PDA

View Full Version : Saddam didn't expect U.S. Invasion


JediAthos
01-26-2008, 12:46 AM
I found this interesting little tidbit on both MSN and Yahoo today:

NEW YORK - Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

“He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush’s intentions,” said Piro. “He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack.”

“He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack,” Piro said.

In 2003, a close aide of Saddam's told The Associated Press that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.

Keeping up the illusion of weapons program
Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002 and when they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn’t fully cooperating.

Piro, a Lebanese-American who speaks Arabic, debriefed Saddam after he was found in an underground hideout near his home city north of Baghdad in December 2003, nine months after the U.S. invasion.

Piro said Saddam also said that he wanted to keep up the illusion that he had the program in part because he thought it would deter a likely Iranian invasion.

“For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,” Piro told Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes.”

Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Kuwait invasion after insult to Iraqi women
Piro also mentioned Saddam’s revelation during questioning that what pushed him to invade Kuwait in 1990 was a dishonorable swipe at Iraqi women made by the Kuwaiti leader, Sheik Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah.

During the buildup to the invasion, Iraq had accused Kuwait of flooding the world market with oil and demanded compensation for oil produced from a disputed area on the border of the two countries.

Piro said that Al Sabah told the foreign minister of Iraq during a discussion aimed at resolving some of those conflicts that “he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait,” said Piro.

Totenkopf
01-26-2008, 02:23 AM
If he were still alive.....he could chalk it up to the law of unintended consequences.

$10 prostitutes, huh? Guess it's a good thing the guy didn't directly address SH's own mother. :D

Rev7
01-26-2008, 02:47 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
lol

As for the other stuff, I am not sure I quite understand what his (Saddam's) reasons were. Is that some sort of game that he was playing?! Not a very 'fun' game if you ask me.

Corinthian
01-26-2008, 02:48 AM
$5 says this doesn't deter anyone from calling Bush a warmonger.

Rev7
01-26-2008, 02:57 AM
hmmm, lots of people, IMO, still can't get over the fact that we have gone to war, and haven't been able to get out for some time now. Yes, I know that it affects many of our lives by being in the Middle East, and it has certainly affected mine becasue my brother was stationed there for some time. But that is for another thread.

Totenkopf
01-26-2008, 05:40 AM
$5 says this doesn't deter anyone from calling Bush a warmonger.


That sounds suspiciously like a sucker's bet. ;)

@Rev-hope your bro gets through it intact and has no probs readjusting when he returns.

Corinthian
01-26-2008, 05:46 AM
Paypal stands ready, but I've got until this thread reaches Page 2, by which time True_Avery, Achilles, and every other Bush-hater under the bloody sun will have posted in this thread. Good luck.

Totenkopf
01-26-2008, 06:09 AM
I mean that anyone taking your bet would have to be a sucker for the reasons you mentioned. :thumbsup:

mur'phon
01-26-2008, 08:25 AM
says this doesn't deter anyone from calling Bush a warmonger

So because Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD's, Bush should loose his status as warmonger in chief? :confused:

Totenkopf
01-26-2008, 11:24 AM
Well.......looks like you didn't even make it to the second page w/o a complaint. :D

mur'phon
01-26-2008, 12:50 PM
Just defending the local jerks money, no need to thank me:xp:

SilentScope001
01-26-2008, 02:14 PM
So because Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD's, Bush should loose his status as warmonger in chief? :confused:

There is NO EVIDENCE the FBI Agent is correct. No evidence whatsoever. Besides, he's from the FBI! FBI agents are paid to lie about their recent investigations, so he could be lying! LYING, I tell ya! It's all part of the MSM conspriacy to make Saddam look like a hero by lying about WMDs to deter an Iranian invasion when he really had them hiding in Flordia!!1!

The title didn't really interest me, but the actual text of the article did. Eh.

Web Rider
01-26-2008, 05:34 PM
$5 says this doesn't deter anyone from calling Bush a warmonger.

Which would be MORE correct now since if the CIA couldn't figure this stuff out, we need to fire them all.

Somehow, I'm not surprised at the news though. It's a rather sound strategy.

John Galt
01-26-2008, 05:55 PM
Paypal stands ready, but I've got until this thread reaches Page 2, by which time True_Avery, Achilles, and every other Bush-hater under the bloody sun will have posted in this thread. Good luck.

I don't particularly hate bush, but I can't help feeling betrayed after he flagrantly discarded his campaign promises. He said that he would pursue "a more humble foreign policy," which is something we need. Now we are being alienated more and more from the rest of the "free" world daily. He also said he would downsize government, yet he presided over the largest increase in the size of government in recent history.

He was rather charismatic during his first presidential run, but I think most of that is gone now. I've only seen him once, and that was at a good distance. He was walking across the lawn of the White House and playing with the scottie dog. I waved at the sniper on top of the white house.

Corinthian
01-26-2008, 06:03 PM
Too late, Kids, Mur'phon blew it for you. Good job, Mur.

Rev7
01-26-2008, 06:18 PM
@Rev-hope your bro gets through it intact and has no probs readjusting when he returns.
Thanks, actually he has been in the states for eh...maybe coming up on four months. He had been stationed in Iraq several years ago, and came back, went back, then just recently came back after being stationed there for about a month, because he was suffering from Post dramatic stress, but he is doing just fine know! :)

Web Rider
01-27-2008, 01:37 AM
Too late, Kids, Mur'phon blew it for you. Good job, Mur.

Awww, you're cute, you can be condescending. Lets see....what was I thinking....oh yeah, nobody really cares.

Fact is: intelligence says Saddam DIDNT have WMDs since after the whole first gulf war deal. Bush said he did. Went to war with a guy who was playing cold war with Iran, which means actual, valid, correct intelligence was ignored in favor of playing soldier.

Bush wants to go fight on the front? Be my guest, but don't go get my friends and family killed over BS.

Totenkopf
01-27-2008, 07:03 AM
Actually, perhaps we should bring all our soldiers home from *everywhere* and put them on the US/Mexican border. Mexico would make a stink, but who the hell cares. Afterall, anyone look at Mexico's southern border policies? The added benefit might be that other nations would have to increase their own defense budgets to protect their own interests, thus giving us some relief on the economic front. If we were completely autarkical, it might make for an interesting "experiment".

@Rev--does he talk much about it to you? How does he feel about the whole thing, being as how he's put in the meatgrinder? Outside of the code pink wackos and their like minded compatriots, how does he feel about the level of support he sees at home for what they are doing?

John Galt
01-28-2008, 03:35 PM
[QUOTE=Totenkopf]Actually, perhaps we should bring all our soldiers home from *everywhere* and put them on the US/Mexican border. Mexico would make a stink, but who the hell cares. Afterall, anyone look at Mexico's southern border policies? The added benefit might be that other nations would have to increase their own defense budgets to protect their own interests, thus giving us some relief on the economic front. If we were completely autarkical, it might make for an interesting "experiment".
[QUOTE]

That's exactly what I've been saying. That IS the traditional function of the US army. I mean, remember where John Pershing was literally the month before he was appointed to lead America's first expedition to Europe? Down on the border, chasing Villa.

Besides, think of all the money we'd save from not having to supply and keep up all those bases in those 130+ countries...

RobQel-Droma
01-28-2008, 11:07 PM
Fact is: intelligence says Saddam DIDNT have WMDs since after the whole first gulf war deal. Bush said he did. Went to war with a guy who was playing cold war with Iran, which means actual, valid, correct intelligence was ignored in favor of playing soldier.

Bush wants to go fight on the front? Be my guest, but don't go get my friends and family killed over BS.

It wasn't just Bush, dude. A lot of people believed Saddam had WMDs. Even some of today's prominent democrats that love to bash Bush right and left about Iraq.

And besides, there was reasonable enough suspicion to think that he might have them, or be developing them. Let's see: he's had them before, he's used them before, he's resisted calls for him to stop his weapon's programs and acted like he wasn't doing anything...... guess we should just wait until Saddam does his own 9/11?

Corinthian
01-28-2008, 11:28 PM
What? Web Rider, all the intelligence said he had WMDs. Logic said he had WMDs. Common sense said he had WMDs. But what we didn't count on was deliberate disinformation by Hussein himself.

Tommycat
01-29-2008, 12:03 AM
Realistically, what happened was Saddam expected the US to be a toothless tiger. He was wrong.

Try this experiment at home kids(please don't, doing so could cause death or serious injury):
Tell your neighbor that you intend to blow him up. Pretend to be making a bomb to do it. Then when the police try to come in to verify, tell them they can't search the whole house, only narrowly defined areas. What's gonna happen? My guess is you go to jail, or if you hold out long enough, not make it to jail.

That is basically what Saddam did, and he got caught. He could have saved a lot of lives(and maybe even his own) by surrendering when the invasion started and allowing inspectors back in. But he didn't.

mimartin
01-29-2008, 12:16 AM
All the released intelligence did say Saddam had WMDs, even the intelligence the U.S. Government decided to make up said Saddam had WMDs or was trying to get WMDs. Even when the CIA got it right, they were quoted incorrectly by the White House (see Valerie Plame).

We seemed to believe every shred of evidence that said Saddam had WMDs no matter the source (Like the source for the bioweapon labs mounted on trucks that came from an Iraqi defector that the Defense Intelligence Agency had all ready discredited labeling him an “a liar and a fabricator”. The Defense Intelligence Agency’s label of the source of this information was not shared with Colin Powell by the CIA for some unknown reason). Yet we dismissed all creditable evidence that Saddam did not have WMDs that was coming from the people on the ground such as the U.N. Weapons Inspectors and our own Directorate of Central Intelligence Nonproliferation Center.

Achilles
01-29-2008, 12:22 AM
^^^^
comments not conforming to generally accepted rhetoric will be ignored :tsk:

Totenkopf
01-29-2008, 08:23 AM
^^^ Yeah, regardless of the type of rhetoric (left/right/lib/cons/ad nauseam...). Most people have a tendency to believe their own spin and "commonly accepted rhetoric" over that of others.

mimartin
01-29-2008, 09:14 PM
Most people have a tendency to believe their own spin and "commonly accepted rhetoric" over that of others. Well who can blame anyone when we were spun into a war under false pretenses? We still do not know the truth of the matter because the people that spun us into this war still control all the information. They decide what needs to be classified and what is to be released.

I found this on FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324753,00.html) website, but I went to the original source, as we all know how they get a little confused with their facts (Mass Effect).

Study "The War Card" Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=overview&id=945)

Key False Statements (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946)

They actually give the Bibliography and the Methodology they used to determine the false statements.

Of course, these “so-called” investigative journalists are probably just spinning the issue. Perhaps Fox News will do their own investigation with the help of townhall.com. Then perhaps we can get to the truth. :D

El Sitherino
01-30-2008, 02:53 AM
all the intelligence said he had WMDs.

Wrong.

There was plenty of intelligence that also stated much the opposite.

Logic said he had WMDs.

****ing wrong.

What formula did you use to conclude that Saddam has WMD's?
I'd really love to see how this was a "logical conclusion", because to me you can't just say "You know, I looked at this chart of evils causing bad things to happen to the world America. And my logical conclusion point was Iraq. IT MAKES ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD!"

Common sense said he had WMDs.

Mother ****ing wrong.

Common sense says a lot of things. Fire = hot, water = wet, Vader = awesome. It however does not say "You know, Saddam has a mustache, much like Hitler and Castro, common sense dictates he must be evil and therefore has weapons of mass destruction."

But what we didn't count on was deliberate disinformation by Hussein himself.
Alright. And what's your point? Should people have called us out during the Cold War?

Tommycat
01-30-2008, 08:02 AM
Actually the intelligence reports suggested that he might have been working on a WMD program. There was no evidence that he had any WMD's but there was evidence that he had a program that suggested he was working on them. Which strangely enough was just what he wanted the Iranians to think, but that ended up backfiring on him. Those same deception programs worked too well and convinced the wrong people. So yes logic dictated that he had a WMD program, because he wanted it to look like he had a WMD program.

And ES, we did get called out during the cold war. It just never escalated to full on nuclear war, nor a full scale invasion of the US. That was primarily due to us not walking away from the negotiating table

Totenkopf
01-30-2008, 10:16 AM
Well who can blame anyone when we were spun into a war under false pretenses? We still do not know the truth of the matter because the people that spun us into this war still control all the information. They decide what needs to be classified and what is to be released... :D

Well, I was only really addressing his point about rhetoric. But the whole thing does raise an interesting point about intelligence gathering and handling in general. To what effect do biases and agendas come into play and how can you really determine who's telling the truth/giving most sound advice on the info available? If side A is "rushing to war" and side B wants to hang back at any/all costs, who is the policy maker supposed to believe? More importantly, what if there is a time constraint in making that assessment. Setting Iraq aside, we live in an age of increasingly devastating weapons that can be delivered to targets via multiple vectors and agents. It used to be you wait for the enemy to attack you (making it easier to rally your population behind a decision to retaliate), but how viable is that strategy now, when an attack can take out 1000s/mils in a single act? Yes, preemption is truly a tricky affair.

Jae Onasi
01-30-2008, 10:39 AM
I don't think we're ever going to know the truth. It looks like he was at least working on developing WMDs if not actually having them, and if he just wanted to keep up appearances, Saddam did a darn good job. He'd already attacked several villages with nerve gas and had tossed some SCUDs at Israel in the first war. It's not hard to extrapolate a possible WMD program when you see both nerve gas usage and short-range missiles. He certainly had capability to create chemical WMDs and possibly biological. Whether he had the capability to create enough radioactive materials to create a nuclear or even 'dirty' bomb, and long range missiles, is another question.

Saddam's assumption that we wouldn't attack is, I think, another symptom of his megalomania--'They wouldn't dare do that to _me_!' This article doesn't tell me about his WMD intentions so much as it just confirms his personality type.

SilentScope001
01-30-2008, 04:47 PM
Yeah, regardless of the type of rhetoric (left/right/lib/cons/ad nauseam...). Most people have a tendency to believe their own spin and "commonly accepted rhetoric" over that of others.

QFT. If only if people actually believed in my totally correct spin and not in the spin of my enemy...then the world would be a better place.

It used to be you wait for the enemy to attack you (making it easier to rally your population behind a decision to retaliate), but how viable is that strategy now, when an attack can take out 1000s/mils in a single act? Yes, preemption is truly a tricky affair.

You can always try to find new ways to complete old objectives. Instead of launching the military invasion of Iraq, why not back terrorist attacks and military coups to overthrow Saddam? Or bribe Saddam to 'disband' his WMD program? You DON'T have to invade Iraq anymore, look at how we handled North Korea.

It just takes forever, that's all. And I think the peaceniks and the war hawks hate waiting endlessly in a perpetual quantum state between life and death.

Totenkopf
01-30-2008, 04:49 PM
But a world of one could be a very lonely place. :xp: