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

lidmat · Apr 9, 2019

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.

El Bombastico · Apr 9, 2019

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.

Deleted member 2254 · Apr 9, 2019

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.

Deleted member 40631 · Apr 9, 2019

FairyEmpire said:
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.

El Bombastico said:
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.

lidmat · Apr 9, 2019

El Bombastico said:
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.

FairyEmpire said:
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...

Heckler456 · Apr 9, 2019

lidmat said:
There are other brutal dictators in the world whose countries weren't invaded...

Yeah, but your thread title asks the question if Saddam was wrongfully vilified.

lidmat · Apr 9, 2019

Heckler456 said:
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.

Deleted member 2254 · Apr 9, 2019

lidmat said:
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.

Waaghals · Apr 9, 2019

Saddam Hussein was a colossal piece of shit, and while the Iraq war was a disaster we should never lose sight of that.

Heckler456 · Apr 9, 2019

lidmat said:
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.

Lidl · Apr 9, 2019

Your theory falls apart when you calculate the approximate revenue from Iraq's oil exports.

Around 2000 they produced around 2,000,000 barrels per day on average.
https://tradingeconomics.com/iraq/crude-oil-production
The average price back then was about $30
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
(although this price chart is for the West Texas Intermediate variety)

This amounts to approx. $20bn per year.
The amount in circulation back then was $500bn per day.

duckroll · Apr 9, 2019

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.

Deleted member 33515 · Apr 9, 2019

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...

3bdelilah · Apr 9, 2019

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?

FairyEmpire said:
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.

KillLaCam · Apr 9, 2019

Yes and no. He definitely deserved to be vilified but the only reason people even cared enough to hate him was because of the imaginary weapons.

Mantrox · Apr 9, 2019

El Bombastico said:
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.

Richter1887 · Apr 9, 2019

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.

Deleted member 2254 · Apr 9, 2019

3bdelilah said:
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.

MrOblong · Apr 9, 2019

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.

nu_faust · Apr 9, 2019

duckroll said:
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.

Richter1887 · Apr 9, 2019

MrOblong said:
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.

Dan Thunder · Apr 9, 2019

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.

Daria · Apr 9, 2019

FairyEmpire said:
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.

Harry Potter Obama · Apr 9, 2019

No I'm pretty sure it was oil

Inuhanyou · Apr 9, 2019

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.

KtSlime · Apr 9, 2019

MrOblong said:
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.

Lidl · Apr 9, 2019

GayAnimeDad said:
No I'm pretty sure it was oil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq#Service_contracts_licensing_results

Deleted member 2254 · Apr 9, 2019

Daria said:
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.

Deleted member 888 · Apr 9, 2019

George Bush and Tony Blair are war criminals who should have been punished.

That's how you frame this, not "Was Sadam Hussain vilified?"

Kirblar · Apr 9, 2019

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.

Harry Potter Obama · Apr 9, 2019

Lidl said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq#Service_contracts_licensing_results

I know I'm just posting the comic

Inuhanyou · Apr 9, 2019

KtSlime said:
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

JayC3 · Apr 9, 2019

There doesn't seem to be much basis for this thread, and so it's closed.

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

user requested account closure

user requested account closure

User requested account closure

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Prophet of Truth

user requested account closure

user requested account closure

User requested account closure

bork bork