News When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date 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.
  • #61
Originally posted by Njorl
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
Njorl, that's nice, but it was also in the Clinton administration that the inspectors LEFT Iraq. Talk is cheap. Clinton didn't DO anything. His lack of action was tantamount to appeasement.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
OK, so now you are just making things up.


Well I think Russ pretty much settled that but if not I will clear it up in a second.



Nicool stated that Saddam gassed the Kurds while Clinton was president. He most certainly did not.


Don't put words in my mouth. Re-read the post it was a little unclear but I was in a rush.


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.

I posted that. I will fix it now.

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, AFTER saddam has gassed his own people, and he does nothing. Oh and Just for YOU Njorl and Zero, yes he gassed his people before it but the former President Bush DID SOMETHING about it however when clinton came in he was just fine with whatever the heck Iraq did or wanted to do. Is that better?
 
  • #63
Njorl, that's nice, but it was also in the Clinton administration that the inspectors LEFT Iraq. Talk is cheap. Clinton didn't DO anything. His lack of action was tantamount to appeasement.

Exactly Russ. He didn't do anything because he was afraid he would become less popular and would not get elected.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Alias
No one is perfect.
But you see, apparently to people like you, America is perfect.
Because it can do no wrong and there is always a rationalisation for its actions.

I'm sure you really believe that yourself.
Well ... patriotism is a religion after all. There's nothing rational about it :smile:

- S.
 
  • #65
Njorl, that's nice, but it was also in the Clinton administration that the inspectors LEFT Iraq. Talk is cheap. Clinton didn't DO anything. His lack of action was tantamount to appeasement
Does anyone else remember Desert Fox? Or Desert Thunder?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_strike.htm
[PLAIN]http://www.goog4334le.com
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_thunder.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_fox.htm
[PLAIN]http://www.goog4334le.com
http://www.goog4334le.com

Under Clinton, the USA hit Iraq with massive air strikes multiple times when it failed to behave. When Iraq began blocking UN inspectors, ~30,000 troops were deployed to the region as a threat. This is not "appeasement."

Clinton did not start a major ground war, no; the policy then was upholding the UN resolutions, not preemptive strikes and regime change. Even if Clinton had wanted to invade Iraq -- perhaps he did, I don't know -- he could not have because he had zero political backing. I highly doubt Congress would have authorizated such a war then. (required by the WPA) Were it not for 9/11, I doubt Bush would have been able to start this war, either.

So can we all quit this sniping? Perhaps a different president would have chosen a different policy, but it's IMHO naive and a little juvenile to try and boil it down to "Clinton appeased Iraq because he was a coward."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Originally posted by Siv
But you see, apparently to people like you, America is perfect.
Heh. right, Siv. Find us one place where ANYONE claims the US is perfect. By definition a patriot does NOT think their country is perfect. In fact, read any of my posts on the subject. I state explicitly on about a dozen occasions that the US is *NOT* perfect. We are 'merely' the best. I should just put that in my sig - its getting redundant.
 
  • #67
Originally posted by damgo
Under Clinton, the USA hit Iraq with massive air strikes multiple times when it failed to behave. When Iraq began blocking UN inspectors, ~30,000 troops were deployed to the region as a threat. This is not "appeasement."
Define "massive" airstrikes. After the first bombing of the WTC, clinton fired about 50 cruise missiles. Massive? No. "Ineffective" is a better word. Or maybe "pointless..." Or are you referring to the no fly zones? We bombed SAM and AAA sites about once a week for the past 12 years. But that's hardly putative action for a major wrong from Saddam.

30,000 troops? Thats about 10% of what we have in the region right now. And what exactly did that accomplish by the way? - did those troops convince Saddam he should let the inspectors do their jobs? Clearly no. Did Clinton press the issue? Clearly no.

That word "ineffective" is the perfect word to describe Clinton's foreign policy. Further I think that was by design. He wanted to APPEAR to care without actually doing what is necessary to show it.
 
  • #68
Originally posted by Zero
So, why do we hear all this talk about 'justice', 'freedom', and 'liberty', when in reality is is predominantly about power and money?

Or, when did it start? For the U.S., economic motives have been cloaked in noble rhetoric since the Am. Rev. --- that's probably habit or custom from Europe; when did they start? Borrowed it from their Roman roots, and so on, and on back through history we go.

The Cod (the fish --- this is not a typo of "cold") Wars are about the most honestly presented events I can recall at the moment. The biggest disasters in Am. history have taken place when the leadership lost sight of the economic aims, WW I, Korea, VN --- what else?
 
  • #69
But you see, apparently to people like you, America is perfect.

No one thinks America is perfect and there isn't a perfect country out there. Period.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
11K
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
21K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K