- #31
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.
News When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
Click For 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.
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
- 23,739
- 11,188
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.
- #34
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?
- #35
damgo
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...
- #36
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
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
- 23,739
- 11,188
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
"They" means anyone who stands in the way of American domination.
- #40
BoulderHead
Hehe, yip, that's what I was thinking.
- #41
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 284
- 22
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
Incorrect, the reference pertained to the definition of 'enemy'. Tying it in with a nuclear strike is inappropriate.
No I don't, and it seems I'm not alone.
- #43
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
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
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
Good points, often overlooked. Economic motives seem to drive a large portion of America's foreign policy.
- #47
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 284
- 22
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
- 23,739
- 11,188
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
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
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.
- #51
Nicool003
Well the date I am not sure of but I believe it was his first birthday... go figure.
The other half decade of support was under Bill Clinton. Our current Presidents father should have pushed harder when fighting saddam but the country did not side with him after they reached a certain point. Funny how Bill clinton comes into office, saddam gasses his own people, and everyone here is fine and dandy because it isn't affecting us.
- #52
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
I said in general its predominantly about money. In this particular case, national security was the larger issue (imo). Freedom for the Iraqi people and money are tied for 2nd/3rd. Every case is different though. We even [gasp] occasionally take military action when the outcome doesn't help us at all economically.
- #53
Zero
OK, so now you are just making things up.
- #54
kyleb
well Zero, it does sound a little better when russ tells it like that.
- #55
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
You did know about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, right? And Clinton's backing away from Iraq, right? What exactly did he just make up?
- #56
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 284
- 22
Nicool stated that Saddam gassed the Kurds while Clinton was president. He most certainly did not.
Njorl
Njorl
- #57
Zero
He didn't say 'backing away', he said 'supporting', which is made up. As far as the gassing, it is not clear who did what, but it happened in 1988...was Clinton president then?
- #58
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
You guys are right about the gassing, I stand corrected.
However, I still consider backing away from our hard stance against Iraq to be tantamount to supporting his regime. I am convinced if Gore was in office that would have continued and we would now be back to 1990 with no UN sanctions and Saddam thinking the world will sit back and let him pillage and plunder his way across the peninsula.
However, I still consider backing away from our hard stance against Iraq to be tantamount to supporting his regime. I am convinced if Gore was in office that would have continued and we would now be back to 1990 with no UN sanctions and Saddam thinking the world will sit back and let him pillage and plunder his way across the peninsula.
- #59
Zero
Do you mean the sanctions that Cheney tried to have lifted?
- #60
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 284
- 22
It was during the Clinton administration that the CIA started tipping off inspectors to get some big finds. It was during the clinton administration that sanctions were narrowed to allow only food and medicine into Iraq. It was during the Clinton administration that the US policy was changed from containment to regime change.
Njorl