Saddam Hussein: The United States is settling old scores

From an open letter by the Iraqi president to the people of the West, which was delivered on Iraqi television

The United States needs to try wisdom, after having tried force over the past 50 years. It is among the indisputable principles of the law that any charge should be based on evidence. But the US has made the charge before verification – even before possessing the minimum evidence about such a charge. It has started with a drive towards incitement and threat.

The US has declared it is at war. It has been gearing up for war since the first moments after the incident, as though that were the opportunity it has been waiting for. Have you ever heard or read in near or distant history of a state declaring war before even defining who its enemy is? It is not yet known whether the incident was carried out by a foreign enemy or someone from inside the US.

Could this charge mean anything other than the desire to settle old scores, all based on the assumption that the countries in question have foreign policies that are incompatible with US policy, or that those countries do not comply with the US-Zionist policy vis-à-vis the world and Palestine?

Once again we say that the US administration and those in the West who allied themselves with it against Arabs and Muslims, now and in the past, or rather against the world, need to try wisdom. They have had power at their disposal and deployed it to such an extent that it ceased to frighten those who experienced it.

Dignity – the sovereignty of the homeland and the freedom of the sincere man – is a sacred thing, along with other sacred things that real Muslims uphold. Once again we say that the people do not believe the slogans of the US any more. Even when it says it is against terrorism, the US does not apply this according to international law – but, rather, according to its will to impose what it wants on the world and refuse what it thinks might be harmful to it.

Could the US tell its peoples how many organisations working against their own countries are [sponsored] by the US? And to how many of those organisations the term terrorism could be applied if a single standard, rather than a double standard, is used? How many does the US finance overtly and covertly? How many accused of killing and theft in other countries are now hiding in the US?

If the US were to present such an inventory to its people and to the world, and started implementing a single standard and a single norm on its agents and those it calls friends, and if it starts the same storm against the killers in the Zionist entity responsible for killing Palestinians in occupied Palestine, only then can we believe the new American slogans that America is trying to make us believe. Only then does it become legitimate for the US to ask the world to do what it believes is useful for its security and the security of the world.

This is also addressed to the peoples of the US and the Western people in general. Zionism plans to dominate the world. It has scored successes by coming to control finance, media and commerce centres in your countries and whoever rules in your name in decision-making centres. But its domination is not yet fulfilled. This could only be feasible when two heavenly faiths, [one] upheld by the biggest bloc in the world, are thrown into conflict. Otherwise, Zionism would be denied the accomplishment of all its ambitions. The masterminds of Zionism are, therefore, working together to engineer a clash between Christianity and Islam on the assumption that this, and only this, could secure the chance to dominate the world, when new opportunities open up for domination.

Could there be any better situation than that when the stealing dog finds his household preoccupied by a grief so that it could win the thing it has set its eye on, the thing that whetted its appetite? Would the sensible men in the West be aware of that? Or would Zionism outsmart them to attain its aims?