03-13-2004, 02:58 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2004, 03:04 AM by Occhidiangela.)
Jester, that was imprecise.
Saddam put himself in power. You got that part right. He took on Iran, cleverly figuring that he could probably, given the US being pissed off at Iran over the hostage bit and the complete "we hate yer guts" get our aid or at least our forebearance while he tried a land grab.
"The enemy of my enemy can be my friend."
He took a calculated risk, but
He Kept Himself In Power.
Both internal and external influences on his reign trumped anything the US did, or did not do, for him.
His friends in Russia, France and Germany, not to mention England and anyone with a desire to buy Iraqi crude (that's a big world wide market) kept the money coming to allow him to stay in power. You might want to look into some of the commentary in the 80's and ealry 90's regarding the checkbook diplomacy that the various emirs and sheiks of the Persian Gulf conducted to keep him fighting Iran so that
The Iranian Islamic Revolution would not get exported to their feudal lands. :lol:
Some will argue that he rolled into Kuwait when the Sheik there stopped writing checks and failed to respond to some behind the doors saber rattling. I am not sure how close to exactly true that is, but I've read any number of articles over the years that imply that as the cause of the 1990 rolling of the Iraqi tanks.
During the 70's, he was NOT on the US State Departments "he's a nice guy" list, thanks partly to his Stalinist methods. But, like many assholes the world over, you have to deal with who is there, not with who you wish was there. See also Franco, Pinochet or even a Chretien . . . (Crap, did I spell that wrongly?)
For you to try to blame the US for keeping Saddam in power is not just imprecise, it is historically inaccurate.
Bordering on grossly so.
THose who charge that assume a single cause and effect relationship on a single country's foreign policy. That is so far from the truth, particularly in the Mid East, as to be laughable. What isn't funny is how dimwitted on has to be to actually buy into such a simplistic explanation for Saddam's political success. Saddam was not, and is not, stupid, nor was he a politically inept weak sister who needed propping up, like the old Shah of Iran. He was just ruthless.
Occhi
Quote:Kept. Not put.
Saddam put himself in power. You got that part right. He took on Iran, cleverly figuring that he could probably, given the US being pissed off at Iran over the hostage bit and the complete "we hate yer guts" get our aid or at least our forebearance while he tried a land grab.
"The enemy of my enemy can be my friend."
He took a calculated risk, but
He Kept Himself In Power.
Both internal and external influences on his reign trumped anything the US did, or did not do, for him.
His friends in Russia, France and Germany, not to mention England and anyone with a desire to buy Iraqi crude (that's a big world wide market) kept the money coming to allow him to stay in power. You might want to look into some of the commentary in the 80's and ealry 90's regarding the checkbook diplomacy that the various emirs and sheiks of the Persian Gulf conducted to keep him fighting Iran so that
The Iranian Islamic Revolution would not get exported to their feudal lands. :lol:
Some will argue that he rolled into Kuwait when the Sheik there stopped writing checks and failed to respond to some behind the doors saber rattling. I am not sure how close to exactly true that is, but I've read any number of articles over the years that imply that as the cause of the 1990 rolling of the Iraqi tanks.
During the 70's, he was NOT on the US State Departments "he's a nice guy" list, thanks partly to his Stalinist methods. But, like many assholes the world over, you have to deal with who is there, not with who you wish was there. See also Franco, Pinochet or even a Chretien . . . (Crap, did I spell that wrongly?)
For you to try to blame the US for keeping Saddam in power is not just imprecise, it is historically inaccurate.
Bordering on grossly so.
THose who charge that assume a single cause and effect relationship on a single country's foreign policy. That is so far from the truth, particularly in the Mid East, as to be laughable. What isn't funny is how dimwitted on has to be to actually buy into such a simplistic explanation for Saddam's political success. Saddam was not, and is not, stupid, nor was he a politically inept weak sister who needed propping up, like the old Shah of Iran. He was just ruthless.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete