News When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the timeline and motivations behind U.S. support for Saddam Hussein, particularly during the Iran-Iraq War and leading up to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Participants debate when Saddam transitioned from a useful ally to a perceived mad dictator, questioning whether this shift occurred during U.S. support for his regime, his use of chemical weapons against his own people, or later actions. The conversation touches on the complexities of realpolitik, suggesting that the U.S. often prioritizes strategic interests over moral considerations, leading to long-term consequences. Critics argue that the U.S. has historically supported dictatorial regimes for stability and economic benefits, while others contend that such decisions have resulted in a tarnished international reputation and ongoing conflicts. The dialogue also reflects on the broader implications of American foreign policy, including the ethical dilemmas of supporting oppressive regimes and the consequences of such alliances.
Zero
When did the shift happen, exactly? Was it in the between when American officials showed support for him, and when Iraq invaded Kuwait? If so, did we drop the ball in seeing him amass his forces on teh border, or did he just move really darned fast? Was it earlier, when he 'gassed his own people', which we followed with another half-decade of suport for him?

When did he become the mad dictator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just because we use radiation to kill cancer, it doesn't mean that radiation is a good thing. It is a tool. Radiation in itself is dangerous.

If I am faced with a pit of vipers on one side, and a pride of lions on the other, I might be inclined to enlist the help of the vipers to attack the lions so that I might escape. This doesn't make the vipers good. They are simply a tool. It may even be necessary to destroy the vipers in the future as they are very dangerous left unchecked.

Same same with Saddam. We used him as a tool. He has always been a bad guy.
 
He always was... it was just in 1983, he was a mad dictator we were helping to kill Iranians with chemical weapons. You know, having kicked out the Shaw's puppet government, Iran was then a geopolitical threat that we wanted to keep down.
 
So America will put evil men in power, allow atrocities to happen, encourage them, in fact...so long as it pleases us to do so?
 
Yeah... 'scalled realpolitik, eloquently described by Machiavelli, waaay back when.
 
No one is perfect.

We allied with what appeared to be the lesser of two evils. We then stumbled and blundered into the situation we are in now. That doesn't mean that the solutions we are implementing now are incorrect.
 
Originally posted by Zero
So America will put evil men in power, allow atrocities to happen, encourage them, in fact...so long as it pleases us to do so?
Zero, the US did *NOT* put Saddam into power, he rose through the ranks of the party by killing people and eventually inhereted the reigns through the death of his predicessor.

Zero, I think what you are getting at is why didn't we do anything in 1983 to stop him? Well if you remember, we had bigger fish to fry at the time. It was considered a stopgap measure to get Iran and Iraq to beat the crap out of each other for 10 years. If they're killing each other, they won't be killing anyone else. It wasn't a perfect solution, but let's face it - it did work. After that war ended, Saddam immediatly started looking for other people to attack: Kuait. And that was something we could not accept.
 
What we object to isn't the choice of the lesser of two evils. It's that minor geopolitical interests -- insuring we have a cheap, stable supply of oil, for example, or preserving global American supremacy -- are usually given far more importance than the welfare of foreign peoples, principles of national sovereignity, basic fairness, and so on.

Helping Iraq (we reflagged tankers, gave intelligence, sold arms, harassed the Persian navy) while they were blatantly using chems -- in a war of aggression they started -- was despicable. It was in no way justified, even then, by the geopolitical goals (keeping Iran and Iraq balanced, so neither would gain too much influence) at hand.

This kind of behavior is what gets America all its anger and bad press... it is the reason millions of people are holding anti-American demonstrations during this war. If we were a tad less selfish and short-sighted, and didn't stab our friends in the back when it became politically convenient, we would have a lot better international image, and much less terrorism.
 
Yeah, so if America wanted to put another Hitler into place, it would be ok, because we could profit by him genocide, right? Talk about moral relativism...
 
  • #10
Originally posted by russ_watters
It was considered a stopgap measure to get Iran and Iraq to beat the crap out of each other for 10 years. If they're killing each other, they won't be killing anyone else.
So, setting up wars is an acceptable political strategy...the deaths of innocents is irrelevant, so long as they aren't American.
 
  • #11
What makes you think that in a world so complex, a world so full of ignorant people, that somehow everything should be all rosie and nice. I wouldn't waste my time being bitter about an imperfect world. Instead try and contribute in a positive way. When you have a criticism, turn it into a prospective solution. When you have a frown, turn it upside down!
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Zero
So, setting up wars is an acceptable political strategy...the deaths of innocents is irrelevant, so long as they aren't American.
I didn't say we started the war and I didn't say deaths of innocents are irrelevant. In fact, I didn't even say it was acceptable. Try as you might, you cannot put words such at these into my mouth.

Saddam started the war and Saddam is ALWAYS killing someone. We just kept his war directed on Iran (in the process by the way, protecting Saudia Arabia and Kuait).

It is my opinion that we give far to many weapons to far too many 3rd world nations.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, so if America wanted to put another Hitler into place, it would be ok, because we could profit by him genocide, right? Talk about moral relativism...
Whoah there...
I don't know why Sensei doesn't post here,
it might've had something to do with what
I wrote about him expressing very radical
opinions and being a mentor. But, reading
all this makes me think that maybe he wasn't
so bad in the Politics Forum. So, who's gon'na
lock your threads Zero ? :wink:

And to think that the "who's next ?" thread got
locked. We really have mentors who "feel" the
people's "political pulse" don't we ?
Democratic majority opinion and all...

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by Zero
So America will put evil men in power, allow atrocities to happen, encourage them, in fact...so long as it pleases us to do so?

America did not put Saddam Hussein in power. He seized power on his own. The US supported an attepted revolt against him in mid-late 70's.

I believe at this point, every dictator the US had ever installed in any country has been overthrown. There might be exceptions in sub-Saharan Africa, and Thailand. Anyone know of any?

Njorl
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Alias
Just because we use radiation to kill cancer, it doesn't mean that radiation is a good thing. It is a tool. Radiation in itself is dangerous.

If I am faced with a pit of vipers on one side, and a pride of lions on the other, I might be inclined to enlist the help of the vipers to attack the lions so that I might escape. This doesn't make the vipers good. They are simply a tool. It may even be necessary to destroy the vipers in the future as they are very dangerous left unchecked.

Same same with Saddam. We used him as a tool. He has always been a bad guy.

that was just absurd, if i am going to refer to anyone as a "tool" Alias... aw never mind.
 
  • #16
I am happy kyleb that you found my post amusing. However to simply call it absurd without any qualifying statements only exposes you as the 'absurdity'.

I have also decided to stop using the words left and liberal to describe such people that fit those descriptions as it might offend some one. So now in the spirit of political correctness, I will use the term that best suits those whose opinions I consider opposite of mine. I will now refer to them as "*********". I hope you're happy. :smile:

Now everyone join hands...

hmmmmmmm

There comes a time when we need a certain call
When the world must come together as one
There are people dying
Oh, and it's time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all

We are the world, we are the children...
:smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Pretty good poem alias:smile:

did you write it?
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Alias
I am happy kyleb that you found my post amusing. However to simply call it absurd without any qualifying statements only exposes you as the 'absurdity'.


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 believe 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 believe 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
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?
 
  • #20
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 .

Also you criticize America for putting him in power (it is actually much more complex than this), yet you also criticize America for ridding him of his power now.
 
  • #21
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.
 
  • #22
*deleted because of Physics Forums Guideline violations*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
When did he become the mad dictator?

Zero..apparently some are asking the same of you





lol, sorry, couldn't resist
 
  • #24
Originally posted by kat
Zero..apparently some are asking the same of you





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...
 
  • #25
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 ...
 
  • #26
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.
 
  • #27
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.
 
  • #28
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?
 
  • #29
It's because he is (or was) afraid of Saddam.

I'll bet we don't see him anymore.
 
  • #30
*Baghdad completely encircled*
Iraqi propaganda; “We have them right we want them, just shoot in any direction and pick them off like ducks….”
 
  • #31
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.
 
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
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.
 
  • #34
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?
 
  • #35
Did he get hit in the head with some falling debris or something?
I think he is just smoking some really good crack. :wink:

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...
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
Yes, I meant ‘enemies’ but it can be hard to determine from year to year who ‘they’ might be. I didn’t think MAD only worked with countries that could annihilate the US because if only so much as one nuke were to fall on US soil wouldn’t that be enough to insure the annihilation of the offending country?
 
  • #38
Originally posted by BoulderHead
I didn’t think MAD only worked with countries that could annihilate the US because if only so much as one nuke were to fall on US soil wouldn’t that be enough to insure the annihilation of the offending country?
No, MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It only works if war would result in complete annihilation of both combatants (so the theory goes).

However, I believe that times have changed and the theory you propose is now the one we operate on (not sure if it has a name). I believe it started with Bush I after the fall of the USSR. Now it is our official policy to respond to ANY wmd attack on the US with a full nuclear strike on the offending country.

BUT, I have another theory: The US won't ever use nuclear weapons except if her existence is threatened. I believe that even if we get nuked (by N korea for example) our response will be at most a limited nuclear strike, but probably just a conventional invasion. The reason is that a full nuclear strike has global implications. It doesn't benefit us at all, its just revenge.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Yes, I meant ‘enemies’ but it can be hard to determine from year to year who ‘they’ might be. I didn’t think MAD only worked with countries that could annihilate the US because if only so much as one nuke were to fall on US soil wouldn’t that be enough to insure the annihilation of the offending country?

"They" means anyone who stands in the way of American domination.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Zero
"They" means anyone who stands in the way of American domination.
Hehe, yip, that's what I was thinking.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Zero
"They" means anyone who stands in the way of American domination.

Well Zero, Boulder, how nice for you. You have already decided that any nation that attacks the US with nuclear weapons is only trying to stop American world domination. Do you ever actually think before posting?

Njorl
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Njorl
Well Zero, Boulder, how nice for you. You have already decided that any nation that attacks the US with nuclear weapons is only trying to stop American world domination...
Njorl
Incorrect, the reference pertained to the definition of 'enemy'. Tying it in with a nuclear strike is inappropriate.

...Do you ever actually think before posting?
No I don't, and it seems I'm not alone.
 
  • #43
Originally posted by Zero
"They" means anyone who stands in the way of American domination.
I always love this one. Its so easy. Question: Since WWII, have US territorial holdings INCREASED or DECREASED?

But more:
The US created the UN which now opposes the US.

The US created Germany and liberated France, both of which now oppose the US.

If we're trying to rule the world, we're not doing a very good job.

Certainly you can argue that we are trying to ECONOMICALLY dominate the world, but our political influence is clearly not what would qualify as "domination". Thats not to say we couldn't if we wanted to, but the simple fact is that the US is and always has been ISOLATIONIST.
 
  • #44
Oh, yeah, as I've stated several times, I do mean ECONOMIC domination. Thank you for clarifying that.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Njorl
Well Zero, Boulder, how nice for you. You have already decided that any nation that attacks the US with nuclear weapons is only trying to stop American world domination. Do you ever actually think before posting?

Njorl

You might want to ask yourself teh same question. You seem to only consider two options: what you believe, and the complete oposite of what you believe. There is an entire spectrum between the two views, and I'm sure that's where me and Boulderhead fit in.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by 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.

Good points, often overlooked. Economic motives seem to drive a large portion of America's foreign policy.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Zero
You might want to ask yourself teh same question. You seem to only consider two options: what you believe, and the complete oposite of what you believe. There is an entire spectrum between the two views, and I'm sure that's where me and Boulderhead fit in.

Zero,
I consider myself one of the most open minded people on this board. I have condemned my country's actions when it was wrong, and supported them when they were right. I am one of the few people on this board to admit mistakes. As far as I can tell, I am the ONLY person on this board who has ever changed their mind on any topic of significance.

I accept that there is a wide array of opinion, most of which I respectfully disagree with. But when someone refers to a nuclear attack against the United States as merely opposing American Domination, I will disrespectfully disagree with them. I will, quite rightly in my opinion, consign them to the far-end of the spectrum of political opinion.

Njorl
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Zero
Good points, often overlooked. Economic motives seem to drive a large portion of America's foreign policy.
Certainly. Economics is the driving factor behind the foreign policies of ALL countries that have forsaken nationalism (which now includes all westernized nations and to some extent a few others).
 
  • #49
Originally posted by russ_watters
Certainly. Economics is the driving factor behind the foreign policies of ALL countries that have forsaken nationalism (which now includes all westernized nations and to some extent a few others).

So, why do we hear all this talk about 'justice', 'freedom', and 'liberty', when in reality is is predominantly about power and money?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Originally posted by Njorl
I accept that there is a wide array of opinion, most of which I respectfully disagree with. But when someone refers to a nuclear attack against the United States as merely opposing American Domination, I will disrespectfully disagree with them. I will, quite rightly in my opinion, consign them to the far-end of the spectrum of political opinion.

Njorl
I still say you missed the point which was, at least to me, that those who oppose American domination are often viewed as enemies. This domination I largely define as economic in nature. If America was actually nuked I would be wholeheartedly in favor of retaliation.

Don’t be so quick to consign people and question whether they think about what they say.
 

Similar threads

News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
Replies
45
Views
7K
News Shows how much of a laughing stock the UK's justice system is
Replies
13
Views
4K
News Why Did a Taliban Commander Try to Claim a Reward for His Own Capture?
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Russia had evidence that Saddam planned terrorist attacks against U.S.
Replies
17
Views
4K
Why Are Kids Mimicking Saddam's Execution?
Replies
15
Views
4K
News GW Bush borderline insane?-the Gog Magog episode.
2
Replies
56
Views
11K
News Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?
3
Replies
116
Views
21K
News Bush admin ordered CIA to forge Iraq/al-Qaeda link
Replies
9
Views
4K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
Replies
1
Views
3K
News What happened to the money?Where Did All the Reconstruction Money in Iraq Go?
Replies
8
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top