When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?


by Zero
Tags: crazy, hussien, saddam
Zero
Zero is offline
#19
Apr7-03, 06:25 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
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
Mulder is offline
#20
Apr7-03, 06:29 PM
P: 115
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
Zero is offline
#21
Apr7-03, 06:39 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
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
#22
Apr7-03, 09:14 PM
P: n/a
*deleted because of Physics Forums Guideline violations*
kat
kat is offline
#23
Apr7-03, 09:29 PM
kat's Avatar
P: 58
When did he become the mad dictator?
Zero..apparently some are asking the same of you[8)] [:D] [g)] [8)] [8)] [s(] [8)]





lol, sorry, couldn't resist
Zero
Zero is offline
#24
Apr7-03, 11:16 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by kat
Zero..apparently some are asking the same of you[8)] [:D] [g)] [8)] [8)] [s(] [8)]





lol, sorry, couldn't resist
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
#25
Apr8-03, 09:41 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Zero
as long as it serves America's strategic or economic ends. I guess sweatshops are ok too, if they help the economy?
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
#26
Apr8-03, 09:46 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by 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 ....
I don't believe that was intended to be understood in such a manner.
Zero
Zero is offline
#27
Apr8-03, 10:34 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by 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 ....

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
enigma is offline
#28
Apr8-03, 01:29 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
enigma's Avatar
P: 1,817
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
#29
Apr8-03, 01:37 PM
P: n/a
It's because he is (or was) afraid of Saddam.

I'll bet we don't see him anymore.
BoulderHead
#30
Apr8-03, 01:37 PM
P: n/a
*Baghdad completely encircled*
Iraqi propaganda; “We have them right we want them, just shoot in any direction and pick them off like ducks….”
Zero
Zero is offline
#31
Apr8-03, 01:43 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by 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?
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
#32
Apr8-03, 02:00 PM
P: n/a
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
russ_watters is offline
#33
Apr8-03, 03:00 PM
Mentor
P: 21,994
Originally posted by BoulderHead
*Baghdad completely encircled*
Iraqi propaganda; “We have them right we want them, just shoot in any direction and pick them off like ducks….”
Isn't that a rough paraphrase of Chesty Puller from the Battle of Chosin?

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.
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
#34
Apr8-03, 03:19 PM
P: n/a
Isn't that a rough paraphrase of Chesty Puller from the Battle of Chosin?
It may be. I knew it felt familiar when I typed it.
...it seems like an oxymoron: Stability through war. But so is MAD. Peace through the threat of annihilation. Bizarre or not, both worked.
Would the idea of government be to attack those it knows it can easily defeat and use MAD tactics on the others?
damgo
#35
Apr8-03, 03:40 PM
P: n/a
Did he get hit in the head with some falling debris or something?
I think he is just smoking some really good crack. [;)]

Seriously, can you imagine what would happen if the propaganda minister -- who has been giving the victorious line since day 1 -- suddenly announced the Americans were winning and the situation was dire? In Iraq, no one criticizes Saddam or implies that the government is doing poorly... it's just not allowed.

It's also entirely possible Saddam or his supporters have 'levers' against Mr. al-Sajif, such as his family... [s(]
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#36
Apr8-03, 09:32 PM
Mentor
P: 21,994
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Would the idea of government be to attack those it knows it can easily defeat and use MAD tactics on the others?
Well those certainly aren't the only options. We don't attack our allies for example. I'll assume you mean only for our enemies.

MAD starts with "mutually" so it only works when there is a real threat going both ways. Only a couple of countries can claim to be able to annihilate the US. And most of the rest of our enemies simply aren't worth the effort to destroy.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Saddam handover Current Events 0
What would you do to Saddam? General Discussion 14
Saddam no more? Current Events 11
Saddam alive Current Events 4