When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?

kyleb

oh i am sorry, i suppose i should have realized you didn't see anything wrong with treating humans with such disrespect. i know you have a list of reasons as to why you consider it acceptable; but refuse to be duped out of my humanity, i do not belive anyone should be a tool.

oh and Nicool003, russ's little poem is from a song from back in the eighties; "we are the world." i belive it was in protest of the starvation in Ethiopia at the time, a whole bunch of entertainers got together and recorded it. it was some really cheesy sounding stuff, it was the '80s after all; but it had a good message to it, you should check it out just for kicks sometime.

Zero

Enough with the personal attacks, kids...although I do find it odd that some people consider any act justifiable, no matter how morally bankrupt, or how many lives are lost in the process, as long as it serves America's strategic or economic ends. I guess sweatshops are ok too, if they help the economy?

Now, let's get back on topic: at what point did America officially declare Saddam Hussien crazy, and how did he stop being the sane man that America's government supported for all those years?

Mulder

Wow Zero you contradict yourself with almost every new thread.

'America armed him', 'America put him in power' etc.

This is the kind of (far from completely true(!)) generalisation I recall you criticising [s(].

Also you criticise America for putting him in power (it is actually much more complex than this), yet you also criticise America for ridding him of his power now.

Zero

Whatever, Mulder, you haven't been paying attention. It is slight simplification, but my poiint still stands. American governments had been supporting him for a decade, made him the power that he was when he invaded Kuwait, but turned a blind eye to his 'evil' and 'insanity' for the decade that we did support him. How can America then turn around and claim some sort of moral superiority? And this goes for France, England, or any other country with colonialist ambitions.


I critize both actions, not out of hypocracy, but simply because the American governmnent has no right to interfere [/i]in the manner which is has been doing for the last 2 decades[/i]. It is not that I support Saddam Hussein, but that I cannot support the method of his removal.

Alias

*deleted because of Physics Forums Guideline violations*

kat

Zero..apparently some are asking the same of you[8)] [:D] [g)] [8)] [8)] [s(] [8)]





lol, sorry, couldn't resist

Zero

EVIL!! You are evil PF instigating terrorist scum...or something?


LOL! I don't blame you, it was a pretty good crack at me...

Zargawee

I Disagree ...
If we took this sentence as an independent one , we see that you defined "Good" as the best for America Not else ....

BoulderHead

I don't believe that was intended to be understood in such a manner.

Zero

That was sarcasm...I claim that other people define 'good' as whatever benefits America. I personally define 'good' as what is most beneficial for everyone.

enigma

You know, I want to change the topic of conversation a little...

When did the Iraqi Information Minister go crazy? Was he always crazy? What's the deal?

Our troops are driving through the streets, and he's stating (and I quote): "The capital, especially the commandos, are getting ready to wipe them out. All is under control."

Did he get hit in the head with some falling debris or something?

Alias

It's because he is (or was) afraid of Saddam.

I'll bet we don't see him anymore.

BoulderHead

*Baghdad completely encircled*
Iraqi propaganda; “We have them right we want them, just shoot in any direction and pick them off like ducks….”

Zero

Remember, America has been pumping out propaganda, much of it false, about he war even before it started...now let's get back on topic.

BoulderHead

Has not the US shown a history of support even for dictatorial regimes? My understanding is that a 'stable' dictatorship was viewed as preferable to an unstable democracy. Stability helps with business interests too, and clearly the US wants a region it can do business with and this would be true despite any other considerations such a desire to ‘free’ the Iraqi people from a dictator. Methinks Saddam may have become crazy when he interfered too much with business interests. I have a suspicion that when the US government speaks of ‘National Security Interests’ that the word ‘Security’ might be replaced with ‘Business’. I’m sure that it is more complicated than I’ve made it out to be, but I’m also sure that if it were indeed just that simple that it wouldn’t ever be admitted to.

russ_watters

Isn't that a rough paraphrase of Chesty Puller from the Battle of Chosin?

My response is understood.

Boulder, I'll reluctantly go along with that line of reasoning (I'm not quite that jaded). You can extend that backwards and include all of our dealings with Saddam. We helped perpetuate the Iran/Iraq war since we preferred that they kill each other and not the rest of the peninsula. Certainly that was good for business.

The US's motives with regard to the Iran/Iraq war confuses a lot of people and I think I know why. It seems like an oxymoron: Stability through war. But so is MAD. Peace through the threat of annihilation. Bizarre or not, both worked.

BoulderHead

It may be. I knew it felt familiar when I typed it.
Would the idea of government be to attack those it knows it can easily defeat and use MAD tactics on the others?