Did Hussein attempt to assassinate a US President?

[L@mplighterM]

If I understand the following article correctly George Bush in a speech to the FN on September 12 stated that Hussein had attempted to kill his dad. I don’t exactly know what to make of the article. Is it anti American propaganda or is there some truth to the story?


I’m having a difficult time believing the article mainly because I’ve never heard any mention of this in the mainstream media.

Hussein should be removed from office and a matter of fact that should have taken place back in 1991. I’m certainly in favor of that happening but not to the point where I support his(Bush)current actions towards Israel. All this nonsense about handling the Palestinians and Syrians with kid gloves in order to prevent the rest of the Arab world being upset is plain wrong. Terrorists must be fought wherever and whenever they can be found! NO EXCEPTIONS!

I think that Bush could use a good personal advisor and who would be better than Sharon?

Snip:

Mordförsök på en amerikans president
I ett tal till FN sa George Bush redan den tolfte september att Saddam Hussien gjort ett mordförsök mot en amerikansk president. Då nämnde han aldrig att det handlade om hans far, den tidigare presidenten med samma namn. Den gången använde han mordförsöket som ett bevis på Saddam och Iraks hat mot USA.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,209571,00.html

[L@mplighterM]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

Same story on CNN.

[Steve Brook]

Re Saddam Hussein: It's not fundamentally about oil, although this has to play some part. For anyone who reads the American press, watches American TV or speaks to Americans, the main motivation for the war hysteria is blazingly obvious -- it's revenge. After the horror of last September, millions of Americans,
believers in Divine Retribution, came to the conclusion that if God couldn't bring the perpetrators to justice, their government should. And their non-elected President, mindful of his lack of public support, is going right along with it.

No matter that no evidence can be produced to link the Iraq regime with the outrages -- a clearly identifiable target had to be found, and Afghanistan was not enough. Saddam Hussein, with his record of hostility to America (at least in recent years) fits the bill perfectly.

The real tragedy here is that millions of other Americans, equally
horrified by the terrorist crimes last year, are deeply critical of their government's drive to war -- but they are in no position to do anything much about it. And the rest of the world is being dragged along behind the chariot.

Bush? Sharon? Birds of a feather!

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Steve Brook
Re Saddam Hussein: It's not fundamentally about oil, although this has to play some part. For anyone who reads the American press, watches American TV or speaks to Americans, the main motivation for the war hysteria is blazingly obvious -- it's revenge...

Saddam Hussein rapes Kuwait. No problem for Steve Brook.

Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons against his own civilians. No problem for Steve Brook.

Islamist terrorists massacre 3,000 Americans. There is evidence that Iraq was involved. No problem for Steve Brook.

"For anyone who reads the American press... the main motivation... is blazingly obvious."

Typical leftist bilge. Never mind the facts, attribute it to imaginary motives such as "oil," "revenge," and general nastiness towards harmless dictators who just like to play with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and conquer other countries.

The U.S. left Saddam Hussein in power when it could have easily removed him, proving that our goal was only what was stated at the time: reverse Iraq's conquest of Kuwait.

Since then, Iraq has violated the terms of surrender. In fact, there is a report today that two Turkish men were caught smuggling 34 pounds of Uranium. If weapons grade and destined for Iraq, that will be all the reason we need.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Steve Brook
Re Saddam Hussein: It's not fundamentally about oil, although this has to play some part. For anyone who reads the American press, watches American TV or speaks to Americans, the main motivation for the war hysteria is blazingly obvious -- it's revenge. After the horror of last September, millions of Americans,
believers in Divine Retribution, came to the conclusion that if God couldn't bring the perpetrators to justice, their government should. And their non-elected President, mindful of his lack of public support, is going right along with it.



Revenge doesn’t enter into the picture. Not at all! Hussein must be replaced because of the harm he has done and his potential for using horrible weapons.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Steve Brook
After the horror of last September, millions of Americans,
believers in Divine Retribution, came to the conclusion that if God couldn't bring the perpetrators to justice, their government should.
Take it from an American, this is not true.

What's your source for this conclusion of yours?


And their non-elected President, mindful of his lack of public support, is going right along with it.
Not only was Bush elected fairly, but mainstream U.S. public support is very much in favor of action in Iraq.


No matter that no evidence can be produced to link the Iraq regime with the outrages -- a clearly identifiable target had to be found, and Afghanistan was not enough.

Afghanistan is definitely not enough. We need to eradicate terrorism in any other parts of the Muslim world. Places like Syria, Iran, South Lebanon, Arafatistan, Saudi Arabia, as well as Malaysia are just some of the identifiable targets where Islamic terrorism is supported by the general Arab public and by the brutal corrupt regimes.

I personally would much rather see America and the rest of the world act in some of those places before targeting Iraq, but the removal of any Arab or Islamic government would represent a welcome development for Western civilization.



Bush? Sharon? Birds of a feather!

Yes, both have the moral backbone to confront terrorism, rather than the hypocritical terrorism appeasers in much of the rest of the world. They should be admired and congratulated for their moral fortitude.

[Steve Brook]

I personally would much rather see America and the rest of the world act in some of those places before targeting Iraq, but the removal of any Arab or Islamic government would represent a welcome development for Western civilization.

---------------

How on earth can you deny accusations of American arrogance and ignorant bullying if you make statements like that? Do you really believe that tit-for-tat brute force is the only way to lessen world unease with US policies? If you do believe that, what separates you ethically from Saddam Hussein himself? Or from Sheikh Yassin of Hamas?

Not about revenge? You will have to explain American websites like "deadarab.com", which sells bumper stickers and t-shirts with slogans like "To hell with understanding -- give me revenge!"

I'm on the side of those millions of other Americans (and Israelis!) who are anxious and uneasy about their country's world image -- but who tragically do not seem much in evidence in chat groups like this.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Steve Brook


Not about revenge? You will have to explain American websites like "deadarab.com", which sells bumper stickers and t-shirts with slogans like "To hell with understanding -- give me revenge!"

I'm on the side of those millions of other Americans (and Israelis!) who are anxious and uneasy about their country's world image -- but who tragically do not seem much in evidence in chat groups like this.

I think that any action against Iraq should be construed as self-defensive preemptive measures. This isn’t an issue about revenge at all.

One or two lousy website selling stuff don’t mean dick! How would I know it isn’t your site or some Arabs?

I would say that the pro American/Israel posters on this forum are really moderate.

[Steve Brook]

I think that any action against Iraq should be construed as self-defensive preemptive measures. This isn’t an issue about revenge at all.

One or two lousy website selling stuff don’t mean dick! How would I know it isn’t your site or some Arabs?


--------------

What would happen if every country adopted this pre-emptive strike attitude -- or is it an American monopoly? Consider India/Pakistan! Sadly, I think we're galloping right back to the jungle, and America's current policy-makers are leading the charge.

Websites like Deadarab DO mean a certain amount of dick. I did not say that they represent a majority opinion in the US or anything like it...but the attitude does exist and it's one that your politicians have to take into account. I have many relatives in the US, and what they tell me bears this out.

Read Thomas Friedman in the New York Times!

As for the suggestion that Deadarab could be my own creation -- ROFLMAO is the best answer to that.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Steve Brook
I think that any action against Iraq should be construed as self-defensive preemptive measures. This isn’t an issue about revenge at all.

One or two lousy website selling stuff don’t mean dick! How would I know it isn’t your site or some Arabs?


--------------

What would happen if every country adopted this pre-emptive strike attitude -- or is it an American monopoly? Consider India/Pakistan! Sadly, I think we're galloping right back to the jungle, and America's current policy-makers are leading the charge.

Websites like Deadarab DO mean a certain amount of dick. I did not say that they represent a majority opinion in the US or anything like it...but the attitude does exist and it's one that your politicians have to take into account. I have many relatives in the US, and what they tell me bears this out.

Read Thomas Friedman in the New York Times!

As for the suggestion that Deadarab could be my own creation -- ROFLMAO is the best answer to that.


For one thing Iraq hasn’t been attacked yet!

Preemptive strikes have justification if they can be justified. If the US or NATO took it upon themselves to attack Australia or lets say New Zealand for the hell of it my opinion would be different. But that isn’t the case!

Iraq started a war with Kuwait in 1991 and was asked to withdraw by NATO. Iraq refused! Now it finds itself in a position where it will be asked to meet certain conditions or find itself once again being invaded.

Dig into Hussein’s history and tell me that he doesn’t deserve to be tried as a war criminal followed by an execution.

[Steve Brook]

Dig into Hussein’s history and tell me that he doesn’t deserve to be tried as a war criminal followed by an execution.

-----------------------

I agree entirely. He should be standing in the dock next to Milosevic...or perhaps next in line.

I'll make one fundamental point: using military means to get rid of Hussein and his regime would have unforeseeable dire results for the world, and in particular for Israel. Do we really need an intensification of anti-Israel and anti-West feeling in the Arab/Moslem world? The present levels of hatred are hard enough to live with, but can you imagine what an invasion of Iraq would do?

[Mediocrates]

Yes I can imagine that it does not destabilize the region more than doing nothing. With or without us the region is teetering so it behooves us to tip it one direction or another.

[L@mplighterM]

I don't think that there will be an increase of hatred towards US/Israel in the Arab world if Iraq is invaded. Such tension/hatred will however increase in Europe, Asia, North America, South America and Australia. So what?

Consider the alternative Hussein using weapons of mass destruction in Israel directly or indirectly. Eventually he'll use them in the west and elsewhere.
In any event there?s some indication that Iran will support the US/NATO.

[Steve Brook]

I don't think that there will be an increase of hatred towards US/Israel in the Arab world if Iraq is invaded. Such tension/hatred will however increase in Europe, Asia, North America, South America and Australia. So what?

-------------

SO WHAT? You seem to think that what the rest of the world thinks about America is irrelevant, that your country, or at least its government, can do whatever it likes without fear of consequences. Are Americans citizens of Planet Earth or not?

[minusthejihad]

Yes, for the most part, the best of the best from all other countries all gathered here. You are correct.

And as far as world opinion, what difference would that make to me if I or my family get attacked here or in Israel. Do not forget that the "world opinion" has always been against Jews and for that matter America, since it became the leading world power. Also, the Arab world is programmed to hate Jews and the West since every childs birth in that region. How is that going to change after Iraq is "redesigned". If anything, the rest will see how much better the Iraqis lives will be after Saddam is gone.

If you ask me, what does world opinion mean anyway when the majority of this world can not even read yet barely feed themselves without our support. Yes, I guess the term is irrevelent. The majority of Planet Earth is filled with ignorant or stupid people anyway. Thanks to them, I consider myslef in the 98th percentile and thus would explain my ego.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Steve Brook
I don't think that there will be an increase of hatred towards US/Israel in the Arab world if Iraq is invaded. Such tension/hatred will however increase in Europe, Asia, North America, South America and Australia. So what?



I think you're minimizing the support that the US has for action against Iraq it's a lot more widespread than you think.

What I meant by "So what" was that the US has do what is in its best interest and quite frankly I believe getting rid of Saddam is in its interest. If you and others want to hate the US for that it won't be anything new.

I'm certain that the US administration couldn't care less how you feel.

[L@mplighterM]

My boy's right on Iraq: Bush Snr
From correspondents in Copenhagen
October 01, 2002

FORMER US president George Bush has given his backing to his son, President George W. Bush, saying he is "absolutely correct" in his stand-off with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I don't give any advice to my son and you should be very grateful that I don't. This may surprise you, but I think he's absolutely correct," Bush said on a business trip to the Danish capital, Copenhagen.

"We've got to do something about appealing to friends and others at the United Nations to get something done," the former US leader - in power during the 1991 Gulf War - told reporters.

The younger Bush has recently increased pressure on Saddam, with the US Congress debating a draft resolution to grant the president the authority to "use all means" to disarm Iraq.

Washington accuses Saddam of developing weapons of mass destruction.


http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5203299%255E401,00.html

[L@mplighterM]

Iraq ups attacks on allied planes
By staff writers
October 01, 2002

IRAQ has intensified its attacks on US and British planes patrolling no-fly zones over the country at the same time as agreeing to arms inspections, US officials have said.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pinpointed the increase to September 16, the day Iraq said it would allow access to United Nations inspectors, according to a BBC report.

"With each missile fired at coalition air crews, Iraq demonstrates its contempt for UN resolutions," Mr Rumsfeld was quoted as saying.

Baghdad had fired on no-fly-zone patrols 67 times since 16 September, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, said.



http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5203392%255E401,00.html

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Steve Brook

I'll make one fundamental point: using military means to get rid of Hussein and his regime would have unforeseeable dire results for the world, and in particular for Israel. Do we really need an intensification of anti-Israel and anti-West feeling in the Arab/Moslem world? The present levels of hatred are hard enough to live with, but can you imagine what an invasion of Iraq would do?

Iran Will Keep Out of U.S.-Iraq Standoff: Shamkhani

TEHRAN TIMES POLITICAL DESK
TEHRAN -- Iran's defense minister sent a clear signal Tuesday that although opposed to an anticipated United States attack on Iraq, the Islamic Republic had no intention of being drawn into a confrontation with Washington.

"We are against a war, but we will not oppose it by force," Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani emphasized at a press conference when asked to explain Iran's declared policy of "active neutrality". "At the same time, we will not seek to profit from the situation Iraq finds itself in, and we will also not cooperate with Iraq. We call on Iraq to implement all (UN) resolutions."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=10/2/02&Cat=4&Num=005

[L@mplighterM]

Assassination 'one Iraq solution'

02oct02
THE White House has said it would "welcome" the assassination of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by one of his own people or his banishment from Iraq.

Repeatedly prodded on whether Washington was urging Iraqis to kill Saddam, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer replied: "Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes."

Earlier, in response to a question about how much US military action to disarm and overthrow Saddam would cost, Fleischer said: "The cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that.

"The cost of one bullet the Iraqi people taken on themselves is substantially less than that."

"There are many options that the president hopes the world and people of Iraq will exercise themselves of that gets rid of the threat."

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5210597%255E401,00.html