Tariq Aziz: 'Britain and the US killed Iraq. I wish I was martyred'

WMD an illusion was to deter Iran, says former minister

Nostalgia for Saddam Hussein rule but he calls on US to stay

Aziz's influence after the 1991 Gulf war rose substantially, largely because of the loyalty he had shown. Through 12 years of sanctions and the lead up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, he claims he knew every one of the regime's secrets including that there was no secret weapons program, and no will to resurrect one from the ruins of Iraq's three bombed nuclear reactors and adjoining research laboratories.

He said that he and Saddam were convinced that the US was going to invade by late 2002, and his job of escorting sceptical UN inspectors around Iraq was largely futile. "I was trying to prove a negative."

...

"Bush and Blair lied intentionally. They were both pro-Zionist. They wanted to destroy Iraq for the sake of Israel, not for the sake of the US and Britain."

...

When asked why Saddam kept the US guessing about his weapons programme, he confirmed the dictator's account to his captors that he had been playing to Iran, not to the west. "Partially, it was about Iran [the deterrent factor]," Aziz said. "They had waged war on us for eight years so we Iraqis had a right to deter them. Saddam was a proud man. He had to defend the dignity of Iraq. He had to show that he was not wrong, or weak.

...

"Iran was our biggest enemy. We had to defy them whatever the cost. Now Iran is building a weapons programme. Everybody knows it and nobody is doing anything. Why?"

...

Aziz is full of praise for his jailers, in particular a young warden who lights his cigarettes for him, places his medicine on a table and allows him a weekly phone call to his family in Jordan.

"The conditions here are excellent," he says in an air conditioned office adjacent to his cell in a north Baghdad suburb. "The treatment from these guys has been excellent and I'm not just saying that. It is clean, the food is good and there is a small garden nearby where we can exercise."

Pressed by one of his jailers on how his conditions compared with the conditions that prisoners during Saddam's regime faced, Aziz would only say: "Yes, there were some mistakes made."

Aziz has a perhaps surprising request of the US commander-in-chief, whom he initially welcomed as a clean break from George W Bush. Aziz now wants the occupation to continue.

"He cannot leave us like this. He is leaving Iraq to the wolves," he said. "When you make a mistake you need to correct a mistake, not leave Iraq to its death."

The myth of a pullout is just that. Less we forget of the half-dozen permanent military instillations that will be there for generations.

The myth of a pullout is just that. Less we forget of the half-dozen permanent military instillations that will be there for generations.

Probably true. But a scaling down from 130,000 to 50,000 is still a move in the right direction. I'm really surprised that they are still on schedule for the end of the month. Maybe they are planning to send them to Afghanistan - over the shortest land route.

I also noticed that someone forgot to tell Tariq that it was a "war for oil', not to help out the Zionists.

The myth of a pullout is just that. Less we forget of the half-dozen permanent military instillations that will be there for generations.

Probably true. But a scaling down from 130,000 to 50,000 is still a move in the right direction. I'm really surprised that they are still on schedule for the end of the month. Maybe they are planning to send them to Afghanistan - over the shortest land route.

I also noticed that someone forgot to tell Tariq that it was a "war for oil', not to help out the Zionists.

You've easily taken their flavour of Kool-Aid. No...it's not a move in the right direction at all. It's still remains occupation. You might white wash it any manner you wish, but it's not warm and fuzzy. If the Yanks are true blue....why not cease with the hundreds of military bases worldwide? Empire, is what I see. Apologists and defenders need not apply. Corporate-Government Imperialism.

The myth of a pullout is just that. Less we forget of the half-dozen permanent military instillations that will be there for generations.

Probably true. But a scaling down from 130,000 to 50,000 is still a move in the right direction. I'm really surprised that they are still on schedule for the end of the month. Maybe they are planning to send them to Afghanistan - over the shortest land route.

I also noticed that someone forgot to tell Tariq that it was a "war for oil', not to help out the Zionists.

You've easily taken their flavour of Kool-Aid. No...it's not a move in the right direction at all. It's still remains occupation. You might white wash it any manner you wish, but it's not warm and fuzzy. If the Yanks are true blue....why not cease with the hundreds of military bases worldwide? Empire, is what I see. Apologists and defenders need not apply. Corporate-Government Imperialism.

Let me guess, maths wasn't your best subject?

You want ZERO soliders there.

There were 130,000.

Soon there will be 50,000.

On your way down from 130,000 to zero, you must pass 50,000. It is a move in the right direction.

The myth of a pullout is just that. Less we forget of the half-dozen permanent military instillations that will be there for generations.

Probably true. But a scaling down from 130,000 to 50,000 is still a move in the right direction. I'm really surprised that they are still on schedule for the end of the month. Maybe they are planning to send them to Afghanistan - over the shortest land route.

I also noticed that someone forgot to tell Tariq that it was a "war for oil', not to help out the Zionists.

You've easily taken their flavour of Kool-Aid. No...it's not a move in the right direction at all. It's still remains occupation. You might white wash it any manner you wish, but it's not warm and fuzzy. If the Yanks are true blue....why not cease with the hundreds of military bases worldwide? Empire, is what I see. Apologists and defenders need not apply. Corporate-Government Imperialism.

Let me guess, maths wasn't your best subject?

As history wasn't/isn't yours.....so I've observed already.

Some would say the Zionist cause IS the big oil cause.

trouble is most people look on the one generation scale. We must think in terms of generations and dynasties.

suez.

israel.

baku.

us oil & rail since it grew out of the deserts.

all the same gang.

Genghis eat your heart out.

live and let live. fair play. etc.

Probably true. But a scaling down from 130,000 to 50,000 is still a move in the right direction. I'm really surprised that they are still on schedule for the end of the month. Maybe they are planning to send them to Afghanistan - over the shortest land route.

I also noticed that someone forgot to tell Tariq that it was a "war for oil', not to help out the Zionists.

You've easily taken their flavour of Kool-Aid. No...it's not a move in the right direction at all. It's still remains occupation. You might white wash it any manner you wish, but it's not warm and fuzzy. If the Yanks are true blue....why not cease with the hundreds of military bases worldwide? Empire, is what I see. Apologists and defenders need not apply. Corporate-Government Imperialism.

Let me guess, maths wasn't your best subject?

As history wasn't/isn't yours.....so I've observed already.

You're obviously blind then. Or maybe you'd like to explain how less troops isn't better? Will we have bases there for a long time? Probably. As long as in Germany or Japan? No, not likely. Can you figure out why?

You're obviously blind then. Or maybe you'd like to explain how less troops isn't better? Will we have bases there for a long time? Probably. As long as in Germany or Japan? No, not likely. Can you figure out why?

Because it won't be much longer before the U.S. has it's credit card cut up by it's creditors?

You're obviously blind then. Or maybe you'd like to explain how less troops isn't better? Will we have bases there for a long time? Probably. As long as in Germany or Japan? No, not likely. Can you figure out why?

Because it won't be much longer before the U.S. has it's credit card cut up by it's creditors?

That could be part of it. The part I was thinking of is that unlike WWII, this war isn't popular and many in the world think we are there for imperialist-oil hungry reasons. If for nothing else, we'll need to prove that we aren't there to stay for PR reasons. Besides, we still have bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE. Like when France wanted NATO out of the country in the '60's. No big deal partly because there were plenty of bases in neighboring countries.

<snip> and many in the world think we are there for imperialist-oil hungry reasons. <snip>

You're obviously blind then. Or maybe you'd like to explain how less troops isn't better? Will we have bases there for a long time? Probably. As long as in Germany or Japan? No, not likely. Can you figure out why?

Because it won't be much longer before the U.S. has it's credit card cut up by it's creditors?

Yes, it is a dying state.

<snip> and many in the world think we are there for imperialist-oil hungry reasons. <snip>

.....you can't make these things up. There are folks out there that imbibe this redundant dogma.

<snip> and many in the world think we are there for imperialist-oil hungry reasons. <snip>

.....you can't make these things up. There are folks out there that imbibe this redundant dogma.

Watching too much CNBC, you think?

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

Would you care to share your source for this astounding bit of information?

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

:lol: You can't make this stuff up!!! :lol:

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

Yes, quite stable and progressive if you weren't a Kurd being gassed, or shot in the head by a member of the Baath Party.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

Yes, quite stable and progressive if you weren't a Kurd being gassed, or shot in the head by a member of the Baath Party.

Or this traquil period from 1980-1988; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

Would you care to share your source for this astounding bit of information?

Source? How about clearly having the ability to observe vacant of recent historic manipulation. Never ceases to amaze me that so much of the populations are intently unlearned and defy what is right in front of them.

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

Would you care to share your source for this astounding bit of information?

Source? How about clearly having the ability to observe vacant of recent historic manipulation. Never ceases to amaze me that so much of the populations are intently unlearned and defy what is right in front of them.

Having spent 30+ years of my life in the Middle East I would hardly classify myself as unlearned.

How about you?

Well, whether the country gets destroyed or if millions die. Whether it becomes a part of Iran, you got to take the long view I guess. Immoral and reprehensible though it may be.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/ap_on_re_as/as_vietnam_us_military_mates

That military/Industrial complex just keeps growing. Lot of contracting scum profit from war.

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

Who has occupied Iraq for "19 long years?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq,_2003%E2%80%93present

As history wasn't/isn't yours.....so I've observed already.

An unstable Iraq will create a vacuum which will implode and suck in the entire Middle East, into the conflict in one way or another. Iran still eyes the oil rich south with it's broadly similar religious population, but who's expansion in that area will not be tolerated by cash rich neighbours and a watchful Israel. Kurds in the North will never be allowed to prosper by Turkey. It will be like watching a pack of Hyenas on National Geographic tear a decaying corpse apart.

The mish-mash of tension and hatred which was the old Iraq, was only held together by the Iron hand of dictatorship and only allowed to exist as a buffer against post-revolutionary Iran by the West

Taking it apart for very dodgy reasons by a wounded USA, was always going to be the disaster it has become.

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

Who has occupied Iraq for "19 long years?"

http://en.wikipedia....E2%80%93present

As history wasn't/isn't yours.....so I've observed already.

From Bush the elder to the present......short memory? Or vacant comprehension?

And to think that Iraq was quite stable and considered one of the most progressive states in the Middle East before the idea of 2 American wars and continued occupation for 19 long years.

Who has occupied Iraq for "19 long years?"

http://en.wikipedia....E2%80%93present

As history wasn't/isn't yours.....so I've observed already.

From Bush the elder to the present......short memory? Or vacant comprehension?

After the 1st Gulf War, (the elder Bush's war) the US pulled out of Iraq, isn't that correct?

It was only after the 2nd Gulf War under the younger Bush, it was then that the occupation began.

Who has occupied Iraq for "19 long years?"

http://en.wikipedia....E2%80%93present

As history wasn't/isn't yours.....so I've observed already.

From Bush the elder to the present......short memory? Or vacant comprehension?

After the 1st Gulf War, (the elder Bush's war) the US pulled out of Iraq, isn't that correct?

It was only after the 2nd Gulf War under the younger Bush, it was then that the occupation began.

Yes, that is correct. I have a feeling he is including the No Fly Zones although they weren't occupied by anyone other than Iraqis.