When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?

  • News
  • Thread starter Zero
  • Start date
  • #26
BoulderHead
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
Zero
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
enigma
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,752
13
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
Alias
It's because he is (or was) afraid of Saddam.

I'll bet we don't see him anymore.
 
  • #30
BoulderHead
*Baghdad completely encircled*
Iraqi propaganda; “We have them right we want them, just shoot in any direction and pick them off like ducks….”
 
  • #31
Zero
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
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.
 
  • #33
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
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
BoulderHead
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
damgo
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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
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
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?
 
  • #38
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
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
Zero
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
BoulderHead
Originally posted by Zero
"They" means anyone who stands in the way of American domination.
Hehe, yip, that's what I was thinking.
 
  • #41
Njorl
Science Advisor
258
10
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
BoulderHead
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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
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
Zero
Oh, yeah, as I've stated several times, I do mean ECONOMIC domination. Thank you for clarifying that.
 
  • #45
Zero
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
Zero
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
Njorl
Science Advisor
258
10
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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
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
Zero
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
BoulderHead
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.
 

Related Threads on When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?

  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Top