based on notoriously faulty American intelligence) will be able to support themselves or their families.

* Those engaged in reconstruction work -- that is, work -- in the city may be organized into "work brigades." The best information indicates that these will be military-style battalions commanded by the American or Iraqi armed forces. Here, as in other parts of the plan, the motive is clearly to maintain strict surveillance over males of military age, all of whom will be considered potential insurgents.

More here ... http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1217-26.htm

Were the Iraqis better off with Saddam?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Saddam was for sure an asshole
But except for the dudes killed or in jail, they had their homes and their families. Now we're killing and imprisoning dudes, and taking away their homes and their families.

Ya know, I actually had a cheery half hour this morning before I read this article. Thanks for the info.

Happy "holidays." :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ngant17 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
30. rigging Iraqi elections a piece of cake
Considering how much experience Shrub and company have with rigged and stolen elections in the US, would it be plausible to suggest that they might have a vested interest in working the numbers over there in Iraq? Who's doing the counting? Always the Republicans, of course. Will he use Diebold or Sequoyia to pull it off? As if it really matters!

Even if you have perfectly fair 'counting machines', it would seem that having elections in the middle of a war would not be the most appropriate time.

When was the last time the US Marines invaded a country and created a "democracy"? I recall Nicaragua in 1927, which led to the Somoza dynasty. Sandino didn't count for much back then. He never accepted the official results, and he and 2 of his generals were shot in the back after given amnesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC