What's to be done with Sadam Hussain? (no spam)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:15 am

There are two basic trains of thought regarding why the US left Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War.

The first is what our friend CM says: the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. Saddam Hussein was in part a creation of the US; we propped him up after the Iranians overthrew the Shah and kicked us out. The US also feared a power vacuum in the region and felt that leaving Hussein (defanged, of course) in power would fill that vacuum with something, anything, better than anarchy and civil war.

The other mentality is that the elder President Bush wanted to leave Hussein in power so he would have an excuse to go back to the region in case his popularity flagged. Remember that part of the reason for the Gulf War was to distract the American public from a flagging economy and divisive domestic issues. The Gulf War bumped Bush's approval rating up to an unheard of 90%, but he blew it because he took the heat for the 1992 recession.

The second reason is a little far-fetched because when Bush had the chance to go back and start a war to curry more political favour, he didn't do it, but that's not to say he wasn't banking on using Saddam Hussein in the future.

The US will always mess around in the mideast as long as our economy is dependent on foreign oil, whether anyone there likes it or not. No one can stop us, either politically, economically or militarily. We will use people and states as long as it is in our "national interests". Unfortunately, we are incredibly short-sighted about how our national interests impact the rest of the world or how our actions in the short term will affect us later in the long term.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:25 am

The man is a terrorist and will be dealt with accordingly.

I don't like your "opinion" on this matter frogus, it is childish, callous and un-informed.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:39 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
The first is what our friend CM says: the devil you know is better than the devil you don't

The son who will inherit his nation is as bad (if not worse) than he is, so it would be a case of the US putting someone in power, and we all know what happens when they do that. Plus i don't think the UN would let them do something like that.

I have heared rumours that he is dying of cancer anyway, anyone else heard the same thing?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 8:40 am

@CM, HLD or anyone who knows: As we all know, Israel is the country in the world that by far has received most financial and military aid from the US - no 2 if IIRC is Egypt, which has received about half of the amount of military aid from the US. How come the US support Egypt with such large amounts of money and military aid? What is the reasoning behind this in you opinion?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 8:47 am

I think initially it was to keep the Soviet influence out of the region because of the Suez Canal. We have also needed allies among the moderate Arab states and we have always managed to buy Egypt's loyalty. Egypt, in turn, speaks on our behalf on many matters in the region.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:25 am

@Mr Sleep:
I found this over on BBC.com that says Hussein has lymph cancer.

Our friends at About.com have some more to say and some more links to check out. Unfortunately, the newest source they cite is almost two years old.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:29 am

Originally posted by Sojourner
What went wrong? Take a look at where their government pours their funds. Take an even closer look at their media. The same thing that's going wrong is what went wrong in Germany, IMO. You start with poverty, throw in a faction that promises better things if you jump on their bandwagon, create a universal enemy, and add years of propaganda, and there you go.

This is what I've heard, as well. An Egyptian friend of mine once said that when the current administration first took office, it was as the outsiders, the supporters of the average person, with lines of communication open to the public-at-large. Now, everybody in power wears military uniforms, the government is treated as a private fiefdom, and the parties that they try to satisfy are their Gulf neighbors and the US. It's a classic case of a government that has lost all national stature as it played exclusively on the international scene.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:35 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@Mr Sleep:
I found this over on BBC.com that says Hussein has lymph cancer.

It seems that there may be some truth to the rumours, but the BBC seem pretty non-commital.

This is not a good situation (as some aluded to earlier) they know Hussain and they know what he is willing to do. However his son is an unknown force, the only thing i know is that he follows after his son in many ways.

It will also be interesting to note what would happen to the regime should they change power, how many of the backroom staff would change, how many of them have great sway over the government (like the US).

Dragon Kurse · Post by **Dragon Kurse** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:50 am

Hussain, will be dealt with in due time. Just be patient.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:03 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave

The US will always mess around in the mideast as long as our economy is dependent on foreign oil, whether anyone there likes it or not. No one can stop us, either politically, economically or militarily. We will use people and states as long as it is in our "national interests". Unfortunately, we are incredibly short-sighted about how our national interests impact the rest of the world or how our actions in the short term will affect us later in the long term.

Dave, check out this quote I read recently:
"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning right through to the present day, has been world domination--that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible; and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of (US) foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resources." --Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General, The Sun (Aug. 2001)

Dragon Kurse · Post by **Dragon Kurse** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:12 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave

The US will always mess around in the mideast as long as our economy is dependent on foreign oil, whether anyone there likes it or not. No one can stop us, either politically, economically or militarily. We will use people and states as long as it is in our "national interests". Unfortunately, we are incredibly short-sighted about how our national interests impact the rest of the world or how our actions in the short term will affect us later in the long term.

But, doesn't every country have some intrest in other countries? In one way or another, they do. The intrest could be in anything, oil, weapons or food. The intrest has been there since the starting of mankind.

But, some would rather take, than trade.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:32 pm

Originally posted by fable
It looks like Dubyah is revving up the war machine to attack Sadam Hussain in time to get Congressional Republican votes this November. At this point, what do you think the world should do (if anything) about Hussain? Yes, we know he's a manufacturer of biological and chemical weapons, much like China, Russia, Britain, the US--beg pardon! I mean, of course, that he's a dictator and thug, who stands by himself! He's the only one who would consider invading another country, that's right! So of course, it stands to reason that he should be invaded--correct?

Yo, fable!

Got some questions for you before I answer: Do you seriously believe that GWB intends to begin an attack on Iraq with the intent to garner votes? Do you seriously intend to lump Iraq into a grouping of nations along with the US, China, Russia and Britain? Just curious. I think sometimes you like to pose your questions in a ... shall we say, provocative manner? So I am never really sure whether I should take the rhetoric at face value.

To answer your question: Saddam should have been finished off the first time 'round; sanctions are absolutely the WORST possible tactic; Saddam is a very real threat if not to the US directly, then at least to the middle east in general ... so, Saddam has gotta go. Ain't no one else gonna do the job, so it's up to the US - as usual.

Dragon Kurse · Post by **Dragon Kurse** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:48 pm

Re: Re: What's to be done with Sadam Hussain? (no spam)

Originally posted by Lazarus

To answer your question: Saddam should have been finished off the first time 'round; sanctions are absolutely the WORST possible tactic; Saddam is a very real threat if not to the US directly, then at least to the middle east in general ... so, Saddam has gotta go. Ain't no one else gonna do the job, so it's up to the US - as usual.

I agree, other countries just sit back and wait. Because they know, after a while. The US will step in, after all the other whinners, bug the US. So when the US does step in, they start to complain.

That is where the media, starts letting us know. How upset the other countries are.....

I think, the US should just sit back and let the other smaller nations deal with there own problems.

Example Somalia. Alot of good troopers lost their lives, because the UN needed help. The US is still getting backlash from it.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:52 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Dave, check out this quote I read recently:
"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning right through to the present day, has been world domination--that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible; and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of (US) foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resources." --Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General, The Sun (Aug. 2001)

That is the most honest assessment of US foreign policy I have ever read from a government official. It's also true. However, to single out the United States as being hegemonic is untrue. Given the chance and means, all governments would pursue such a course. That is the exact same approach to foreign policy that Rome, Spain, Britain, France, China, the Soviet Union and everyone else who has ever been as world power has taken.

In the context of foreign policy, power is the ability to exert your will over someone else, despite their will. What is the purpose of the EU? To exert a greater amount of power over global events than any single country within the alliance can on their own. Do you think that if the Germans or the French or the British could stand up to the Americans on their own, they would join the EU? Of course not.

America is currently at the top of the heap. One day, we won't be there, but while we are, we're going to use our combined might: military, cultural, economic, and political, to exert out will on other people, whether anyone else likes it or not.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:59 pm

Re: Re: Re: What's to be done with Sadam Hussain? (no spam)

Originally posted by Dragon Kurse

I agree, other countries just sit back and wait. Because they know, after a while. The US will step in, after all the other whinners, bug the US. So when the US does step in, they start to complain.

That is where the media, starts letting us know. How upset the other countries are.....

I think, the US should just sit back and let the other smaller nations deal with there own problems.

Example Somalia. Alot of good troopers lost their lives, because the UN needed help. The US is still getting backlash from it.

You seem awful familiar, Mr. Kurse. Have you visited us before under another name?

Dragon Kurse · Post by **Dragon Kurse** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:00 pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's to be done with Sadam Hussain? (no spam)

Originally posted by Waverly

You seem awful familiar, Mr. Kurse. Have you visited us before under another name?

Nope.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:05 pm

Re: Waverly's on an ID trail again!

Originally posted by Waverly

You seem awful familiar, Mr. Kurse. Have you visited us before under another name?

Hmm....

CM · Post by CM » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:08 pm

@CE the support for egypt is very easy in military aspects.
Egypt has the largest army in the region.
Most hi-tech, proffessional etc.
Only Pakistan rivals egypt in military strength - a reason that egypt doesn't have good ties with Pakistan.
The only Egyotain army is the only army in the region that could attack Israel and win.

Reading the following will be at your own risk and will be extremely anti-american, if you have a problem with my views, don't take them personally.

@HLD There is no such thing as a moderate arab state.
There is such a thing as a moderate arab dictatorship.
The people are as religious as they were 3 centuries ago.

Womens Rights.

Saudi women can't vote.
Kuwait women can't vote.
But they are still staunch US allies and "good guys".

Syria always women to vote and has a specific number of seats in Parliament alloted for Women.
Iran women are far more free than in Kuwait and Saudi.
Both are rogue nations and one is an "evil" nation.

Rights of Minorities:

Syria has a small jewish population and a small minority of christians - very little is heard about human rights violations in the general media.
Iran has as many minorities as a Saudi Prince has expensive sport cars.
Yet they are treated fairly and equally.
Take the Kurds in Iran who can speak their own language and are pretty happy.

The case of the jews tried for treason in Iran a year or two ago, was marred by religious strife, however the western media ignored the fact that 5 muslims were also tried.
Also since all the citizens were irani the court had every legal right to do what was within the nations laws.

Saudi, well lets just say if there was ever a minority, it doesn't exist anymore.
Kuwait, same thing, with christians being treated pretty badly.

Note all the nations that are good for the US, have rich arrogant leaders who rather wine and dine than help their people and oh yeah they are all dictatorships.
To point out the Saudi king and kin have no religious authority to run the country, as they were propped up by the british.
They get their support from the clergy by keeping barbaric laws and those that are easily seen as unislamic.
if they clergy did not support them the royal family would have been dead long ago.

The US has always backed the countries which are undemocratic and violate human rights all the time.
Hypocrasy at its best is the US FP.

I for one see all this about finally getting Saddam as BS.
Saddam will not be taken care of, as it gives the US govt an excuse to fulfill the carter doctrine and keep troops in the region.
No saddam no need for troops in Saudi or Kuwait or a Naval base in Bahrain.
The US needs to keep troops in the region to protect the oil supply.
No other reason.
Not out of the kindness of their heart or to help the arab dictators.
It is pure economic greed and necessity.

Flame away, but that above is how many muslims think.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:18 pm

Originally posted by CM
Womens Rights.

Saudi women can't vote.
Kuwait women can't vote.
But they are still staunch US allies and "good guys".

That's because they have something we want: oil.

Syria always women to vote and has a specific number of seats in Parliament alloted for Women.
Iran women are far more free than in Kuwait and Saudi.
Both are rogue nations and one is an "evil" nation.

That's because they either don't have anything we want (Syria) or have wronged us in the past (Iran). Both oppose our policy in Israel.

The US has always backed the countries which are undemocratic and violate human rights all the time.
Hypocrasy at its best is the US FP. . . . It is pure economic greed and necessity.

We back these countries which are rife with "undesirable" elements because it is in our "national interests" to do so. You can translate "national interests" as "economic interests". We hop on to our high horse when convenient, but you'll notice that all of our rhetoric about promoting human rights disappears when we deal with China, who represent a quarter of the world's markets and are a cheap source of labour for companies who would rather pay someone $4 a day to make sneakers instead of paying an American union worker $12 an hour for the same job.

I think that given the chance, Americans would rather do good than evil, but they would rather make a buck first. A number of my posts sound like I'm bashing America, but I also believe that we do more good than a lot of other countries would if they were in our shoes.

Dragon Kurse · Post by **Dragon Kurse** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:31 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
but you'll notice that all of our rhetoric about promoting human rights disappears when we deal with China.

But, there is just enough talk out there, to make the human rights people happy.