Precisely. Without the backing of US (more than the "constructive engagement" we are talking about here), Iraq would have hardly been able to sustain its decade-long conflict with Iran. Let alone to delude Sadam into thinking Iraq is the next military superpower to US and Soviet Union, which, in turn, made him all the more aggressive towards his neighbouring countries.
First off, Saddam got plenty of help from France, Russia and others - so I wouldn't even conceed that point. However, our pre-Gulf War relationship has NOTHING to do with our pre intervention relationship, and really - assuming that our 'relationship' with him EVER included influence on his domestic agenda is very thin at best.
I for one am very pleased to hear that President Karimov has taken the initiative to stamp out these radical extremists. The world should take note and learn a thing or two from this great leader. He's a strong ally of the United States in the Global War on Terror and a valued trading partner as well. We need more President Karimov's in that part of the world I tell ya. He's good people. I tell you one place where we could use a feller like him is down south over there in Venezuela. I gotta tell ya, I feel for the people of Venezuela. Unfortunately, they're leaders down there are just not moving that country forward in the right direction. Mr. Hugo Chavez, I must say that I am deeply disturbed by how his regime has been governing down there. What he's done to the people of Venezuela can only be characterized as evil. There's just a culture of evil around that whole regime down there. And I believe that evildoers should be brought to justice. He's a threat to his own people and as a neighboring country in our hemisphere, he's a threat to Americans as well. Just last month I learned that Mr. Chavez had ordered 100,000 automatic rifles. I was not pleased to hear this to say the least. Now if one of these rifles were to make it to our shores, that could be disastrous. I believe in stamping out a problem before it becomes a bigger problem. I believe in protecting the American people from imminent threats. And I would hope that our friends down there in the other parts of South America and our friends across the water in Old Europe would feel the same way, too. And that's all I have to say on that for now.
It's true that Saddam is a dictator and nationalist with a self-serving agenda. However it's preposterous to deny US involvement in the rise of his regime and assistance in the solidfication of his control over Iraq. In 1963 CIA assisted the overthrown of then ruler of Iraq who had open ties to Soviet Union by supporting both Ba'ath party of Saddam Hussein and Kurds in northern Iraq. American oil companies began to get heavily involved in Iraq for the first time. Anti-communist actions, including torture and assassination, continued in Iraq in the early years of Ba'athist rule supported and encouraged by the CIA. In 1975 Saddam negotiated a deal with the Shah of Iran to cede control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran in exchange for an end to Iran's support of the Kurds in Iraq. The end of support for the Kurds through the 1975 deal was a devastating loss for the Kurds who had developed a resistance program based on American support. The leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party pleaded help from US. The answer of Kissinger to it was that well, this is politics. There are no moral values in politics. And usually when two sides agree on something which is important, maybe a third side would suffer or whatever it is, and I am sorry to say this is not human rights, this is not a moral issue, this is politics.
Blah blah blah. How does this affect my claim that we had little or no influence with Saddam before we intervened? It doesn't. Thanks and good night.
It affects your claim by showing the extensive influence we had, in all the support we gave him, in completing his objectives. He wouldn't have even been there without our help.
No, it doesn't affect my claim at all. My claim is that at the time of the intervention we didn't have any influence with Saddam. Saying that we DID have influence 15 years earlier does NOT affect that point AT ALL.
I don't think it was opposed by the US but I don't think this was a product of US prodding or constructive engagement. As I said the first democratic leaders elected in those countries are certainly far less pro-American than the ruling regimes they replaced. I'm not saying that that its not in America's longterm interest to have those countries democratic only that these candidates and the movements that drove them were not what America preferred or advocated. I also would stand by the view that the PRC has actually slid back in regards to democracy since Tiananmen.
I don't know if it's just me (or perhaps also FB) who kept thinking the term "intervention" should apply, most appropriately, to the 1st Gulf War, where US-led ally "intervened" the conflicts between Iraq and Kuwait. To me, using "intervention" to describe a preemptive attack on an unprovoking country is somewhat misleading. Semantics set aside, I still think US had great influence on Saddam during those years between the 1st and 2nd war, but certainly not in the sense of "positive" engagement. One thing is for sure, US foreign policies have been so dictated by neocon's ideology that any flexibility in dealing with a regime like Saddam's would be a near zero possibility.
