When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?

  • News
  • Thread starter Zero
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation touches on the topic of America's involvement with Saddam Hussein and his actions as a dictator. It is mentioned that the US used him as a tool to achieve its own geopolitical interests, even though he committed atrocities such as gassing his own people. The conversation also discusses the idea of sacrificing innocent lives for political gain, and the negative impact this has on America's reputation. There is a disagreement over whether setting up wars as a political strategy is acceptable, and the conversation ends with a mention of a previous member who expressed radical opinions and was seen as a mentor by some.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #51
When did Saddam Hussien go crazy?
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?


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
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?
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
Originally posted by 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.

OK, so now you are just making things up.
 
  • #54
well Zero, it does sound a little better when russ tells it like that.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Zero
OK, so now you are just making things up.
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
Nicool stated that Saddam gassed the Kurds while Clinton was president. He most certainly did not.

Njorl
 
  • #57
Originally posted by russ_watters
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?
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
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.
 
  • #59
Do you mean the sanctions that Cheney tried to have lifted?
 
  • #60
Originally posted by russ_watters
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.

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
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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

News Shows how much of a laughing stock the UK's justice system is
Replies
13
Views
4K
News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
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 Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?
4
Replies
116
Views
21K
News GW Bush borderline insane?-the Gog Magog episode.
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
News Bush admin ordered CIA to forge Iraq/al-Qaeda link
Replies
9
Views
3K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
Replies
1
Views
2K
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