The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So he's been captured rather than simply killed.
This is the absolutely best thing that could happen, it allows for at least a semblance of "justice" (whatever that might be) for innocent people that suffered under his regime - rather than simply propping his corpse up and saying "Well, there you go kids!"
Now, before I get into this, for the benefit of lurking morons and other people that simply just may not understand where I'm coming from:
I have at no point, ever, in any kind of wording, defended or supported Saddam Hussein.
I did, do and continue to have problems with the reasons given for the invasion - and his capture changes nothing, it does not change the anti-war stance one iota.
Because the argument has never been that he should be supported, but that lies, deliberately false information and hysteria/crowd control is not a basis for leading a country into war...but that's my usual argument and I'm not going to bore anybody by trotting it out again, so relax.
So with that proviso - the trial.
Now by all means pop this in a couple of years time when it eventually actually rolls around into the courts of wherever, but there is no way on earth I can see this being an open,honest and media-covered trial as, for instance, Milosevic is (although not many people keep up to date with that to be honest, but the info and transcripts are there for those that are interested)
Why?
Because given Hussein's ego and penchant for trying to write himself into history, you can be damned sure that he'll bring out all the connections he has with France, Russia, America and The United Kingdom.
In order for this to be a completely thorough trial, detailing his abuse of power, it will be necessary to start at the beginning - to list his atrocities and rise to power.
Which will mean the discussion of coup d'etats, power shifting, assassinations and various black-op actions by both our government and that of the United States.
It will shed light on America and Britain's interference in The Middle East for the past 60 years or so.
Now that information *is* available (albeit in restricted, censored form) to Joe Public, but it's never talked about, never mentioned, never discussed by any politicians or the media when this whole Iraq thing was brewing.
It seems, if you were so inclined, that there is a tacit agreement by the media and government to not mention any of this history because that would muddy the waters for Mr Everyman, who gets his info directly from front pages of newspapers.
It's far easier to just hold a picture of Hussein and shout
"MURDERED! EVIL MADMAN! DICTATOR!" to rile your population and not have them asking questions about death squads and should-you-really-be-doing-that-Prime Minister?
If you're trying to rally support for an invasion, you don't start saying "Well yes, he's a nasty man. But he used to be a nasty man that we liked, he served a purpose and we didn't actually mind his brutality then, and yes he may have gassed his own people, but we knew and increasd IMF credit to his regime as well as supplying him several million pounds worth of weapons. Which, incidentally, he didn't pay for and you, the British taxpayer, footed the bill thanks to the DTI's Export Credit Guarantee Scheme" (I'm not making this up, check for yourself - http://www.caat.org.uk /information/publications/government/ ecgd-submission-1099.php)
So how do you get your country to support you in a baseless invasion of another country for motives as yet unclear?
You frighten them.
You try and link Iraq with Al-Queda, you mention terrorism in the same breath as often as possible (Donald Rumself admitted earlier this year that there was little, if any, evidence to suggest any link whatsoever).
You mention Sept 11th and say things like "This will never happen again", despite Iraq & Hussein not actually having anything to do with that tragedy anyway.
You produce tanks at Heathrow and have Ricin appearing everywhere in the weeks before you announce your invasion (what, you think the "threat" suddenly stopped? Surely invading a country with such 'obvious' terror bases would trigger some kind of attack? Yet as soon as the "shock and awe" - which didn't happen - began, all these DEATH! KILL! SCARE! issues went away)
You go on national television to "reassure" the country that they are safe...from a nation that has never, ever, at any point acted hostilely towards this country, despite a "war" in 1991. You plant the seeds of terrorism and water them with newspaper articles, rehearsals for what-to-do-when attacks, armoured tanks at Heathrow.
You talk about "weapons of mass destruction posing an immediate, very real danger". But then, when they aren't found almost 10 months after inspectors said there weren't any, you scale down your rhetoric from "Weapons of mass destruction that pose an "immediate, very real danger" to "programs for the construction of weapons of mass destruction".
Yes Hussein is a dictator, yes he is brutal.
But we liked that, we decided he'd be just what we needed to fight against Iran - when that selfish, rude Ayatollah was rude enough to snatch power back from your stage-managed coup d'etat.
It's because he was ruthless and an egomaniac that the CIA and MI5 decided he'd be just the man to do our dirty work.
Just as Bin Laden was unhinged and fanatical enough to fight Russians for us when we didn't like them.
Just as Pinochet was psycho enough for the CIA to overthrow Allende, who was extremely anti-American (but that isn't a crime)
But Joe Public isn't aware of this information. And it's certainly never been discussed in relation to "evil madman Hussein" in any papers this past year.
Because if everybody knew about this stuff, there would be uproar.
And if Hussein's trial is open, honest, non-interfered, non-censored by the CIA/MI5 etc, then this would all come out.
And suddenly this shining victory for democracy and justice (heralded thanks to "Operation Red Dawn" - oh the irony) would not seem so clear cut.
Which is why, and I'll bet anything you like, that the eventual trial will be managed (if not directly out in the obvious open) by us patriotic, virtous, decent Western governments.
These self-same governments that decided Hussein was a dangerous madman, or in the words of George W Bush "the guy that tried to kill my dad", would be linked complicitly to the atrocities they suddenly seem so eager to stamp out.
Hussein being arrested is a good thing.
Hussein being put into power by us, for us, is a shameful thing.
The invasion, the reasons given and the methodology behind it, still ring as tasteless and offensive today as they did in 1991.
What's the saying? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - and that never rings truer than when considering the West's attitudes towards dictators and the murders carried out under their puppet control.
This info is out there if you care to read.
Find it, go look for yourself, do your own research.
Here are some links, just to get you started:
CIA involvement with the Iranian coup d'etat of 1953 (the genesis of where we stand today):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
More docs than you can shake a stick at concerning Iraq, the history of Hussein and just who likes who and who doesn't:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org /wot/iraq/saddamisawarcriminal.html
The CIA's acknowledgement of their involvement and support of Pinochet's regime:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/
US & British Support for Saddam Hussein (has a lovely pic of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein in 1983 when we liked him - amidst the period of his brutal repression of his own people and gassings):
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/ issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
This is the absolutely best thing that could happen, it allows for at least a semblance of "justice" (whatever that might be) for innocent people that suffered under his regime - rather than simply propping his corpse up and saying "Well, there you go kids!"
Now, before I get into this, for the benefit of lurking morons and other people that simply just may not understand where I'm coming from:
I have at no point, ever, in any kind of wording, defended or supported Saddam Hussein.
I did, do and continue to have problems with the reasons given for the invasion - and his capture changes nothing, it does not change the anti-war stance one iota.
Because the argument has never been that he should be supported, but that lies, deliberately false information and hysteria/crowd control is not a basis for leading a country into war...but that's my usual argument and I'm not going to bore anybody by trotting it out again, so relax.
So with that proviso - the trial.
Now by all means pop this in a couple of years time when it eventually actually rolls around into the courts of wherever, but there is no way on earth I can see this being an open,honest and media-covered trial as, for instance, Milosevic is (although not many people keep up to date with that to be honest, but the info and transcripts are there for those that are interested)
Why?
Because given Hussein's ego and penchant for trying to write himself into history, you can be damned sure that he'll bring out all the connections he has with France, Russia, America and The United Kingdom.
In order for this to be a completely thorough trial, detailing his abuse of power, it will be necessary to start at the beginning - to list his atrocities and rise to power.
Which will mean the discussion of coup d'etats, power shifting, assassinations and various black-op actions by both our government and that of the United States.
It will shed light on America and Britain's interference in The Middle East for the past 60 years or so.
Now that information *is* available (albeit in restricted, censored form) to Joe Public, but it's never talked about, never mentioned, never discussed by any politicians or the media when this whole Iraq thing was brewing.
It seems, if you were so inclined, that there is a tacit agreement by the media and government to not mention any of this history because that would muddy the waters for Mr Everyman, who gets his info directly from front pages of newspapers.
It's far easier to just hold a picture of Hussein and shout
"MURDERED! EVIL MADMAN! DICTATOR!" to rile your population and not have them asking questions about death squads and should-you-really-be-doing-that-Prime Minister?
If you're trying to rally support for an invasion, you don't start saying "Well yes, he's a nasty man. But he used to be a nasty man that we liked, he served a purpose and we didn't actually mind his brutality then, and yes he may have gassed his own people, but we knew and increasd IMF credit to his regime as well as supplying him several million pounds worth of weapons. Which, incidentally, he didn't pay for and you, the British taxpayer, footed the bill thanks to the DTI's Export Credit Guarantee Scheme" (I'm not making this up, check for yourself - http://www.caat.org.uk /information/publications/government/ ecgd-submission-1099.php)
So how do you get your country to support you in a baseless invasion of another country for motives as yet unclear?
You frighten them.
You try and link Iraq with Al-Queda, you mention terrorism in the same breath as often as possible (Donald Rumself admitted earlier this year that there was little, if any, evidence to suggest any link whatsoever).
You mention Sept 11th and say things like "This will never happen again", despite Iraq & Hussein not actually having anything to do with that tragedy anyway.
You produce tanks at Heathrow and have Ricin appearing everywhere in the weeks before you announce your invasion (what, you think the "threat" suddenly stopped? Surely invading a country with such 'obvious' terror bases would trigger some kind of attack? Yet as soon as the "shock and awe" - which didn't happen - began, all these DEATH! KILL! SCARE! issues went away)
You go on national television to "reassure" the country that they are safe...from a nation that has never, ever, at any point acted hostilely towards this country, despite a "war" in 1991. You plant the seeds of terrorism and water them with newspaper articles, rehearsals for what-to-do-when attacks, armoured tanks at Heathrow.
You talk about "weapons of mass destruction posing an immediate, very real danger". But then, when they aren't found almost 10 months after inspectors said there weren't any, you scale down your rhetoric from "Weapons of mass destruction that pose an "immediate, very real danger" to "programs for the construction of weapons of mass destruction".
Yes Hussein is a dictator, yes he is brutal.
But we liked that, we decided he'd be just what we needed to fight against Iran - when that selfish, rude Ayatollah was rude enough to snatch power back from your stage-managed coup d'etat.
It's because he was ruthless and an egomaniac that the CIA and MI5 decided he'd be just the man to do our dirty work.
Just as Bin Laden was unhinged and fanatical enough to fight Russians for us when we didn't like them.
Just as Pinochet was psycho enough for the CIA to overthrow Allende, who was extremely anti-American (but that isn't a crime)
But Joe Public isn't aware of this information. And it's certainly never been discussed in relation to "evil madman Hussein" in any papers this past year.
Because if everybody knew about this stuff, there would be uproar.
And if Hussein's trial is open, honest, non-interfered, non-censored by the CIA/MI5 etc, then this would all come out.
And suddenly this shining victory for democracy and justice (heralded thanks to "Operation Red Dawn" - oh the irony) would not seem so clear cut.
Which is why, and I'll bet anything you like, that the eventual trial will be managed (if not directly out in the obvious open) by us patriotic, virtous, decent Western governments.
These self-same governments that decided Hussein was a dangerous madman, or in the words of George W Bush "the guy that tried to kill my dad", would be linked complicitly to the atrocities they suddenly seem so eager to stamp out.
Hussein being arrested is a good thing.
Hussein being put into power by us, for us, is a shameful thing.
The invasion, the reasons given and the methodology behind it, still ring as tasteless and offensive today as they did in 1991.
What's the saying? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - and that never rings truer than when considering the West's attitudes towards dictators and the murders carried out under their puppet control.
This info is out there if you care to read.
Find it, go look for yourself, do your own research.
Here are some links, just to get you started:
CIA involvement with the Iranian coup d'etat of 1953 (the genesis of where we stand today):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
More docs than you can shake a stick at concerning Iraq, the history of Hussein and just who likes who and who doesn't:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org /wot/iraq/saddamisawarcriminal.html
The CIA's acknowledgement of their involvement and support of Pinochet's regime:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/
US & British Support for Saddam Hussein (has a lovely pic of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein in 1983 when we liked him - amidst the period of his brutal repression of his own people and gassings):
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/ issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
Page:
Lol, no. Though I'll probably have a look at some later
Even the links?
I read the post, but the links were info overload...
I read the post, but the links were info overload...
Read it. All. :^)
And I agree with most of that. Not much else to say.
And I agree with most of that. Not much else to say.
Yup, and it was too much to be thinking at 2am, hence the post.
That's far too much to read at 9:15am.
So he's been captured rather than simply killed.
This is the absolutely best thing that could happen, it allows for at least a semblance of "justice" (whatever that might be) for innocent people that suffered under his regime - rather than simply propping his corpse up and saying "Well, there you go kids!"
Now, before I get into this, for the benefit of lurking morons and other people that simply just may not understand where I'm coming from:
I have at no point, ever, in any kind of wording, defended or supported Saddam Hussein.
I did, do and continue to have problems with the reasons given for the invasion - and his capture changes nothing, it does not change the anti-war stance one iota.
Because the argument has never been that he should be supported, but that lies, deliberately false information and hysteria/crowd control is not a basis for leading a country into war...but that's my usual argument and I'm not going to bore anybody by trotting it out again, so relax.
So with that proviso - the trial.
Now by all means pop this in a couple of years time when it eventually actually rolls around into the courts of wherever, but there is no way on earth I can see this being an open,honest and media-covered trial as, for instance, Milosevic is (although not many people keep up to date with that to be honest, but the info and transcripts are there for those that are interested)
Why?
Because given Hussein's ego and penchant for trying to write himself into history, you can be damned sure that he'll bring out all the connections he has with France, Russia, America and The United Kingdom.
In order for this to be a completely thorough trial, detailing his abuse of power, it will be necessary to start at the beginning - to list his atrocities and rise to power.
Which will mean the discussion of coup d'etats, power shifting, assassinations and various black-op actions by both our government and that of the United States.
It will shed light on America and Britain's interference in The Middle East for the past 60 years or so.
Now that information *is* available (albeit in restricted, censored form) to Joe Public, but it's never talked about, never mentioned, never discussed by any politicians or the media when this whole Iraq thing was brewing.
It seems, if you were so inclined, that there is a tacit agreement by the media and government to not mention any of this history because that would muddy the waters for Mr Everyman, who gets his info directly from front pages of newspapers.
It's far easier to just hold a picture of Hussein and shout
"MURDERED! EVIL MADMAN! DICTATOR!" to rile your population and not have them asking questions about death squads and should-you-really-be-doing-that-Prime Minister?
If you're trying to rally support for an invasion, you don't start saying "Well yes, he's a nasty man. But he used to be a nasty man that we liked, he served a purpose and we didn't actually mind his brutality then, and yes he may have gassed his own people, but we knew and increasd IMF credit to his regime as well as supplying him several million pounds worth of weapons. Which, incidentally, he didn't pay for and you, the British taxpayer, footed the bill thanks to the DTI's Export Credit Guarantee Scheme" (I'm not making this up, check for yourself - http://www.caat.org.uk /information/publications/government/ ecgd-submission-1099.php)
So how do you get your country to support you in a baseless invasion of another country for motives as yet unclear?
You frighten them.
You try and link Iraq with Al-Queda, you mention terrorism in the same breath as often as possible (Donald Rumself admitted earlier this year that there was little, if any, evidence to suggest any link whatsoever).
You mention Sept 11th and say things like "This will never happen again", despite Iraq & Hussein not actually having anything to do with that tragedy anyway.
You produce tanks at Heathrow and have Ricin appearing everywhere in the weeks before you announce your invasion (what, you think the "threat" suddenly stopped? Surely invading a country with such 'obvious' terror bases would trigger some kind of attack? Yet as soon as the "shock and awe" - which didn't happen - began, all these DEATH! KILL! SCARE! issues went away)
You go on national television to "reassure" the country that they are safe...from a nation that has never, ever, at any point acted hostilely towards this country, despite a "war" in 1991. You plant the seeds of terrorism and water them with newspaper articles, rehearsals for what-to-do-when attacks, armoured tanks at Heathrow.
You talk about "weapons of mass destruction posing an immediate, very real danger". But then, when they aren't found almost 10 months after inspectors said there weren't any, you scale down your rhetoric from "Weapons of mass destruction that pose an "immediate, very real danger" to "programs for the construction of weapons of mass destruction".
Yes Hussein is a dictator, yes he is brutal.
But we liked that, we decided he'd be just what we needed to fight against Iran - when that selfish, rude Ayatollah was rude enough to snatch power back from your stage-managed coup d'etat.
It's because he was ruthless and an egomaniac that the CIA and MI5 decided he'd be just the man to do our dirty work.
Just as Bin Laden was unhinged and fanatical enough to fight Russians for us when we didn't like them.
Just as Pinochet was psycho enough for the CIA to overthrow Allende, who was extremely anti-American (but that isn't a crime)
But Joe Public isn't aware of this information. And it's certainly never been discussed in relation to "evil madman Hussein" in any papers this past year.
Because if everybody knew about this stuff, there would be uproar.
And if Hussein's trial is open, honest, non-interfered, non-censored by the CIA/MI5 etc, then this would all come out.
And suddenly this shining victory for democracy and justice (heralded thanks to "Operation Red Dawn" - oh the irony) would not seem so clear cut.
Which is why, and I'll bet anything you like, that the eventual trial will be managed (if not directly out in the obvious open) by us patriotic, virtous, decent Western governments.
These self-same governments that decided Hussein was a dangerous madman, or in the words of George W Bush "the guy that tried to kill my dad", would be linked complicitly to the atrocities they suddenly seem so eager to stamp out.
Hussein being arrested is a good thing.
Hussein being put into power by us, for us, is a shameful thing.
The invasion, the reasons given and the methodology behind it, still ring as tasteless and offensive today as they did in 1991.
What's the saying? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - and that never rings truer than when considering the West's attitudes towards dictators and the murders carried out under their puppet control.
This info is out there if you care to read.
Find it, go look for yourself, do your own research.
Here are some links, just to get you started:
CIA involvement with the Iranian coup d'etat of 1953 (the genesis of where we stand today):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
More docs than you can shake a stick at concerning Iraq, the history of Hussein and just who likes who and who doesn't:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org /wot/iraq/saddamisawarcriminal.html
The CIA's acknowledgement of their involvement and support of Pinochet's regime:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/
US & British Support for Saddam Hussein (has a lovely pic of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein in 1983 when we liked him - amidst the period of his brutal repression of his own people and gassings):
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/ issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
This is the absolutely best thing that could happen, it allows for at least a semblance of "justice" (whatever that might be) for innocent people that suffered under his regime - rather than simply propping his corpse up and saying "Well, there you go kids!"
Now, before I get into this, for the benefit of lurking morons and other people that simply just may not understand where I'm coming from:
I have at no point, ever, in any kind of wording, defended or supported Saddam Hussein.
I did, do and continue to have problems with the reasons given for the invasion - and his capture changes nothing, it does not change the anti-war stance one iota.
Because the argument has never been that he should be supported, but that lies, deliberately false information and hysteria/crowd control is not a basis for leading a country into war...but that's my usual argument and I'm not going to bore anybody by trotting it out again, so relax.
So with that proviso - the trial.
Now by all means pop this in a couple of years time when it eventually actually rolls around into the courts of wherever, but there is no way on earth I can see this being an open,honest and media-covered trial as, for instance, Milosevic is (although not many people keep up to date with that to be honest, but the info and transcripts are there for those that are interested)
Why?
Because given Hussein's ego and penchant for trying to write himself into history, you can be damned sure that he'll bring out all the connections he has with France, Russia, America and The United Kingdom.
In order for this to be a completely thorough trial, detailing his abuse of power, it will be necessary to start at the beginning - to list his atrocities and rise to power.
Which will mean the discussion of coup d'etats, power shifting, assassinations and various black-op actions by both our government and that of the United States.
It will shed light on America and Britain's interference in The Middle East for the past 60 years or so.
Now that information *is* available (albeit in restricted, censored form) to Joe Public, but it's never talked about, never mentioned, never discussed by any politicians or the media when this whole Iraq thing was brewing.
It seems, if you were so inclined, that there is a tacit agreement by the media and government to not mention any of this history because that would muddy the waters for Mr Everyman, who gets his info directly from front pages of newspapers.
It's far easier to just hold a picture of Hussein and shout
"MURDERED! EVIL MADMAN! DICTATOR!" to rile your population and not have them asking questions about death squads and should-you-really-be-doing-that-Prime Minister?
If you're trying to rally support for an invasion, you don't start saying "Well yes, he's a nasty man. But he used to be a nasty man that we liked, he served a purpose and we didn't actually mind his brutality then, and yes he may have gassed his own people, but we knew and increasd IMF credit to his regime as well as supplying him several million pounds worth of weapons. Which, incidentally, he didn't pay for and you, the British taxpayer, footed the bill thanks to the DTI's Export Credit Guarantee Scheme" (I'm not making this up, check for yourself - http://www.caat.org.uk /information/publications/government/ ecgd-submission-1099.php)
So how do you get your country to support you in a baseless invasion of another country for motives as yet unclear?
You frighten them.
You try and link Iraq with Al-Queda, you mention terrorism in the same breath as often as possible (Donald Rumself admitted earlier this year that there was little, if any, evidence to suggest any link whatsoever).
You mention Sept 11th and say things like "This will never happen again", despite Iraq & Hussein not actually having anything to do with that tragedy anyway.
You produce tanks at Heathrow and have Ricin appearing everywhere in the weeks before you announce your invasion (what, you think the "threat" suddenly stopped? Surely invading a country with such 'obvious' terror bases would trigger some kind of attack? Yet as soon as the "shock and awe" - which didn't happen - began, all these DEATH! KILL! SCARE! issues went away)
You go on national television to "reassure" the country that they are safe...from a nation that has never, ever, at any point acted hostilely towards this country, despite a "war" in 1991. You plant the seeds of terrorism and water them with newspaper articles, rehearsals for what-to-do-when attacks, armoured tanks at Heathrow.
You talk about "weapons of mass destruction posing an immediate, very real danger". But then, when they aren't found almost 10 months after inspectors said there weren't any, you scale down your rhetoric from "Weapons of mass destruction that pose an "immediate, very real danger" to "programs for the construction of weapons of mass destruction".
Yes Hussein is a dictator, yes he is brutal.
But we liked that, we decided he'd be just what we needed to fight against Iran - when that selfish, rude Ayatollah was rude enough to snatch power back from your stage-managed coup d'etat.
It's because he was ruthless and an egomaniac that the CIA and MI5 decided he'd be just the man to do our dirty work.
Just as Bin Laden was unhinged and fanatical enough to fight Russians for us when we didn't like them.
Just as Pinochet was psycho enough for the CIA to overthrow Allende, who was extremely anti-American (but that isn't a crime)
But Joe Public isn't aware of this information. And it's certainly never been discussed in relation to "evil madman Hussein" in any papers this past year.
Because if everybody knew about this stuff, there would be uproar.
And if Hussein's trial is open, honest, non-interfered, non-censored by the CIA/MI5 etc, then this would all come out.
And suddenly this shining victory for democracy and justice (heralded thanks to "Operation Red Dawn" - oh the irony) would not seem so clear cut.
Which is why, and I'll bet anything you like, that the eventual trial will be managed (if not directly out in the obvious open) by us patriotic, virtous, decent Western governments.
These self-same governments that decided Hussein was a dangerous madman, or in the words of George W Bush "the guy that tried to kill my dad", would be linked complicitly to the atrocities they suddenly seem so eager to stamp out.
Hussein being arrested is a good thing.
Hussein being put into power by us, for us, is a shameful thing.
The invasion, the reasons given and the methodology behind it, still ring as tasteless and offensive today as they did in 1991.
What's the saying? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - and that never rings truer than when considering the West's attitudes towards dictators and the murders carried out under their puppet control.
This info is out there if you care to read.
Find it, go look for yourself, do your own research.
Here are some links, just to get you started:
CIA involvement with the Iranian coup d'etat of 1953 (the genesis of where we stand today):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
More docs than you can shake a stick at concerning Iraq, the history of Hussein and just who likes who and who doesn't:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org /wot/iraq/saddamisawarcriminal.html
The CIA's acknowledgement of their involvement and support of Pinochet's regime:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/
US & British Support for Saddam Hussein (has a lovely pic of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein in 1983 when we liked him - amidst the period of his brutal repression of his own people and gassings):
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/ issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
Page: