Was Saddam Hussain vilified by misleading WMD claims by the US for not supporting the dollar?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lidmat

Banned
Member
Jun 18, 2018
502
#1
https://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/chron.html

Look at the chronology on the website. All this talk about Bush's invasion had the prime motive of getting Iraq's oil, while it has benefited the US from the point-of-view of increased supply leading to global oil market stability and US oil companies receiving contracts, is not true.

From the UN website:

In Dec 1996, Saddam accepts entry into the UN Oil-for-Food programme:
10 December 1996: Following the Secretary-General's report to the Council that all measures are in place for the implementation of resolution 986 (1995), phase I officially begins with the pumping of Iraqi oil for export. The first proceeds from the sale of oil are deposited in the United Nations Iraq Account (Escrow Account), at the Banque Nationale de Paris in New York on 15 January 1997.
In 2000, Iraq switches from US dollars to euro as the currency on which to price its oil exports.
31 October 2000: The Security Council's 661 Committee authorises the UN Treasury to open an UN Iraq account in euro. It also requests an in-depth report within three months on the costs and benefits for the Programme and other financial and administrative implications of the payment for Iraqi oil in euro.
That's a big red line for the US, which uses force to make sure the US dollar is the de facto currency of the world. If Iraq doesn't fall in line, it would reduce demand for dollars, which would weaken the currency.

If another country switches from dollars to euros in the future, you'll see reports of regime change or something of that sort.

EDIT: Saddam was a brutal dictator who deserved to go. "vilified by misleading WMD claims" does not mean he wasn't evil already. Just that the US made the case for invasion to the world using WMDs. We all remember the warm Donald Rumsfeld-Saddam meetings in the 1980s. The US already knew Saddam was evil before the 1980s.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
10,776
#3
Yeah, no. He was still a dictator who's done a lot of horrible things. The WMD scandal (which was also a disgusting matter) doesn't change Saddam's legacy in the slightest tbh.
 
Mar 4, 2018
338
#4
Yeah, no. He was still a dictator who's done a lot of horrible things. The WMD scandal (which was also a disgusting matter) doesn't change Saddam's legacy in the slightest tbh.
Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster (and his son made Caligula look sane). What the US did to Iraq is and remains an atrocity, but Saddam himself was also a horrible dictator.
Yeah agree with these.
 
OP
OP

lidmat

Banned
Member
Jun 18, 2018
502
#5
Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster (and his son made Caligula look sane). What the US did to Iraq is and remains an atrocity, but Saddam himself was also a horrible dictator.
Yeah, no. He was still a dictator who's done a lot of horrible things. The WMD scandal (which was also a disgusting matter) doesn't change Saddam's legacy in the slightest tbh.
There are other brutal dictators in the world whose countries weren't invaded...
 
OP
OP

lidmat

Banned
Member
Jun 18, 2018
502
#7
Yeah, but your thread title asks the question if Saddam was wrongfully vilified.
Fair point. I meant vilified specifically by the WMD claims. The argument used by Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld (who was friends with Saddam in the 1980s) wasn't that he was brutal. Saddam was known to be brutal in the 1980s, too.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,776
#8
There are other brutal dictators in the world whose countries weren't invaded...
This is correct and I understand what you're getting at in the OP. The USA handled that situation wrongly by fabricating evidence to invade a country. That can not be excused. But the thread title is misleading, because it implies Saddam was wronged: Saddam was not a bloody dictator because of the WMDs, he was already one regardless of the veradicity of such claims. He got what he deserved.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,514
Belgium
#10
Fair point. I meant vilified specifically by the WMD claims. The argument used by Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld (who was friends with Saddam in the 1980s) wasn't that he was brutal.
The WMD thing wasn't really meant to "vilify" Saddam. It was one casus belli among a few others, as I understand it. If you're asking if the WMD-as-casus-belli thing was justified, then no, it wasn't whatsoever.
 
Dec 12, 2017
1,009
#11
Oct 25, 2017
7,044
Singapore
#12
Saddam Hussein was a piece of shit and no one was sorry to see him go. I don't think anyone associates Saddam being a trash dictator with WMD claims in particular. The reasoning used for the invasion of Iraq and the character of the dictator in the country being invaded are two very different things. Claiming Iraq had WMDs didn't make Saddam look particularly worse as a person, it just gave stronger justification for the invasion of the country.

This is a strange argument.
 
Nov 17, 2017
359
#13
he wasn't exactly "vilified", he was killed. he was the ruler of a country (a dictator, a despot, of course) that was largely supported with money and weapons by the same nations that then proceeded to invade and raze it, he was imprisoned and then quickly executed without a real motive.

he was probably a monster, I think we all agree on that. still...
 
#14
Yes, that's the main reason. For the people here pointing the obvious that he wasn't exactly the most awesome guy in the world, why don't the US invade other countries that are less rich in oil or other resources?

This is correct and I understand what you're getting at in the OP. The USA handled that situation wrongly by fabricating evidence to invade a country. That can not be excused. But the thread title is misleading, because it implies Saddam was wronged: Saddam was not a bloody dictator because of the WMDs, he was already one regardless of the veradicity of such claims. He got what he deserved.
Over half a million civilians died, millions permanently displaced. Did they get what they deserved, too? It directly gave rise to other shady organizations like ISIS and what have you. If Saddam's Iraq didn't have the riches they had, the US wouldn't be fucking arsed to do jack shit. Claiming that Saddam being a dictator was the main reason is incredibly naive and quite frankly ignorant. He already was that for years. It wasn't until he went against US financial interests that they apparently deemed him worthy of their intervention.
 
Oct 27, 2017
695
#16
Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster (and his son made Caligula look sane). What the US did to Iraq is and remains an atrocity, but Saddam himself was also a horrible dictator.
Yep, pretty much.

There is video of him taking power and basically handpicking political adversaries to execute. Some of the people in the room started praising him out loud in a desperate attempt to be spared; It's terrifying.

The whole situation with WMD's was also a stain in US foreign policy. The way that the ministry of defense chose to interpret and distort information, while the secretary of state lied to congress about it was appalling.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,342
#17
He was a piece of shit that deserved his fate.

However, the US did go after him for other reasons like their own profits. If he wasn't taken down then Iraq might have been in way better state than now. Removing a dictator needs tons of thought and planning which the US didn't attempt to do. This resulted in the mess we have today.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,776
#18
Yes, that's the main reason. For the people here pointing the obvious that he wasn't exactly the most awesome guy in the world, why don't the US invade other countries that are less rich in oil or other resources?


Over half a million civilians died, did they get what they deserved, too? If Saddam's Iraq didn't have the riches they had, the US wouldn't be fucking arsed to do jack shit. Claiming that Saddam being a dictator was the main reason is incredibly naive and quite frankly ignorant. He already was that for years. It wasn't until he went against US financial interests that they apparently deemed him worthy of their intervention.
I never said the war was justified, in fact I said what the USA did was inexcusable. Saddam was a bloody dictator, I think we can agree on this. Him getting fucked over is no bad thing considering his past actions, the blood he shed. The fact that the USA was absolutely fine with his behaviour decades prior is relevant in a historic sense, but doesn't change that Saddam was a bloody dictator who was not, in fact, villified for no reason. The war shouldn't have happened, not over fabricated evidence especially. Saddam had to go, however, and I don't feel sorry for him. The country's population deserved better, however, then decades of a bloody dictatorship only to be dragged into a war that, ironically, wasn't even right. I am not advocating for the USA here, what they did is horrible and I'm surprised how easily it's forgotten. But let's not wash away Saddam's crimes, either.
 
Oct 27, 2017
29
#19
This topic is strange to read. Everyone is ignoring the actual proposition of the OP- that the US invaded Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein from getting Euro-denominated payments for oil i.e. keep their dollar as the 'de facto currency of the world'.

For what it's worth, I think the idea is absolute rubbish. But it's still strange to see everyone revert to 'US want oil' vs 'but he bad man' templates.
 
#20
Claiming Iraq had WMDs didn't make Saddam look particularly worse as a person, it just gave stronger justification for the invasion of the country.
what could be the justification for the invasion without the WMDs in your opinion, just curious? Iraq being a dictatorial state, being an oppressive unstable regime? Because we all know that US have no problem with those types as long as they play by US' rules. I mean Saudi Arabia can pump billions of dollar in to exporting their fundamentalist religious views messing up all of Islamic world, run proxy wars that result in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, heck even kill US citizens abroad and somehow can get away with it all.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,342
#21
This topic is strange to read. Everyone is ignoring the actual proposition of the OP- that the US invaded Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein from getting Euro-denominated payments for oil i.e. keep their dollar as the 'de facto currency of the world'.

For what it's worth, I think the idea is absolute rubbish. But it's still strange to see everyone revert to 'US want oil' vs 'but he bad man' templates.
The way I see it, Saddam was a good target for them. Tons of profit. You can also factor in Israel which had a lot of trouble with Saddam and it becomes clear why the US created a reason to go in. What the government did at the time was cash in on 9/11 terror aftermath to do something they have been wanting to do for years.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,036
#22
If you focus on the OP's point rather than simply re-iterating that Saddam Hussein was an awful, awful person then, no, I personally don't believe that the 2nd Gulf War was about Iraqi oil being bought with Euros rather than dollars.

My understanding is fairly limited but I think the difference it would have made globally in the trade of oil would have been comparitively insignificant. Plus you'd need to factor in the $2tn that the US military spent in the area during this time.
 
Oct 25, 2017
614
Twilight Zone
#23
Yeah, no. He was still a dictator who's done a lot of horrible things. The WMD scandal (which was also a disgusting matter) doesn't change Saddam's legacy in the slightest tbh.
it is no surprise to me that the imperialist society of the US justifies the US starting a pointless war that has killed hundreds of thousands over oil just because of Saddam’s actions. are we going to intervene in every dictatorship that arises? the Maduro coup didn’t go as planned. Neither did the Iraq war.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,016
New Jersey
#25
Don't trust the US government's account for anything. We lost pretty much all credibility 50 years ago and have just been doubling down on that since.

Faking a threat of hypothetical nuclear war to invade a country and dispose a leader charged with holding weapons we provided should be automatically disqualifying of any governmental institution and military complex. Especially with the corporate state profiting off of it through various means providing a sick incentive.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,898
Tokyo
#26
This topic is strange to read. Everyone is ignoring the actual proposition of the OP- that the US invaded Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein from getting Euro-denominated payments for oil i.e. keep their dollar as the 'de facto currency of the world'.

For what it's worth, I think the idea is absolute rubbish. But it's still strange to see everyone revert to 'US want oil' vs 'but he bad man' templates.
It's probably because it doesn't make sense what happened, the reasons the US would lie to go to a war still remain a mystery.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,776
#28
it is no surprise to me that the imperialist society of the US justifies the US starting a pointless war that has killed hundreds of thousands over oil just because of Saddam’s actions. are we going to intervene in every dictatorship that arises? the Maduro coup didn’t go as planned. Neither did the Iraq war.
I'm not from the US, and I'd like you to point where I claimed the war was justified, thank you. The Iraq war being a wrong one and Saddam being a bloody dictator can both be true. World ain't black and white.
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,108
#30
This is conspiratorial nonsense inventing reasons for Dubya's invasion that not even Dubya would have used as a pretext for a dumb war fought for absurdly petty reasons by people who got told no by Bush Sr.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,016
New Jersey
#32
It's probably because it doesn't make sense what happened, the reasons the US would lie to go to a war still remain a mystery.
Its not a mystery if you think for just a second about the US's history of wanting regime change, actually enacting regime change, and supporting a majority of the world's brutal dictatorships and for what purpose. Its not a mystery at all.

We're at a point in history where nobody should be acting like they live under a rock
 
Status
Not open for further replies.