Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The United States will do whatever it takes to win the war on terror
Published on December 23, 2003 By Draginol In Politics

All over the blogsphere I'll see people say "You Americans need to start asking yourselves, 'Why did they do this to you.'"  It is a terrible misreading of the American culture. Americans don't care. You can argue all day that they should care. But they don't. I don't. There is nothing we have done that justified the events of 9/11. And those who try to justify the acts of terrorists will be ignored as sycophants and appeasers of evil.

After 9/11 the question is no longer "why did they do this to you?"  The question should be what is happening to the Islamic world as a result of their growing culture of death and violence towards the west.

Perhaps the Islamic world needs to start asking, why the US does this to them.  Because if the choice becomes us or them, Americans will choose us in a heart beat even if that means the Islamic world is a totally destroyed.  Make no mistake about that.  This isn't jingoism, far from it, it is the quiet knowledge of certainty.  The clear understanding of the American character that is saying this.

I don't say this because I hope that happens, I don't. I hope that the Islamic World can live in peace with the west and in particular the United States. I just don't think Europeans and especially the Islamic world understands American culture. We try to do the right thing. But if we feel we've been wronged (and we do) our history shows that we will do whatever it takes to secure ourselves.

Remember this: Japan bombed a military base to start its war against the United States.  The war ended with the United States vaporizing two of its largest cities after having used conventional weapons to flatten nearly every city in Japan with millions of civilian casualties.  It is one of those things about democracy - it is slow to anger but once angered, once motivated, it is hard to turn it off. So I say to you, for the sake of the Islamic world, they will not continue the path of folly in trying to convince us that the fault lies with us. That sort of argument is interesting in intellectual forums. But in the real world, when people are getting killed, those who would start killing Americans need to understand the full implications of their actions.

Blaming Bush is convenient. But I can say this: Any President of the United States would have done at least as much or would have faced riots.  The US federal government only has one job (the state governments do pretty much everything else): Take care of the personal well being of its citizens  It's not designed to build roads. It's not designed to build schools. It doesn't provide the police.  It doesn't run the water plant. It doesn't provide water or electricity.  It just takes care of individual citizens. And it does this in two ways: Killing non-citizens who seek to harm us and provide services to individuals. That's basically all it does (all but  less than 10% of the budget is dedicated to those tasks). It's not like a European government or the government in other countries in its design.  And it does those things remarkably well. And democracies can be scary things. The average person acts out of passion, emotion. The government is merely the tool of the citizenry. It doesn't rule the people, the people rule the government.  Blaming Bush for Kyoto or the International Criminal Court or the Iraqi invasion or whatever may make some quasi-intellectual feel better. But it's a delusion. It doesn't matter who the President was. Those things would have happened under any President one way or the other particularly after 9/11 in the case of Iraq.

So don't delude yourself into thinking that Americans are going to sweat about the "why" the terrorists murdered so many Americans.  Most Americans care about how its government will make the problem go away in as permanent a way as possible.  It's not the "Arab street" you should worry about, it's the American street people should worry about. Even 4 years after Pearl Harbor, poll after poll taken in 1945 showed that the vast majority of Americans supported the extermination of the Japanese as a people. Do you understand? The extermination of the Japanese as a race. It's not the terrorists that people should be afraid of. That is why the Islamic world needs to stop the terrorists. Why they need to do it on their own. They're not doing it to help us. They are doing it to ensure their continued survival.


Comments (Page 5)
10 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Jan 14, 2004
Brad :

Very well said . what many people dont say is why are countries who have been pretty much isolationist being attacked by terrorist ? ..It only has to do with a hatred for western culture nothing more nothing less
on Jan 14, 2004
I am afraid i am with Orcneas, JeremyG on this one... i sincerely hope that the rest of the US general public dont share you view - granted, you are a right winger, and this whole 'it is our resposibility to interfer with everything else that is going on in the world because it's our god given right' is practically your mantra...

What is your problem? Seriously, if you could only see that this happens because of people like you who sincerly beleive that what is right for you and your compatriots must be right for everyone else in the world... I dont really care for all of your little numbers and statistics, my major gripe is with your 'we dont care, but we are going to make life hell for you if you dont co-operate with us' attitude...

Lunaticus Minimus "How about this, if you don't like the United States..how about you stay out of it, how about you turn towards your own country and work on your own problems? "

No crap - i dont, and my government, nor any other, really give two hoots about what is happening there... just go along with your little merry money making ways, and our governments may want to wheel and deal every now and then, but we dont intrude on your internal affairs... THAT IS PLAIN RUDE.

Dont be so naive to say that every international arms conflict America has been involved in is because of problems spilling on to your turf... oh yeah - There was the communist threat on your doorstep, so lets all finance dictators and 'terrorists' - like Osama... Please try and deny that anything like this happened, so i can have the pleasure of putting you in your place.

The US is just like a bully in a play ground, and people like you Brad Wardell are his little minions that taunt and tease, but would be nothing without the support of his brute strength... I find it hard to beleive that someone who has access to all the information in the world via the internet can be so arrogant and ignorant as you, but i do sympathise, if i was American, i would try to beleive it wasn't true as well... because i would be very, very ashamed of who i am.
on Jan 14, 2004
Sorry Brad...

"You apparently weren't aware that Saddam had been in power for quite awhile by 1980. What is this rise to power nonsense when he was alrady in power? Sheesh"

Yes, Saddam was in power, but would have he been able to stay in power with the US support?

Maybe think about it for a bit before trying to shoot his argument down because of a mere gramatical error.

I have to say, i am having problems sleeping now... As long as attitudes like yours and a fw others in here exist, the world isn't going to a safe place, in spite of your professions...
on Jan 14, 2004

What is your problem? Seriously, if you could only see that this happens because of people like you who sincerly beleive that what is right for you and your compatriots must be right for everyone else in the world... I dont really care for all of your little numbers and statistics, my major gripe is with your 'we dont care, but we are going to make life hell for you if you dont co-operate with us' attitude...

My problem is with people who are ignorant and naive who would just close their eyes and pretend that if they believe something really really hard that it'll make it a reality. Talk about shooting the messenger but I'm merely pointing out reality.

We can all wish for a better world in which we all live together in peace and harmony. I certainly wish that. But in the meantime, we have to actually deal with the world as it actually is. You seem to behave that because the world should be different that it can somehow be changed if we, as individuals, could just change.

I know that you don't like my facts and statistics and what not but ignoring the evidence of history can lead to great suffering. BTW, I thought it kind of amusing that demanding that terrorists not try to kill Americans as wholeasle is merely a call for them to "cooperate with us". France and Germany aren't cooperating with us and I don't see Americans demanding war and bloody retribution. We simply ask that people not attempt to mass murder us. Gee I'm such a barbarian I guess.

"You apparently weren't aware that Saddam had been in power for quite awhile by 1980. What is this rise to power nonsense when he was alrady in power? Sheesh"

Yes, Saddam was in power, but would have he been able to stay in power with the US support?

Maybe think about it for a bit before trying to shoot his argument down because of a mere gramatical error.

Mugazz, I'm sorry but you're just incredibly ignorant on this issue that you would really be better off sticking with topics that you have some basic knowldge of. What kind of...sorry moronic question is "Would he have been able to stay in power with[out] US support?"

I have no idea but it sure seems bloody likely given that he stayed in power for over a decade with the US actively working for his overthrow. You and your left-wing zealot ilk are constantly trying to argue that every bad man in the world was put in power by the US.  Then when it's pointed out that you're dead wrong you retreat to sophistry. OH well sure maybe the US didn't have anything whatseover to do with Saddam coming to power but maybe if the US hadn't helped him there is some unknown likelyhood that he may not have stayed in power.

Of course, you then conveniently ignore that the bulk of Saddam's support came from China, Russia, and France. But hey because you hate the United States so much your'e perfectly willing to ignore those facts and focus on the help the US gave him.  Why not share with us this massive support that you imagine kept Saddam in power once he had already been in power for years?

This is why people like you have so little credibility with the mainstream. It's called over-reaching. You start with your conclusion: The US is an evil place. And then you invent facts or twist history (despite yoru dislike of said facts and statistics and history) to come to your pre-conceived conclusion.

So let me spell it out for you: The United States had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. The United States had little to do with Saddam staying in power and only aided him at all because he was fighting Iran who had recently commited several acts of war against the United States (would you have been more satisfied if the US had simply conquered Iran itself militarily for taking hostages at the US embassy?).  The United States had little to nothing to do with the growth of Al Queda and the United States had little or nothing to do with the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden's rise.

In the world in which the United States looms so large, pretty much any significant figure is going to have some dealing with the United States. But it is people like you that try to twist what is ultimately a molehill into a mountain.

And you lose credibility because any sane person can see that a zealot could just as easily blame UK, France, Germany, Russia, or China for these same people.  Well UK and France were the ones who carved up the middle east into quasi-colonies and screwed things up... Germany's Nazi party had a strong influence in the creation of the Bathists. Russia's invasion of Afghanistan and interference throughout the region helped create many of these organizations, China has provided weapons to any party who had the money to pay for them. The list goes on. There's plenty of blame to go around. Fixating on the United States is hollow because shockingly enough, the US really hasn't done that much over there relative to other players.  And the other players aren't the ones ended up seeing their citizens mass murdered.

on Jan 14, 2004
The reason the Middle East is in the shape its in is because of European Imperialism. If you really have a hard time accepting that then do some research.

Frankly I don't give a great damn if anyone hates me because I am an American, I hate you knowing that my family can be torn apart because its supposedly my country's responsibility to fix what hundreds of years of oppression created. Europe was getting the bombs before the US stepped up to the plate, so why the hell can't we just step off the damn plate and make Europe clean up the mess they made?

You hate me because you think I am ignorant, but its you people that are ignorant. You want to fix terrorism, start making reparations to every person in every country in Africa and the Middle East. Put yourselves on trial for Human Rights Crimes in your new International Crimes Court.

What was done there was and still is a crime, its a hopeless situation because each and every one of those countries is filled with people that you beat into submission. You stole their culture, their language, their way of life, you enslaved them, you raped them, you tried to breed them out. HULLO! The US got hit by terrorists because we got stuck trying to clean up the generational mess that EUROPE not THE US created.

So you put your jobs, your families, and your lives on hold, get off your foul asses, and go fucking fix it.

on Jan 14, 2004
Dude, You have missed my point completely... i am a mere 21 year old buck... i cant compete with an intellectual like you, i can confidently say you will shoot all of my arguments down with rhetoric and finger pointing...

The great thing is though - i dont need to shoot your arguments down... you do it for me... "My problem is with people who are ignorant and naive who would just close their eyes and pretend that if they believe something really really hard that it'll make it a reality. Talk about shooting the messenger but I'm merely pointing out reality" That sounds like a bio for you and your Republican buddies.

You aren't a messeger if it's your opinion mate...

Look, i can clearly see that i am not going to get anywhere with you, and i can tell you, you are not going to get anywhere with me... I have never denied that other countries (UK, France - especially!!!, Germany, Belgium) have been involved in tampering with internal affairs... but we are talking at least 50 years ago in most of these cases... they seem to have learned their lesson... I bet you could go to the Congo now, and whilst they might still be disgruntled with the Belgians, i can assure you, they will despise the good ol' US of A. Fair enough, the US hasn't done 'that much over there' but its definitely enough to raise my eyebrows... dont get me started on South America...

You lose all credibility because all you do is finger point. I am not blaming anyone in particular... i just wish that right wingers either changed their attitude, or all went to Mars with George Bush in 2020... I have never, ever said the US is an Evil place... it just has a crap load of Evil bullies. We simply ask that YOU not attempt to mass murder everyone else... whether it be directly or through proxy. What is in the past, is in the past... And in MY opinion, the US has ALOT of blood on their hands, along with other governments... what i am trying to say is that with people like you, and your attitude, the US will continue to have bloody hands...
on Jan 14, 2004

What is this finger pointing you refer to?

My entire article boils down to this:

Based on history, if action X happens, response Y is very likely. It is naive for people to believe that some response Z will happen based on basic human behavior over the centuries.

You don't like the idea that response Y would happen.

You can either argue that response Y isn't likely to happen or you can complain that response Y shouldn't happen. You have chosen to argue that the fact that I believe that response Y is what would happen that I am somehow at fault.

Let me use an analogy:

If I say if Billy punches Joe in the face that the most likely response is that Joe is going to bunch Billy back. The amount of restraint Joe will have for pummeling Billy is going to be based on how much pain Billy has inflicted with relative disparity in size.

In this case, Billy is a small guy and Joe is a huge guy. Billy came up and kicked Joe in the knee and hurt him. While Joe could pummel Billy to death, he's thus far showed great restraint by merely knocking him down in response. But if Billy were to do real injury to Joe to the point where Joe thought his life was in danger, he would put Billy down permanently in defense.

Your arguments and those like you seems to be that the blame is really with Joe and that Joe is just a big bully simply because he's big.

The reason why you have no mainstream credibility is because you throw around terms like "bully" without any sense of perspective.  How is the US a "bully"? for instance. You never once give an example.  Is the US a bully simply because it replaced the Taliban regime after thousands of Americans were slaughtered in down town New York (and Washington) for no apparent reason?  But you throw around "bloody hands" and "bully" and other such charged terms.

There is nothing the US has done to have warranted what happened on 9/11. Anyone who argues otherwise is, IMO, sick and deserving of no respect whatsoever.

The reason why people like me do have credibiliy (whether you like it or not, my blog has had thousands of daily readers for a long time) is because whether people agree with my opinions or not, I tend to back them up with facts. I wouldn't say something like "America's a bully" and leave it at that. I would say "America's a bully because of actions X, Y, and Z." That is the difference between a 21 year old zealot and someone like me.

on Jan 14, 2004
Ok... thanks for dumbing it down, i really had no idea what was going on...

Dont patronise me man...

Why did Billy punch Joe in the first place? maybe you can tell me? because i clearly have no idea... Maybe its because Billy had a really bad childhood that Joe kept on interfering with, and really made his life miserable, when it wasn't really Joes business in the first place...

Here is an example of Bullying - remember when Japan was forced to trade with America? Japan was really quite happy to remain isolated from the rest of the World, but the great US Navy really needed oil, and somewhere to fill it up... if Japan didn't trade, the Oil was going to be taken forcefully...

sounds pretty oafish to me...
on Jan 14, 2004
You do not step back and listen to yourself at all. Britain, Belgium, France and co. didn't "TAMPER" in those countries, they took them in the EXACT same way they took Austrulia, Canada, the US, Mexico, Latin America, Cuba, South America, Singapore, the WHOLE of Africa, the WHOLE of the Middle East and India.

You are the one without a clue. Tampering? That is what you call it? Seriousely? The Congo are more than a little "disgruntled" towards the Beligans, but then you do close your eyes, and dumb it down rather than take responsibility for what you did. So I guess South Africa is disgruntled towards the British, and Algeria well they are just wagging their fingers at the French right?

What do you know of the history of these countries? Aside from some "tampering"?
on Jan 14, 2004
You my friend, are a knitwit.

You do not listen to me at all either...

I have acknowledged that some rather bad things happened in the past... but the US still appears as an Imperialist nation... and have not learnt from the mistakes of said nations. You can argue that UK, Frace and Co. would be as well if they had the power that USA does... but i would argue the point they dont want to have the exhaulted honour of being the most despised nation on earth - which is currently held by - guess who?

You are living in the past... i am talking about the future... and things like 9/11 will continue to happen if USA continues on its present course... its really as simple as that.
on Jan 14, 2004
If the powers in Europe had not swindled away their power on war after war both within the continent of Europe and outside of it, that would not be the case today. However, assuming that because the US is the Superpower today therefore the US must be responsible for the result of actions from less than a hundred years ago is simply you refusing to bear any responsibility for the actions of your own people.

Your opinion is that another 9/11 will happen, but what exactly do you base this on. You have yet to actually show that you have any REAL WORKING knowledge of today, and you can't claim to have even the most relative understanding of what is going on today if you still have not grasped the past.

I think it is you that should learn from the US. Blacks and Natives in the US were enslaved over 200 years ago now, then they were oppressed, and now because they were kept form developing themselves, they are now having to struggle to catch up.

The social retardartion of these nations that you are blaming on the US is the same as the plight of Blacks and Natives in the US. You have not got a clue. You kept these people from developing, kept them from growth, and are the reason for their being chaos rather than a future.

The causes of 9/11 are also far more (NOT GRAY) but detailed than your simplification of them as well. You can not claim to be intelligent and be a racist at the same time. Get that through your head. Your hatred of Americans is unjustified, and it is wrong. You hating anyone is wrong. That is one of the ingredients that breeds extremism. You really have no clue? In Belgium and France muslims, middle easterners and Africans are segregated away from the rest of the country. If they are born there they are still will not be citizens, the so-called native born in your countries do not see them as one of your masses, and they are still subjected to abuses and deaths that do go unpunished. You have just taken someone from a country with no future, and put them into a country that promises them a future, and then you shove them off into some government run apartment block. So here you go again, another ingredient to create the terrorist.

Do you understand at all? YOU CAN NOT OPPRESS PEOPLE AND THEN JUST EXPECT THEM TO JUST GET BACK TO THEIR OWN LIVING AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED.

You put a child in a closet for 12 years and you have socially retarded that child. It only took you 12 years to screw that child up. You put a group of children in a closet for 12 years and what exactly do you think they are going to do? That is what you and yours did.
on Jan 14, 2004
Lets brush aside international intreasts and human morals for a second and examine this from the practical, american point of view that brad seems to stress so much. It is not as simple as If X happens, then Y will happen. you can dumb it down as much as you want to but there is simply alot more to international politics than "action and reaction". For one thing is it really in US economic intreasts to invade iraq? Or for the intreast of national security? There is proof now that there might have never been WMDs in Iraq since the first gulf war, nor is there any link to Al-Queda. The only result of the US going into Iraq is more hate against the united states, meaning Bush is making conditions just ripe for the development of more terrorists. The US is at war with terror, not with Islams. The invasion of Iraq did not make america any safer than before. The only result of it is that it has
a)wasted alot of money
b)caused the deaths of almost 500 soldiers on the American side alone
c)lost international backings
d)raised hatred against the US in the middle east and subsequently the growth of radical islam

Now remember that these reasons are for the US alone, i could go on for days about the international, human rights consequences of this war.
And Brad.... Where again are you getting your info? cuz ive been askin for a while now and your still just makin up stuf.....
on Jan 15, 2004
Damouse... you continue to impress me with your arguments that come from no where...

"The social retardartion of these nations that you are blaming on the US is the same as the plight of Blacks and Natives in the US. You have not got a clue. You kept these people from developing, kept them from growth, and are the reason for their being chaos rather than a future"

have you got a chip on your shoulder or something? i never once said the US was the cause of these countries social retardations... my argument has, and will be all along... THAT USA SHOULD LET THESE PLACES SORT OUT THERE OWN INTERNAL PROBLEMS.

Also, i dont hate Americans... i think you will find that i am a good natured person... i merely dislike Brads, yours, and any right wing attitude towards international affairs.

"The causes of 9/11 are also far more (NOT GRAY) but detailed than your simplification of them as well. You can not claim to be intelligent and be a racist at the same time. Get that through your head. Your hatred of Americans is unjustified, and it is wrong. You hating anyone is wrong. That is one of the ingredients that breeds extremism. You really have no clue? In Belgium and France muslims, middle easterners and Africans are segregated away from the rest of the country. If they are born there they are still will not be citizens, the so-called native born in your countries do not see them as one of your masses, and they are still subjected to abuses and deaths that do go unpunished. You have just taken someone from a country with no future, and put them into a country that promises them a future, and then you shove them off into some government run apartment block. So here you go again, another ingredient to create the terrorist."

If you would like me to pass you the recipe for making a terrorist, i think you will find meddling Western Countries is a signifigant ingredient... more on that to follow.

I know i have not quoted any sources, or drawn from many specific examples, but thats only because i am preparing a piece of my own at the moment, and i am making sure all my sources are quite credible as i want my argument to be sound... I hope you my friend, will be the first to read it.

Besides, i dont need sources to share my opinion.
on Jan 15, 2004
Interesting to see that so many people are yet again focussed on history and not as much about the now and the future. Yes all the western powers have huge historical crimes against the developing world and each other but that is not the cause of terrorism or hatred. Terrorism and hatred is primarily about the now or close past. What has happened in the last 5-10 years or what is happening today to turn so many people to extreme violence.

Everyone on these forums totally abhors terrorism and disagrees with it (whether leftist, right wing or central), so how could anyone in a foreign country ever support it. That is the question that should be asked, not what happened in the past.

Brad is correct to say that the standard human response is 'an eye for an eye'. But Brad to use your analogy, 'Billy kicks Joe and then hides, and so Joe beats all Billy's friends, all his neighbours, all his family, and everyone with the name Billy.' This is what the America is about. They can't attack the terrorists directly so they go after anyone they even think is remotely connected. This very attitude itself is generating more Billys.

Why Billy originally kicked Joe originally is important, but so is stopping Joe making the mistake of beating up innoncent people.

Brad, think of how you would react if someone beat you up because your 1st cousin (who you may not even like) kicked them?

Paul.
on Jan 15, 2004
Paul you site no link to assure that this article even exists, but it is an allegation being made by someone, that does not make it true. So I see your source and raise you one:

From Aljazeera.NET

The Iraqi Baath Party
By Aljazeera

Sunday 10 August 2003, 13:23 Makka Time, 10:23 GMT
Shortly after the defeat of the Arab forces in Palestine in 1948, three young Syrian men arrived in Baghdad, to continue their studies.


The three men, Fayiz Ismail, Wasfi al-Ghanim and Sulayman al-Eisa - returned to Syria and joined political scientist Zaki al-Arsoozi, who was intent on founding al-Baath (renaissance) party.

Al-Arsoozi's desire was to restore Arab pride. The men joined the party and pledged to carry the Baathist name back to Baghdad.

Upon their return to Baghdad in 1949, they established the Iraqi Baath Party. The party membership grew steadily from just 50 members in 1951 until they gained recognition by the Baath National Leadership in Damascus.

Party organisation and structure

From its earliest days, the Iraqi Baath Party relied upon and recruited college and high school students, as well as intellectuals and professionals. Most recruits were of urban Iraqi Arab origins.

Military officers, who joined Baath membership in the early 1950s, included Ahmad Hassan al-Baqir, Saleh Mahdi Ammash and Abd Allah Sultan, all of whom assumed prominent responsibilities in Iraqi political affairs in later years.

The party cell or circle was composed of three to seven members. It constituted the basic organisational unit of the party.

Cells functioned at the neighbourhood or village level, where members would meet to discuss and execute party directives.

A party division comprised of two to seven cells. They were spread throughout the bureaucracy and the military where they functioned as the party’s watchdog.

A party section, which comprised of two to five divisions, functioned at the level of a large city quarter, a town, or a rural district.

The branch came at the top of the section, and was composed of at least two sections which operated at the provincial level.

The party congress, which combined all the branches, was responsible for electing the regional command as the core of the party leadership and top decision-making mechanism.

The national command of the Baath Party, ranked on top of the regional command. It was the highest policy-making and coordinating council for the Baath movement throughout the Arab world at large.

Baath ideology

The party promoted its ideology of pan-Arab secular nationalism with socialist leanings.

In early 1988, the Baath Party began calling for parallelism between regional (qutri) and national (qawmi) goals.

Territorially and politically divided Arab countries were merely regions of a collective entity - The Arab Nation, according to party rationale.

The Baath movement in one country was considered merely an aspect of, or a phase leading to, "a unified democratic socialist Arab nation".

The crucial test of legitimacy for any Baath government would be whether or not their policies and actions were compatible with the basic aims of the revolution.

The Baath party embraced the principles of "unity, freedom, and socialism".

Although the party's efforts to create a unified Arab nation faced many problems, it did not abandon its goal of Arab unity.

But Arab unity was to become a long-term ideal rather than a short term objective.

By 1982, Baathists advocated that "Arab unity must not take place through the elimination of local and national characteristics of any Arab country but must be achieved through common fraternal objectives".

In practice, this meant that the Iraqi Baath Party had accepted unity of purpose among Arab leaders, rather than unification of Arab countries.

Baath political objectives and role

The Baath Party remained underground during the 1950s. Members had little choice, since their call for the overthrow of the Iraqi monchary and Syrian government meant they were liable to be arrested.

Baath joined other opposition parties to form the United National Front and participated in the activities that led to the 1958 revolution ending the British control of Iraq.

But the new republican government did not favour pan-Arab causes or other Baath principles.

Some younger party members, including a young Saddam Hussein, became convinced that Iraqi leader Abd al-Karim Qasim had to be ousted.

In addition, the United States became concerned at Qasim's ties to the Soviet Union. The US Central Intelligence Agency is believed to have backed the plot to assassinate him.

But the attempt on Qasim's life in October 1959 failed. Saddam, one of the assassins, fled Iraq while other party members were arrested and tried for treason.

The party was again forced underground, and internal dissensions over which tactics to use to achieve their political objectives rose among its members.

The second attempt to overthrow Qasim in February 1963 was successful, and brought the Baathists to power for the first time.

But the Baathists, riven by factions and outmanoeuvered by political rivals, were forced out of government within nine months.

It was not until 1965 that the Baath overcame its ideological and personal rivalries. The party then reorganised under the direction of General al-Baqir as secretary general with Saddam Hussein as his deputy. Both men were determined to return the Baath to power.

In July 1968, the Baath finally staged a successful coup, and al-Baqir became first Baathist president of Iraq.

New values and principles

The government's primary concern since 1968 had been domestic issues rather than pan-Arab concerns.

The Baath attempted to create a strong and unified Iraq, using political campaigns to eradicate what it called "harmful pre-revolutionary values and practices".

The party concentrated on fighting exploitation, social inequality, sectarian loyalties, apathy, and lack of civil spirit.

Official statements called for the abandonment of traditional ways in favour of a new lifestyle based on the principles of patriotism, national loyalty, collectivism, participation, selflessness, love of labour and civic responsibility.

Those principles were the major goals adopted by the party since 1968. By the late 1980s, the party had succeeded in socialising significant economic sectors including agriculture, commerce, industry and oil.

But government investment in the industry sector remained in government hands. Large-scale industries such as iron, steel, and petrochemicals were fully owned and managed by the government.

Power wielding under Saddam

The Iraqi Baath Regional Command Council (RCC) was supposed to be the body which makes decisions regarding party policy based on consensus.

In practice, however, all decisions were made by the party Secretary General Saddam Hussein, who since 1979, was party RCC chairman and president of the republic.

Saddam ruthlessly dealt with suspected opponents of his rule from within the party.

In one display of his brutality, Saddam stood in front of an audience of party members where he named several high-ranking Baathists who were quickly ushered out of the auditorium and executed for allegedly planning a coup.

The infamous speech was videotaped and used to strike fear in anyone who dared consider challenging Saddam's authority.

If party members were not executed, they were forced into retirement.

Following the US-British occupation of Iraq, the Baath party was dissolved along with its affiliate organisations.


10 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last