"Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, has gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believes he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him."

http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm

It is important and timely to examine the International Atomic Energy Agencys (IAEA) inspections of Iraqs nuclear program, both before and after the Gulf War. Distinctly absent from most policy discussions of the topic are voices critical of the Agencys performance in Iraq. The IAEAs record of shortcomings and failures in detecting nuclear-weapons development in Iraq should be weighed against its accomplishments when assessing any potential role for the Agency in the event inspections are resumed in Iraq.

The only IAEA visits to Iraq since Saddam kicked U.N. inspectors out in late 1998 have been two brief trips to verify the amount and status of Iraqs declared stocks of natural and low-enriched uranium.[2] However, there have been troubling indications over the last two years that Saddams nuclear-weapons program has not only survived, but been reinvigorated. In a speech televised in Baghdad last September, Saddam told his nuclear energy officials that the battle is your battle, that Iraqs enemies will be defeated when their losses will be as huge as the gains they had hoped to achieve, and that the Nuclear Energy [Association] has a big duty in this field.[3] Salman Zweir worked for 13 years as an engineer for the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission before defecting to the West in late 1998. Zweir, who worked on the centrifuge uranium enrichment program, claims that Saddam recalled him and many other technical personnel to the nuclear-weapons program in the fall of 1998. Zweir refused, was imprisoned and tortured, and eventually escaped to the West.[4] Some other recent reports of alleged defectors are less credible.[5] The general picture that emerges is an ongoing, active effort by Iraq to build nuclear weapons.

The IAEA performance in Iraq has not been reassuring. Iraq learned early on that it could conceal a nuclear weapons program by cooperating with the IAEA. Khidhir Hamza, a senior Iraqi scientist who defected to the United States in 1994, wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that Saddam Hussein approved a deception-by-cooperation scheme in 1974. "Iraq was careful to avoid raising IAEA suspicions; an elaborate strategy was gradually developed to deceive and manipulate the agency," Hamza said.[6] The strategy worked. Iraq, as a signer of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, was subject to IAEA inspections on all nuclear facilities. But IAEA's inspectors had failed to detect the Iraqi "Manhattan Project," which was discovered after the Gulf War by IAEA teams at sites identified by the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM).

The IAEA's track record of missing evidence of Iraq's nuclear weapons program both predates and post-dates the Gulf War. In 1981, Israeli air strikes destroyed Iraq's nearly complete Osirak research reactor because Tel Aviv feared Iraq's plutonium-production capacity if the plant was allowed to start up. After the attack, IAEA inspector Roger Richter resigned from the agency to defend Israel's action. He had helped negotiate the IAEA's "safeguards" arrangement for the reactor and later told Congress that the agency had failed to win sufficient access to detect plutonium production for weapons.[7] In August 1990, only weeks after Iraq invaded Kuwait, IAEA safeguards director Jon Jennekens praised Iraqi cooperation with the IAEA as "exemplary," and said Iraq's nuclear experts "have made every effort to demonstrate that Iraq is a solid citizen" under the nonproliferation treaty.[8]

In 1991, after the Gulf War, the U.N. awarded the nuclear-inspection portfolio in Iraq to the IAEA rather than UNSCOM, following a concerted lobbying campaign by the IAEA, supported by the United States and France. The principal argument was political: With only a few years remaining before the Non-Proliferation Treaty had to be extended, it would be extremely damaging for the treaty's survival if the agency were downgraded in any way.

Its turf battle won, the IAEA continued to see things Iraq's way. In September 1992, after destruction of the nuclear-weapons plants found in the war's aftermath, Mauricio Zifferero, head of the IAEA's "Action Team" in Iraq, declared Iraq's nuclear program to be "at zero now. . . totally dormant." Zifferero explained that the Iraqis "have stated many times to us that they have decided at the higher political levels to stop these activities. This we have verified."[9]

But it eventually became clear that Iraq had concealed evidence of its continuing nuclear bomb program. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel, fled to Jordan and revealed that he had led a "crash program" just before the Gulf War to build a crude nuclear weapon out of IAEA-safeguarded, civilian nuclear fuel, as well as a program after the war to refine the design of nuclear warheads to fit Scud missiles. Iraqi officials insisted that Kamel's work was unauthorized, and they led IAEA officials to a large cache of documents at Kamel's farm that, the Iraqis said, proved Kamel had directed the projects without their knowledge.

The Kamel revelations refuted an IAEA claim, made in 1993 by Hans Blix, then Director General of the IAEA and currently head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), that "the Iraqis never touched the nuclear highly enriched uranium which was under our safeguards."[10] In fact, the Iraqis had cut the ends off of some HEU fuel rods, and were preparing to remove the material from French- and Russian-supplied research reactors for use in weapons when the allied bombing campaign interrupted the project.[11] The IAEA accepted a technically flawed claim by Iraqi officials that the bomb project would have been delayed by the need to further enrich the bomb-grade fuel for use in weapons.[12] Also, defector Hamza later made clear that Iraq could have made direct use of the material in a bomb within a few months.

There were sharp differences between UNSCOM and the IAEA on how to conduct weapons inspections.[13] UNSCOM was more confrontational, refusing to accept Iraqi obfuscations and demanding evidence of destroyed weapons---what former UNSCOM chief Rolf Ekeus once called "the arms-control equivalent of war." The IAEA has been more accommodating, giving Iraqi nuclear officials the benefit of the doubt when they failed to provide evidence that all nuclear weapons components had been destroyed and all prohibited activities terminated. Ekeus acknowledged "a certain culture problem" resulting from UNSCOM's "more aggressive approach, and the IAEA's more cooperative approach."[14] The result was a widespread and dangerous perception that Iraq's nuclear threat was history, while Iraq was generally perceived to be concealing other weapons of mass destruction because UNSCOM consistently refused to accept unverified claims of their elimination.

There were intelligence reports, received and deemed reliable in late 1996 by UNSCOM chief inspector Scott Ritter, that Iraq had constructed one to three complete sets of components for nuclear bombs, lacking only the fissile material to make them operational.[15] Khidir Hamza wrote that at least one such set of components had been assembled and displayed for Hussein Kamel immediately prior to the Gulf War.[16] These components have never been accounted for, nor has Iraqs nuclear-bomb design been surrendered to the IAEA. Based on the IAEAs own inspection reports, Nuclear Control Institute has documented several other important unresolved issues regarding Iraqs nuclear weapons program,[17] demonstrating the inaccuracy of IAEA Director-General ElBaradeis December 1997 statement that the IAEA has managed to remove or destroy or render harmless all nuclear items that came to our knowledge.[18]

The absence of evidence of ongoing Iraqi efforts to build the bomb after the Gulf War was construed by the IAEA as evidence of the absence of a bomb program. The fact Iraq made unsubstantiated claims and the IAEA could not find any evidence to dispute those claims should have been cause for concern, not an excuse to cease intrusive nuclear inspections in favor of ongoing monitoring and verification, as the IAEA had proposed in early 1998. A major lesson to be learned from this period is that, when doubts persist, the presumption should be that active investigation and inspections must be continued, not abandoned in frustration.

It is prudent to assume that there is a small, well-concealed nuclear weapons program in Iraq, possibly with fully developed components suitable for rapid assembly into one or more workable weapons if the requisite fissile material (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) were acquired. IAEA officials have admitted that it would be difficult if not impossible to detect the covert acquisition by Iraq of the small amounts of fissile material needed for a few bombs, and the Agencys ongoing monitoring and verification plan is predicated on the assumption that Iraq retains the technical capability to exploit, for nuclear weapons purposes, any relevant material to which it might gain access.[19] If Iraq has been able to smuggle in the needed material from, say, Russia or another former Soviet republic, the nuclear threat could be quite real. Any future role for the IAEA in Iraq should be considered in the light of lessons learned from past failures.



http://www.nci.org/new/iraq-ib.htm

Maybe if the IAEA would have done their job, and Sadam not had kicked out the U.N. inspectors war could have been avoided.

That's not the American style, Quiet. It's too dirty and risky. Americans like to blow innocent people up from many miles away.

Nice, a pre 9-11 article....June 2001.

Even the Dippic admitted the "flawed intel"....might as well have said he lied. He did.....and his brown nosers still do.

A million innocents killed...imagine.

And what did I say after the entire article?

"Maybe if the IAEA would have done their job, and Sadam not had kicked out the U.N. inspectors war could have been avoided."

Try reading the whole thing instead of just a part of it. Then maybe you could understand my point.

He can't.

It wouldn't fit into the way he wants to see things.

There were UN inspectors up until 48 hours before Bush started bombing Iraq. Bush told the UN inspectors to leave as the bombing was going to start, so get the facts straight , it wasn't Saddam who kicked them out, they had to leave or be bombed by Bush. Most people also forget Saddam Challanged Bush to a debate in front of the UN on WMDs and Bush refused or ignored it, regardless it was a headlong rush to war and the begining of our economic collapse.

Good points. Thanks for reminding me of that.

No the point is still you're using pre 9-11 intel and with the Dippic only 6 months into his reign when it was written then that means it's irrelevent. They already had plans, few knew what for...until 9-11 that is. NOW we can see clearly that the invasions were not only illegal but immoral as well, it was a set up...and with 1 million innocent people killed...imagine how many human beings that is...or does anyone on the "right" even care? Or do they just want to use lame talking points..lame denials of the crimes the people they supported did. Who cares, they're "them" right?

This would make a great T-bagger sign!

Bush did not kill all the Iraqis. The United States is not responsible for the insurgency. Sunnis are killing the Shi'ites. Shi'ites are killing the Sunnis. Sunnis are killing the Kurds. Turks are killing the Kurds. The Kurds are fighting Turks and Sunnis. The U.S. deposed Saddam. There was and is a power vacuum. It sucks.

The social and political problems in this region predate W. These fights predate the United States. So don't make absurd arguments about Bush being responsible for destabilizing the situation. The balance of power has been unstable there for hundreds and hundreds of years. Unfortunately it is all too obvious who is to blame for the internecine fighting. It is the participants not the U.S. policeman.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

It is arrogant beyond belief to assume that our intelligence failures or the invasion or Bush's grey matter contributed in any way more than the tiniest amount to the problems they have in Iraq. These people just want to dominate or kill each other.

Saddam was just fairly good at killing his opponents - except us. We got him. Now, we've handed off the responsibility of peaceful governance and maintaining security to the Iraqis where it belongs. It is up to them to learn how to live together or kill each other off. Bon Voyage.

War sucks, killing sucks,, but Saddam knew his 'region' better than we ever will and had much more ability to keep it 'stable', however controversial his methods...


we should sometimes stay out of things that arent our battle,,,

Exactly. And some people might want to keep their emotions in check regarding the Iraq War. If you look at it from a cost standpoint, money spent, destruction caused, lives lost, political instability in the region, Iraqis were certainly better off under the Saddam Regime than they are now. But alas we cannot undo what we have done, only find an answer to making things better. Unfortunately that solution is still over the horizon.

Just curious, let's say that the ones who attacked us on 9/11 were proven to be Mexican terrorists. Now play along with me here. Would it make any logical sense to plan and execute a war with Venezuela and Colombia following this tragic event? I don't think so! So why are we fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems a little strange, if you use the hypothetical above scenario.

"controversial methods"?

you mean stuff like the torture chambers built specifically to house 10 year old children? The chains on the wall were built at four feet high to hold their little arms. Then they were raped (boys and girls) in front of their parents. And their little bones were broken and electric shocked

that is pretty controversial to me

then there was Saddam's sons, Uday and Cousay. Who had the habit of showing up at every Iraqi wedding and abducting the bride. After about 48 hours of gang rape and torture her battered and broken body would be returned to the groom. That didn't happen just once or even ten times. It happened hundreds of times. Iraqis developed the habit of secret marriages to protect their women

that is pretty controversial

and there was Saddam's crusade against the Kurds in the north. His planes flew over the Kurdish towns spraying nerve gas killing over 5000 men and women and children. And destroying the health of an estimated 11,000 survivors


Survivors said the gas at first scented with the smell of sweet apples;[9] they said people died in a number of ways, suggesting a combination of toxic chemicals (some of the victims "just dropped dead" while others "died of laughing"; while still others took a few minutes to die, first "burning and blistering" or coughing up green vomit).[10] It is believed that Iraqi forces used multiple chemical agents during the attack, including mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, soman, tabun and VX;[11] some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide (most of the wounded taken to hospitals in the Iranian capital Tehran were suffering from mustard gas exposure).[1]

-wiki

that is pretty controversisal too

but, hey. he kept the region stable

except of course when he attacking Iran or invading Kuwait




Saddam's version of "stability"

With the invasion of Tibet in 1950 and the subsequent Seventeen Point Agreement, the PRC asserted control over Tibet.

Chinese sources generally claim progress towards a prosperous and free society in Tibet, with its pillars being economic development, legal advancement, and peasant emancipation. These claims, however, have been refuted by the Tibet Government-in-Exile and some indigenous Tibetans, who claim of genocide in Tibet from the Chinese government, comparing it to Nazi Germany. The official doctrine of the PRC classifies Tibetans as one of its 56 recognized ethnic groups and part of the greater Zhonghua Minzu or multi-ethnic Chinese nation. Warren Smith, an independent scholar and a broadcaster with the Tibetan Service of Radio Free Asia, whose work began to focus on Tibetan history and politics after spending five months in Tibet in 1982, portrays the Chinese as "chauvinists" who believe they are superior to Tibetans, and claims that the Chinese Communist Party uses torture, coercion and starvation to control the Tibetan population.

Now it would seem that some pretty bad things are being done to the citizens of Tibet under the regime of Chinese imperialism. Yet, the United States is not swooping in for an attack against China to save the poor Tibetans. I use this as an example because, yes, indeed, there are brutal regimes and conflicts, and tortures and killings going on in this world all of the time, but the U.S. does not go in and interfere with an all out assault and drawn out war. With two recent exceptions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not ours to fight, and they were for the wrong reasons. People suffering under a regime warrants a response of diplomacy and humanitarian assistance, not bombs and bullets. A direct attack against us or a close ally of the US would warrant an armed response.

Not the Tibet thread but oh well.

To get back to Iraq....The problem with Islamic state sponsors of
terrorism is that they have a lot of money and give it freely along
with IEDs, RPGs, weapons, missiles, bomb vests, training etc. to
religious fundamentalist nutballs who fly airliners into skyscrapers
among other things.

Although Saddam was not Al-Qaida, Saddam was a major sponsor of
terrorism and had openly threatened the U.S. and other allies. That
is part of the reason we wound up involved there along with bad
intel, impatience, Saddam stonewalling and a previous history of
attempted nuclear development and the use of biological warfare to
kill his own people. His threats could not be safely ignored forever.

Similar problems in Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, N. Korea and
especially Iran at this time. These situations are real threats,
people. Not to be trivialized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc

Oh, except one of the key players is Saudi Arabia. Gee, it's a shame we can't attack them.


"Rewarding Suicide Bombers
Among the documents found in Tulkarm was a table from Saudi Arabia itemizing the tenth set of payments to the "Martyrs of the Al-Aqsa Intifada." The table details how $545,000 was allocated to 102 families. The logo at the top of the table reads: "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Committee for Aid to the Al-Quds Intifada." This committee was established in the fall of 2000 under the Saudi Minister of the Interior, Prince Nayef bin 'Abd al-Aziz. Prince Nayef's organization was also responsible for collecting Saudi contributions during the April 11 telethon for Palestinian "martyrs" on Saudi state television.

The table explains the type of activity that entitled a family to receive Saudi assistance:

According to the document, Abd al-Fatah Muhammad Musalah Rashid, number 15 on the list, died in a "martyrdom act." The individual involved was a member of the pro-Iranian Islamic Jihad who died in a car-bomb attack at Beit Lid on September 9, 2001, for which he was responsible. Eight Israelis were wounded.

Abd al-Karim Amr Muhammad Abu Na'sa, who appears as number 17 in the Saudi table, is described as having died in a "martyrdom act in Afula." This is a reference to his suicide bombing on behalf of Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Afula on November 27, 2001. Forty-six Israelis were wounded.

There is no doubt that when the document refers to a "martyrdom act" -- amliyya itishaddiyya -- it is referring to suicide attacks. A martyr, or "shahid" in Arabic, is an individual who gave his life in a holy war -- or in a Jihad -- and is therefore entitled to automatic entry into Paradise after his death, according to Islamic tradition. The term "martyr" has thus become synonymous with suicide bombers or those who died attacking Israelis. Israel has been able to determine that at least eight of the beneficiaries of Saudi aid are the families of suicide bombers.

Other "martyrs" on the Saudi list may not have been suicide bombers, but were well known for their past involvement in terrorism. Thus, number 68, Mahmud Abu Hanud, was the commander of Hamas for the West Bank. Number 8, Atef Abiyat, commanded the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Bethlehem. His name was well known to those who engaged in peace process matters since Yasser Arafat promised the European Union that he was in prison while he moved about freely until his death.

When a potential suicide bomber knows that his family will be handsomely rewarded with financial aid after his death, his motivation to undertake suicide operations increases. Thus, Saudi aid promotes terrorism directly."

http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-23.htm

not that I am not always respectful or your position quiet,, but I dont know of anything but the war with the kurds,,,which I thought was partially funded by the US....

as to the rest, I havent heard any other solid evidence behind it,,,if its true,, its AWFUL, of course,,,but even with that criteria,,there are MANY regions of the world where such tortorous tactics are used against 'enemies'

I am not condoning children dying, but in regards to war I know of none in which some didnt

and in regard to his sons,,they got what was coming to them and it still didnt justify, in my humble opinion, the money, resources and lives it has cost us since,,,

Not true.

Saddam didn't even have weapons of mass destruction to show anyone so he was doomed to die and not by his fault.