Saddam 'warns Syria against alliance with Iran'

[sabra]

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1181877.php/Saddam_warns_Syria_against_alliance_with_Iran

Saddam 'warns Syria against alliance with Iran'

Amman - Toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has issued a warning to the Syrian leadership 'not to go too far in its alliance with Iran,' blaming Tehran for the current flare-up of violence in the Middle East, the head of Saddam's defence team claimed Tuesday.

...

'The president told us that the Syrian leadership should not go too far in its alliance with Iran, because the Persians harbour bad intentions for all Arabs and aspire to see them vanquished,' he said.

'The Israeli aggression on Lebanon and the Palestinians is a natural result for what happened to Iraq with Iranian backing,' Saddam reportedly said, alluding to the US-led invasion of Iraq that resulted in the ouster of his regime in April 2003.

'Therefore, I do not exclude other Arab countries becoming the victim of US-backed Israeli attacks that serve Iranian objectives in the region,' he added.

[burythehatchet]

1. very interesting

not sure what to make of it

[Turbineguy]

3. Indeed

He's probably right. Even he get's it right from time to time. He should certainly have a better understanding of the players. He tends to guess wrong when it comes to the US.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Wha?

Tell Saddam to not worry his pretty little head about it. :rofl:



*Perhaps, he should be concerned with saving his own hide from the hangman's noose. :(

[Minnesota Libra]

4. So Saddam isn't as stupid as the neocons would have us think, right.......

.....and I hope Syria takes his advice to heart. Let's face it, a stable Iraq was the only thing keeping Iran in check. Hezballoh seems to have exploded onto the scene since the US went into Iraq.

edited to add; I don't want anyone thinking that because Saddam may be right about this one thing that I necessarily support or agree with anything else he has said or done. Everyone can get at least one thing right sooner or later - although idiot boy is still working on his one thing.

[cantstandbush]

13. Remember at one time Saddam was our proxy warrior against Iran.

Well, Saddam is in custody and Arafat is dead...so now is to blame for the problems of the ME and I/P problem? For sure, the US will not point its finger at Israel so it must be the US?

[unda cova brutha]

15. if we were smart

we would get outof Iraq today and let Saddam take back control of the coutrny that we illegally took from him. We had no busines removing him from office and should let him back in.

[Minnesota Libra]

16. I think some people in Iraq that..........

.....Saddam and his sons either tortured or had tortured that might object to that idea of returning Saddam to power. I'm not saying that having Saddam back in power wouldn't be a stabilizing force in the region I'm just saying some of his fellow countrymen might object.

[Amonester]

26. Which ones of his fellow countrymen (women & children) might...

object?

The ones he tortured at Abu Ghraib or the ones Bu$hfuhrer tortured at the same place (and elsewhere)?

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
(Warning: 'EXTREME' GRAPHICS)

:banghead:

[Jacobin]

5. See here for an interesting read on these developments

It all gets stranger and stranger as the jihadists jockey for position amongst themselves.

http://billmon.org/archives/002537.html

[Cha]

20. Like billmon says..

"Interesting if true"..and it helped me understand a little more of what's going on over there in billmon's own inimitable way.

I'm thinking that, yeah, "hezbollah could be earning major brownie points by standing up to the zionists" but how's that whole Lebanon infrastucture thing workin' out?

THanks for the billmon link.

[Sal316]

6. Iraq and Iran have a long bloody history.

Especially since Saddam came into power. His suppression of the Shi'a majority never sat well with the Iranians. Khomeini hid out in Najaf prior to the Revolution, making things very uncomfortable for him. One dream the Iranians have always had was for the Shi'a to rise up against him and toss him out on his ear.

So, you can see where the bad vibes come from.

..an interesting sidenote...the political parties founded by Khomeini are now the dominant force in the new Iraqi parliment.

[democratic]

23. Exactly

And Arabs and Persians don't exactly like eachother

[rooboy]

7. The Syrians are Ba'athist too, but a little different from the Iraqis. n/t

[megatherium]

8. We should arrange for Saddam to be acquitted.

He can be our bulwark against the Iranians. It's not too late to undo the damage we've done to our strategic security in the region.


:sarcasm:

[Hawkowl]

14. Not funny really

If you think about it, releasing Saddam and installing him as "president" is not out of the realm of possibility. The U.S. has installed and backed dictators time and time again in the name of "stability". Stability just means knock off the shooting so our corporations can continue raping your country. Once the profitability starts to drop off on the racketeering, and war profiteering by Cheney and Halliburton, all this talk about democracy in Iraq will dry up and be replaced with "stability" and "security".

[megatherium]

18. No, not at all funny, just sardonic.

Certainly nothing I support, for just the reasons you outline.

[iconoclastic cat]

9. Yeah, right. Like they're really letting him release public statements.

Total propagannon.

[plasticsundance]

11. Exactly ... Thank you

Sheesh ... wake up people.

[fujiyama]

19. It's an odd statement...But it's worth keeping in mind that

Saddam has never liked the Iranians in any way. Remember, he sacrificed several hundred thousand Iraqis when he faught Iran in one of the bloodiest wars in the last several decades. He also oppressed the Shia majority when he was in power. Some of these statements may be due to frustration in watching Shiites gain political power in Iraq.

Also, Syria is ruled by the Baath party. While, not necessarily having good relations (Syria didn't back them in the first gulf war), Saddam never hated them the way he hated the Iranians.

[Laotra]

10. Bah

Perhaps Saddam has forgotten that Syria fought against him in the first Gulf War.

[stepnw1f]

12. Is This Authentic

This sounds like more anti-Iranian rhetoric. What a mess...

[msmcghee]

17. Some here seem to think that being a brutal . .

. . dictator means that you are stupid. I'd say the opposite is more likely true. If you are a brutal dictator then you make many mortal enemies whose greatest desire in life is to see you dead. So, only the smartest (and most ruthless) survive very long.

Also, many in America think that Arab society would be just like ours if only they had nicer leaders. I think that's very naive. Straddling important trade routes and separated from each other by vast deserts, for centuries Arabs have lived according to strong-man rules - which simply means that "the strongest man rules". Such fear and respect for the local badass-dude permeates their culture from the time a young boy learns to relate to his brothers, figure out which male friends to confide in, which allegiances to make and which to avoid, learns his place in society over females and earns his place in society over weaker males, etc.

It is the oldest form of human organization and it exists as subcultures within modern societies like ours. We have the mob in its various incarnations and our gang-bangers too. It's a natural occurrence everywhere its allowed to flourish. In Arab countries it is not only allowed, it is the only alternative. For most males, you either join a gang equivalent and nurture that influence to some sort of financial success in your life - or you get pushed around all your life and certainly remain poor. The political organization of almost every Arab nation is some institutionalized version of this.

Whenever some enlightened politician tries to advocate for democratic reform, he is either co-opted by the real powers, or is killed. Those who live within the strongman system see democracy as a weakness - why would men with guns and power give them away and invite women and weaker men to participate in decisions? Islam is not their guiding force. As with all religions it is a reflection of their cultural psychology and values.

It would take a major cultural realignment by the whole society and many years of struggle to rid a culture of that self-perpetuating mode of organization once it is firmly established - as it is in the ME. Thanks to the West's stupid efforts after WWI and WWII, to impose our own geopolitical order on the ME, that's likely to take centuries now if it ever occurs at all.

The reality is that the ME sits atop most of the world's oil reserves and for various reasons Israel decided to establish her homeland right in the middle of that nest of strongman-controlled imaginary-states. What we see today is the reality of thousands of years of tribal war and the twentieth century's worst wars - coming home to roost in the twenty-first.

Hold on tight, folks. You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Karenina]

22. Best. Post. Ever.

Excellent analysis BASED IN REALITY. :thumbsup:

[rastafan]

21. Iran and "Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032

"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

(continued)

[bemildred]

24. I think he wants his old job back. nt

[MoseyWalker]

25. watched Charlie Rose last night

he had on a Syrian woman, who was very forthcoming about her views. She said that Syria supported Iran during the Iraq/Iran war, so this doesn't surprise me.

What does surprise me is how much I've forgotten about history.