Once upon a time in Iraq.

realdanbreen · 20-07-2020 9:59pm #1

Just watching the documentary on bbc2 "once upon a time in Iraq " Why has US Colonel Sassoon not been charged with war crimes? Is it any wonder the US is despised throughout the world.

Temptamperu · 20-07-2020 10:29pm

They had aluminium tubes, they need to be occupied for the WMDs

fryup · 20-07-2020 10:33pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Just watching the documentary on bbc2 "once upon a time in Iraq " Why has US Colonel Sassoon Sassaman not been charged with war crimes? Is it any wonder the US is despised throughout the world.

he clearly went bananas after the death of his close colleague, you could clearly see he's emotionally scarred by it all.....anyway don't blame him blame Bush & Blair

20-07-2020 10:49pm

Saddam was planning on dropping the dollar in favour of the Euro, for trading oil back in 2001. Gaddaffi was planning to do the same in 2011 when he had planned to establish the African Dinar for doing all oil transactions, the US were very quick to move on him.

In 2012, Iran started to swap their oil for commodities with India, Turkey, China and eventually Russia, thereby avoiding having to use the SWIFT system which they were closed out of by the US when they imposed sanctions on Iran.

realdanbreen · 21-07-2020 8:20am

fryup wrote: »

he clearly went bananas after the death of his close colleague, you could clearly see he's emotionally scarred by it all.....anyway don't blame him blame Bush & Blair

From what I've seen so far I'm not too sure how 'emotionally scarred' he is.
I think faced with the evidence and video footage that was put in front of him his main option was to act remorseful and repentant. There is a strong under current of aggression/xenephobia in the American psyche, goes back to the wild west I guess.

Irish Praetorian · 21-07-2020 10:26am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Saddam was planning on dropping the dollar in favour of the Euro, for trading oil back in 2001. Gaddaffi was planning to do the same in 2011 when he had planned to establish the African Dinar for doing all oil transactions, the US were very quick to move on him.

In 2012, Iran started to swap their oil for commodities with India, Turkey, China and eventually Russia, thereby avoiding having to use the SWIFT system which they were closed out of by the US when they imposed sanctions on Iran.

No, just no to this in so many senses of the word. Ive an article below to set out some more of the detail, particularly vis a vis Iraq, but when it comes to somewhere like Libya, people need to stop being so gullible in beliving a country with the population size of Bulgaria, the oil production of Oman and the gold reserves of Greece, was going to set up some enormous pan African currency with nations that despised its leader. I know its convenient to opt for the easy explanation but that does not make it right.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/debunking-the-dumping-the-dollar-conspiracy/

realdanbreen · 21-07-2020 12:32pm

fryup wrote: »

he clearly went bananas after the death of his close colleague, you could clearly see he's emotionally scarred by it all.....anyway don't blame him blame Bush & Blair

The fact that he was sent to sort out another area in Iraq because of the great job he had done in terrorising men women and children in Fallujah says it all about him really. He would have made a great Black & Tan.

ShatterAlan · 21-07-2020 12:45pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

No, just no to this in so many senses of the word. Ive an article below to set out some more of the detail, particularly vis a vis Iraq, but when it comes to somewhere like Libya, people need to stop being so gullible in beliving a country with the population size of Bulgaria, the oil production of Oman and the gold reserves of Greece, was going to set up some enormous pan African currency with nations that despised its leader. I know its convenient to opt for the easy explanation but that does not make it right.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/debunking-the-dumping-the-dollar-conspiracy/

When it comes to America, don't believe anything until it's been officially denied.

Zebra3 · 21-07-2020 1:02pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Just watching the documentary on bbc2 "once upon a time in Iraq " Why has US Colonel Sassoon not been charged with war crimes? Is it any wonder the US is despised throughout the world.

War crimes charges are for Africans.

And a few Serbs.

If America didn't kill all these people around the world then Russia/China/Cuba/Iran/Venezuela/Grenada would take over the world!!!

CrankyHaus · 21-07-2020 1:08pm

Can somebody summarise the doc? Who is Colonel Sassoon and what did he do?

Skylinehead · 21-07-2020 1:20pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Can somebody summarise the doc? Who is Colonel Sassoon and what did he do?

He got into some hairy situations.

Stovepipe · 21-07-2020 3:00pm

Spell his name right, for a start.....when you are done, feel free to look up the Iraqi villains of the piece, the Ba'athist Party, who underwrote the insurgency by keeping up the pipeline of guns, ammunition and IEDS and laid the ground work for ISIS to succeed. Also, don't forget the Arab wide conflict between Sunni and Shia,which continues everywhere and has nothing to do with America, Europe or non-Muslims. Arabs are perfectly good at slaughtering each other,in some of the cruelest ways devised, without any assistance from America/infidels/non-Arabs.

CrankyHaus · 21-07-2020 3:11pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

Spell his name right, for a start.....when you are done, feel free to look up the Iraqi villains of the piece, the Ba'athist Party, who underwrote the insurgency by keeping up the pipeline of guns, ammunition and IEDS and laid the ground work for ISIS to succeed. Also, don't forget the Arab wide conflict between Sunni and Shia,which continues everywhere and has nothing to do with America, Europe or non-Muslims. Arabs are perfectly good at slaughtering each other,in some of the cruelest ways devised, without any assistance from America/infidels/non-Arabs.

When you choose to invade a country, break down its institutions and create new ones you are responsibile for the results.
The US did not have to invade Iraq. It's vital strategic interests were not threatened. It was certainly not attacked.
The outcome was fairly predictable.
Wars of aggression have such a stigma around them for this reason; the amount of avoidable death and destruction they cause.
The evil nature of Saddam's regime, and of many who opposed the Coalition, does not change this one bit.

Ipso · 21-07-2020 3:16pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

When you choose to invade a country, break down its institutions and create new ones you are responsibile for the results.
The US did not have to invade Iraq. It's vital strategic interests were not threatened. It was certainly not attacked.
The outcome was fairly predictable.
Wars of aggression have such a stigma around them for this reason; the amount of avoidable death and destruction they cause.
The evil nature of Saddam's regime, and of many who opposed the Coalition, does not change this one bit.

No. But when one of the reasons to not go to war is that toppling a dictator will unleash the crazies, it says a lot about the area.

21-07-2020 3:25pm

Ipso wrote: »

No. But when one of the reasons to not go to war is that toppling a dictator will unleash the crazies, it says a lot about the area.

It did not stop at "toppling a dictator", the coalition also dismantled any institution that could enforce any sense of law and order at a time that looting was already out of control.

They essentially sacked every solider regardless of rank. This meant that around half a million heavily armed, humiliated and extremely pi55ed off men could no longer provide for their families. What did they expect to happen?

Zebra3 · 21-07-2020 3:46pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

Spell his name right, for a start.....when you are done, feel free to look up the Iraqi villains of the piece, the Ba'athist Party, who underwrote the insurgency by keeping up the pipeline of guns, ammunition and IEDS and laid the ground work for ISIS to succeed. Also, don't forget the Arab wide conflict between Sunni and Shia,which continues everywhere and has nothing to do with America, Europe or non-Muslims. Arabs are perfectly good at slaughtering each other,in some of the cruelest ways devised, without any assistance from America/infidels/non-Arabs.

And don't forget that when Iran wanted Saddam up on war crimes charges for invading Iran in 1980, the US protected and supported Saddam.

And when Saddam was gassing Kurdish and Iranian civilians, they still had his back.

I always thought gassing civilians was a bad thing.

Feisar · 21-07-2020 4:02pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

Spell his name right, for a start.....when you are done, feel free to look up the Iraqi villains of the piece, the Ba'athist Party, who underwrote the insurgency by keeping up the pipeline of guns, ammunition and IEDS and laid the ground work for ISIS to succeed. Also, don't forget the Arab wide conflict between Sunni and Shia,which continues everywhere and has nothing to do with America, Europe or non-Muslims. Arabs are perfectly good at slaughtering each other,in some of the cruelest ways devised, without any assistance from America/infidels/non-Arabs.

google:

Why do Shias and Sunnis fight?

They chose sides following the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in AD 632.

Lads, learn to bury the hatchet!

Odhinn · 21-07-2020 4:15pm

Feisar wrote: »

google:

Why do Shias and Sunnis fight?

They chose sides following the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in AD 632.

Lads, learn to bury the hatchet!

...but not in each others head.

21-07-2020 4:35pm

Feisar wrote: »

google:

Why do Shias and Sunnis fight?

They chose sides following the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in AD 632.

Lads, learn to bury the hatchet!

It's cultural too. The Sunnis see the Shia in the way that the Irish were sometimes viewed by the English in Victorian times — feckless, superstitious, religiously wayward, etc.

My favourite distinction between the two sects is when it comes to the name Aisha.

Aisha was Muhammad's 3rd wife, but you'll never come across a Shi'ite Muslim who's called their child Aisha. They consider it an insult because Aisha is supposed to have ridden a camel into battle. In some places, the name is a byword for promiscuity and general licentiousness. The fact that Muhammad saw fit to marry here hasn't even rescued her reputation since Camelgate.

The Sunnis are fine with it though. Loads of Sunni Muslim girls named Aisha.

Just an illustration of how deep seated and irrational these old resentments are.

Ipso · 21-07-2020 4:40pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's cultural too. The Sunnis see the Shia in the way that the Irish were sometimes viewed by the English in Victorian times — feckless, superstitious, religiously wayward, etc.

My favourite distinction between the two sects is when it comes to the name Aisha.

Aisha was Muhammad's 3rd wife, but you'll never come across a Shi'ite Muslim who's called their child Aisha. They consider it an insult because Aisha is supposed to have ridden a camel into battle. In some places, the name is a byword for promiscuity and general licentiousness. The fact that Muhammad saw fit to marry here hasn't even rescued her reputation since Camelgate.

The Sunnis are fine with it though. Loads of Sunni Muslim girls named Aisha.

Just an illustration of how deep seated and irrational these old resentments are.

And don’t forget reactions to books, teddy bears and look alike competitions.

Zebra3 · 21-07-2020 4:42pm

Was Aisha the nine year old that the "revered prophet" was banging?

21-07-2020 4:45pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

Was Aisha the nine year old that the "revered prophet" was banging?

The very woman. But some people take the view that she was in her teens.

E mac · 21-07-2020 4:49pm

Good series. wasnt expecting the black humour running trough the episodes. Iraqi women have a very soft way of speaking could listen to them all day!

biko · 21-07-2020 4:50pm

The 2003 invasion by the US and allies was a terrible decision.
Good on France for not participating.

storker · 21-07-2020 4:50pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

When you choose to invade a country, break down its institutions and create new ones you are responsibile for the results.

Hmmm...at what point do Iraqis become responsible for violence they they themselves inflict on their countrymen?

realdanbreen · 21-07-2020 4:59pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The very woman. But some people take the view that she was in her teens.

It's amazing when a thread is about highlighting the USA'S disgraceful antics in the countries it invades it quickly gets sidetracked into this sort of horse****.

21-07-2020 5:05pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's amazing when a thread is about highlighting the USA'S disgraceful antics in the countries it invades it quickly gets sidetracked into this sort of horse****.

You can't talk about Iraq without referring to Sunni Shia enmity, and that was an illustrative example on this topic.

You do not control the parameters of a conversation. I'm sorry we are not all doggedly adhering to your OP but conversations evolve and develop in different threads. Chill out.

Ipso · 21-07-2020 5:48pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's amazing when a thread is about highlighting the USA'S disgraceful antics in the countries it invades it quickly gets sidetracked into this sort of horse****.

It’s not horse sh!t

realdanbreen · 21-07-2020 6:15pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You can't talk about Iraq without referring to Sunni Shia enmity,but conversations evolve and develop in different threads. Chill out.

But you do understand that the topic is about the behaviour of an American colonel in Iraq, please say that you understand that at least.

nthclare · 21-07-2020 7:35pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You can't talk about Iraq without referring to Sunni Shia enmity, and that was an illustrative example on this topic.

You do not control the parameters of a conversation. I'm sorry we are not all doggedly adhering to your OP but conversations evolve and develop in different threads. Chill out.

Wasn't there some Christians also in Sadams team and other religions, his team wasn't all Sunni.

Iraq was doing quite well in the 60's and 70's so was Afghanistan very westernised.

Mad_maxx · 21-07-2020 7:38pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's cultural too. The Sunnis see the Shia in the way that the Irish were sometimes viewed by the English in Victorian times — feckless, superstitious, religiously wayward, etc.

My favourite distinction between the two sects is when it comes to the name Aisha.

Aisha was Muhammad's 3rd wife, but you'll never come across a Shi'ite Muslim who's called their child Aisha. They consider it an insult because Aisha is supposed to have ridden a camel into battle. In some places, the name is a byword for promiscuity and general licentiousness. The fact that Muhammad saw fit to marry here hasn't even rescued her reputation since Camelgate.

The Sunnis are fine with it though. Loads of Sunni Muslim girls named Aisha.

Just an illustration of how deep seated and irrational these old resentments are.

sounds like a long standing tinker grudge

21-07-2020 7:42pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

No, just no to this in so many senses of the word. Ive an article below to set out some more of the detail, particularly vis a vis Iraq, but when it comes to somewhere like Libya, people need to stop being so gullible in beliving a country with the population size of Bulgaria, the oil production of Oman and the gold reserves of Greece, was going to set up some enormous pan African currency with nations that despised its leader. I know its convenient to opt for the easy explanation but that does not make it right.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/debunking-the-dumping-the-dollar-conspiracy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

I think Libya had slightly more gold than Greece.

21-07-2020 7:45pm

nthclare wrote: »

Wasn't there some Christians also in Sadams team and other religions, his team wasn't all Sunni.

Iraq was doing quite well in the 60's and 70's so was Afghanistan very westernised.

I don't know, but it wouldn't be surprising. Saddam was a pan-Arab nationalist with no significant interest in religion. The damage that the US did to that country and its culture is unforgivable.

Montage of Feck · 21-07-2020 7:54pm

Bush and Blair should be hung for the untold chaos and misery they unleashed with their lies.

Overheal · 21-07-2020 7:57pm

There are indeed a lot of war crimes that have and will be left unanswered for.

Montage of Feck · 21-07-2020 7:59pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't know, but it wouldn't be surprising. Saddam was a pan-Arab nationalist with no significant interest in religion. The damage that the US did to that country and its culture is unforgivable.

His second in command was a Christian.

Ipso · 21-07-2020 8:01pm

Montage of Feck wrote: »

His second in command was a Christian.

Great bunch of lads.

Mad_maxx · 21-07-2020 8:01pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't know, but it wouldn't be surprising. Saddam was a pan-Arab nationalist with no significant interest in religion. The damage that the US did to that country and its culture is unforgivable.

one wonders why they did it ?

Mad_maxx · 21-07-2020 8:01pm

Montage of Feck wrote: »

His second in command was a Christian.

Tariq Azis

Odhinn · 21-07-2020 8:07pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

one wonders why they did it ?

It gives them a foothold in a state bordering Iran for starters.

Ipso · 21-07-2020 8:10pm

Odhinn wrote: »

It gives them a foothold in a state bordering Iran for starters.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was to protect Saudi Arabia. The first gulf war seemed to be as much about that as it was Kuwait.

Irish Praetorian · 21-07-2020 8:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Libya had slightly more gold than Greece.

Yes, as air-tight as I might be tempted to regard a report by RT, I do have a rather pesky predilection for cross-referencing with other sources, in this case the database of gold reserves.

https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/monthly-central-bank-statistics

Now as you will plainly see from the data available, Libya had a fairly constant reserve of gold since the early 00s and one which came nowhere near the kind of reserves of major nations and is broadly comparable to the reserves of Greece (in-fact your initial assertion of Libya having slightly more gold than Greece is actually very true). Most intriguingly, Iraq from the start of 2010, has managed in the past decade to build up reserves of gold rivalling that of Libya, despite being at the centre of a foreign invasion or two, and significant civil conflict. Now I'm aware the gold story might still look tempting, but it just doesn't have the backing behind it, if you will pardon the gold pun

Ipso · 21-07-2020 8:37pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Yes, as air-tight as I might be tempted to regard a report by RT, I do have a rather pesky predilection for cross-referencing with other sources, in this case the database of gold reserves.

https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/monthly-central-bank-statistics

Now as you will plainly see from the data available, Libya had a fairly constant reserve of gold since the early 00s and one which came nowhere near the kind of reserves of major nations and is broadly comparable to the reserves of Greece (in-fact your initial assertion of Libya having slightly more gold than Greece is actually very true). Most intriguingly, Iraq from the start of 2010, has managed in the past decade to build up reserves of gold rivalling that of Libya, despite being at the centre of a foreign invasion or two, and significant civil conflict. Now I'm aware the gold story might still look tempting, but it just doesn't have the backing behind it, if you will pardon the gold pun

Shh. Don’t deflate a good conspiracy.

Zebra3 · 21-07-2020 8:46pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

one wonders why they did it ?

To smash Arab power and leave their client state as the strongest in the ME.

Mad_maxx · 21-07-2020 8:49pm

Odhinn wrote: »

It gives them a foothold in a state bordering Iran for starters.

+1

Mad_maxx · 21-07-2020 8:52pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

To smash Arab power and leave their client state as the strongest in the ME.

well they dont have a problem with some arab power and iran has always been a bigger rival than anyone else

obviously the interests of israel play some role every time and the israeli firsters - neo cons did have a hugely influential role in the bush administration , otherwise the invasion would probably not have happened for another few decades

9-11 gave cover

CrankyHaus · 22-07-2020 9:39am

Odhinn wrote: »

It gives them a foothold in a state bordering Iran for starters.

If that was a motive then it backfired on the US, badly and very predictably due to Iraq's Shia majority.

Instead they ended up giving Iran considerable influence in Iraq.

rapul · 23-07-2020 12:24am

Just watching this on BBC now, ****ing Sassoman or however it's spelt, he's a bad man and doesn't give a ****

Atlantic Dawn · 19-10-2021 4:31pm

This is being repeated again on BBC4 on Monday at 10pm.

Once upon a time in Iraq.

Comments