Saddam prior to the war

[cooolandrew]

Saddam explained it all even before the war...

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_1/04_saddam_benn.html

[beam me up scottie]

1. I'm no fan of Saddam, but you're exactly right.

Tony Benn: In relation to the inspectors, there appears to be difficulties with inspectors, and I wonder whether there's anything you can tell me about these difficulties and whether you believe they will be cleared up before Mr Hans Blix and Mr Elbaradei come back to Baghdad



Saddam Hussein: When Iraq objects to the conduct of those implementing the Security Council resolutions, that doesn't mean that Iraq wishes to push things to confrontation. Iraq has no interest in war. No Iraqi official or ordinary citizen has expressed a wish to go to war. The question should be directed at the other side. Are they looking for a pretext so they could justify war against Iraq?

If the purpose was to make sure that Iraq is free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons then they can do that. These weapons do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket. These are weapons of mass destruction and it is easy to work out if Iraq has them or not. We have said many times before and we say it again today that Iraq is free of such weapons.

So when Iraq objects to the conduct of the inspection teams or others, that doesn't mean that Iraq is interested in putting obstacles before them which could hinder the efforts to get to the truth. It is in our interest to facilitate their mission to find the truth. The question is does the other side want to get to the same conclusion or are they looking for a pretext for aggression?

If those concerned prefer aggression then it's within their reach. The super powers can create a pretext any day to claim that Iraq is not implementing resolution 1441. They have claimed before that Iraq did not implement the previous resolutions. However after many years it became clear that Iraq had complied with these resolutions. Otherwise, why are they focusing now on the latest resolution and not the previous ones?

Tony Benn rocks!

[cooolandrew]

3. He is a egend isn't he

This man in Britain has been the strongest fighter for left wing causes in the UK, he may be getting on inyears but long may he live.

Great pic, btw.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Yes he is.

I wish we had more men of his caliber.

I envy the UK.

[cooolandrew]

5. Its understandable...

I go on pal voice chat and I feel bad for Americans right now. In England we don't realise how lucky we are, free healthcare for all no matter how poor you get operations, ok there is a tax for people working but it is cheaper than health insurance as there is no profit. Still a welfare system for those that fall out of work, all thanks to Clement Attlee back after the war who is the party of Blair, this is why his intervention in Iraq is a sisappointment. In UK we should be vigilant as we could lose it just as easy.

[beam me up scottie]

7. At least our horrible system

is beneficial to others in that way.

Leftists everywhere worried about their government being taken over by greedy capitalist pigs and/or religious fundamentalists can point to us and say "Do you want to end up like them?".

[cooolandrew]

8. I hear that

Yes, I will be wary of those things.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Thanks for posting this timely reminder.

Recommended.

[Turbineguy]

2. Yes, well......

he did seem to be going "wink...wink....nudge...nudge" when he said he had no WMD's. But then couldn't very well admit that the only weapon keeping him in control was his side arm.

I think he was also a bit disingenuous about the suffering of Iraqi's. He was building nice palaces for himself all the while.

But all that said, we had no real cause to attack Iraq, or at least no cause as stated by George W Bush.

[mike_c]

6. welcome to DU....

Saddam Hussein was telling the truth all along, ever since about 1992 or so, after Iraq gave up trying to preserve some hidden WMD capacity for defense. America and its allies were the ones telling lies, first to conceal Iraqi compliance with U.N. disarmament mandates and maintain a vicious and unnecessary embargo, and later as a pretext to a war of aggression. And Saddam Hussein-- who was telling the truth all along-- is the guy who is in prison now and on trial while Bush the elder, Bill Clinton, and dubya-- the liars-- are all living the good life of wealthy Americans. Who says crime doesn't pay? You just have to be capable of committing crimes of national scope, e.g. genocide.

[cooolandrew]

10. very true

The evidence of these crimes has never been so clear also. It has been seeing through the fog of lies that was the hardest part.

[oblivious]

9. Recommended.

[Dongfang Hong]

11. He certainly did tell the truth,

but was well aware that WMD were not the reason for the war. Therefore, though he said he did not possess WMD (though, in my mind, more to take a contrary position than in service of the truth) he acted as if he still possessed them--perhaps he still believed he could use his imaginary stockpile as leverage in negotiations, or at the very least force the US to advance more slowly, waste bombs and resources looking to destroy them, increase Israeli tension and perhaps breed fear among civilians, restrict US strategic maneuvers for fear of a gas attack, and force the US army to carry and deploy expensive precautionary measures.

He walked a very deft line, his actions affecting the course of the war (though marginally, as much as could reasonably have been expected), his words creating opposition to the war and breeding suspicion of US motives, and neither words nor actions overpowering the other. Though a brutal man, he is not a stupid man.