Anyone else been watching this programme on the BBC? it’s good hearing the views of the conflict from most angles imo.. What struck me was a young Iraqi family, no car, no money and no relatives outside of Fallujah To escape the American assault and how the Mother and Baby boy were hit by shrapnel.. They suffered under Saddam, then under the American assault, Her son sufferers life changing injuries etc. Next they are taken to the USA for treatment as a family for a few months, you can see the joy on their faces etc. But then, it’s back to Iraq, just in time for ISIS to turn up. X
Prince Charles once visited Iran on an official visit. He said to the President, "Where's the Shah?" "What do you mean?" says the President. "We got rid of the Shah years ago." "Okay," says Prince Charles. "In that case I'll take a bath."
I’ve been watching it, very powerful viewing. Nice to see the reporter still alive, unlike many soldiers who left this planet way too early due to their inner demons. Sad thing is, the Iraqi people didn’t actually suffer under Saddam in the grand scheme of things, he hated Al-Qaeda and was at war against them. The UK and America have ruined them for the next generation minimum, ignoring the nearly 1.5m people killed and other millions re-homed. Saddam was mad, 100% but only a small minority suffered in comparison to what the Allied Forces did. War should be about defending freedom, not strategic and financial domination.
He certainly god rid of those who had spoken out against him from the old cabinet when he was elected.. Called their names out they were taken outside and shot there and then ... Ruled by utter fear.. X
It was hard to watch at times for the right reasons.. i didnt watch all of it but it seemed to bring some balance to what is often a very one sided narrative
I watched all of them with interest as I used to travel through Iraq in the mid 70s. Its very sad to see how the Americans had no idea what to do after the invasion. Didn't America help Sadam get into power in the first place. Looking forward to the next episode. Steve
No Saddams politics were Socialist based the post revolution climate saw the Baathist party nationalise Anglo-American assets. Seems from the heavy equipment the Iraqi army had that he favoured Soviet arms and not those of the West. He may have had some backing from the West during the Iran-Iraq war but probably just an ambivalent approach given there being no love for Iran. Kuwait and his perceived threat to Saudi Arabia was his great undoing The WMD were just an excuse to finish him off and destabilise the Middle East further IMO.
Help Saddam into power? The Anerican and the Brit governments did all they needed to ensure Saddam took over Iraq. Later during the regime both backed him. "United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran. ‘[/b] Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC’s Nightline, “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into the power it became”, and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.” Reagan White House: ‘To defeat Iran, we will fortify Saddam, he may be a killer. He may be a butcher, but he’s our guy.
As always, America likes to intervene in everyone else’s problem..... I don’t get why if 2 countries hate each other, America has to step in.....
So with Iran backed by the Russians and Iraq backed by America was the Iraq Iran i think in most cases there’s an ulterior motive and in this case it was oil wells .. X
Control of resources (money) is high on the list for world superpowers (or those that think they are/aspire to be), middle east is oil as is south America (with some drugs thrown in), North Korea is curious but it does hold vast reserves of lithium. Of course these interventions stir up unrest and 'terrorist' organisations spring up - but who funds them..... If you look up some of the history of Persia/Iran in the 20th century it gives an insight into what has been going on in the entire middle east - and you can draw your own conclusions as to who are the real bad guys
It is a strange one granted ... I mean The Japanese and Pearl Harbour bringing The Americans into WW2 was a given but as to why they got involved with Vietnam? Then you get situations like the former Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe Yet there’s no sign of them turning up there to intervene where terrible atrocities where happening .. then you get the USA backing one side V the Russians backing the other side.. For example the Russians backing Syria and the Yanks backing the Kurds the Russians Iran and USA Iraq etc etc.. Money/ Oil talks so it seems In preference to human rights .. X
I was living in Syria when this war was on. My friends there predicted (it wasn't that hard) the aftermath. They unanimously agreed that Saddam was an evil bad man, but he was keeping the lid on even worse. Remove him and the Pandora's box was opened and it was going to get/remain VERY messy for a long while. The other, very rarely talked about catalyst for US intervention there is (was/was claimed to be) that Saddam was in the process of turning to the €Euro as the default currency to trade Iraqi oil. When you consider that pumping oil from the ground is effectively pumping $US from the ground, Bush couldn't allow that to happen and perhaps a US economy damaging ball to start rolling in the region.
Oil wasn't too problematic then - plenty of Saudi oil for 'Merka - fight the 'terrorists' or in that case the 'communists' The Vietnam War was a long, costly and divisive conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. The conflict was intensified by the ongoing Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union
The Americans went in because the French were being forcibly removed from their former colony. Perhaps they thought they could repeat the partition of Korea?
Human rights? That seems to vary considerablt depending on whose human rights (and whether there is oil). The Russians need a warm water refueling depot for their shipping & military. They also want a firm base in the middle east (near the oil). Its called Syria. I think the USA thought they could demonstrate their "invincible power" to the world in Vietnam. By the time they realised this would not be possible, they were commited to the conflict. By the time they accepted they could not win (without nukes) they were facing total defeat.
