US Doesn't Like Outcome of Iraq Election So Tries to block the New Government

No, that's factually incorrect. Saddam was not dependent on US support to get into nor maintain his power. You and CreepyBoyFloydTheOutlaw just keep slinging mud and see what sticks. And there is no reason to believe the Saudi regime would 'have been overthrown now.' Please provide SOME semblance of substance for your assertions.

This whole paragraph is an exact repeat of your earlier post, which has already been answered, lol.

 

That's a new take. I'll let you and CreepyFloyd, Tigermission, Deckard et al fight this one out. What a gas - we get criticism for stopping democracy (the Shah) and for stopping democracy (the Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rolla) in the same place!

 

will all due respect, this is the craziest thing i've ever read on this website

 

if the us didnt help prop up illegitimate regimes they would eventually fall...it's as simple as that

 

nobody thought the us installed shah would be overthrown either, but he was...if us withdrew support for saudi arabia, that regime wouldn't last a month...there is a academic text by said aburish documenting this entitled the rise, corruption and coming fall of the house of saud

and you haven't answered anybody's questions, you just evade them

 

nobody thought the us installed shah would be overthrown either, but he was...if us withdrew support for saudi arabia, that regime wouldn't last a month...there is a academic text by said aburish documenting this entitled the rise, corruption and coming fall of the house of saud

and you haven't answered anybody's questions, you just evade them

 

Buddy, the mollahs were a result of an extremely brutal Shah regime, when you oppress your society to no end they will be forced into a counteractive reaction that usually is as equally as excessive. Go ask an Iranian how the Shah government was (and who they thought supported them, since they became to powerful to remove) or you could just read below

“The Shah had been in power since 1941, with a brief interruption in 1953; through the 1960s and 1970s he faced continued opposition, from religious figures as well as from urban middle classes, many of which supported a constitutional democracy with fewer powers resting with the Shah. The Shah enforced a strict regime, imprisoning hundreds of political activists, and enforcing censorship laws. The Shah was denounced by many for being a puppet of the United States.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

the reason why the U.S/and other states supported the Shah was because before the Shah regime oil companies in Iran were Nationalized, once they came to power they were turned over to be run by the west.

 

A bushism from his speech at the freedom house a few days ago...

 

so everyone here is crazy except for you who is a genius in history and foreign policy and mid east..

 

deleted dup

 

are you saying saddam was never helped by US govt? how getting help for attacking iran?

 

And yet, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, illegitimate regimes have survived losing their proxy status - look at Cuba and North Korea. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has plenty of material wealth to placate their citizenry - or to suppress them, unlike Cuba or North Korea - making it even more unlikely that they would be overthrown. On that note it also opens another gap in your theory - the House of Saud doesn't need US support to maintain control of Saudi Arabia. So it appears it is NOT 'as simple as that,' and that in reality this is yet another of your assertions that is false.

Actually it appears Creepyfloyd agrees with me on blazer_ben's post.

Hmmmm, please point out where I said anything like that. What I said was that with or without US support, Saddam would have been in power and would have consolidated that power. He had plenty of help and support from other powers. Its just a recent phenomenon that people like you think and assert that Saddam was a US creation. Ever wonder why the Iraqi Army was completely armed with Soviet weaponry? Ding Ding Ding - that's right, because he got a lot of Soviet/Russian aid and support (in addition to French, Chinese, and German support). So while it is a legitimate point that the US did at one time support Saddam's regime, and even that it should be castigated for said support, it is not legitimate to claim his regime would not have existed or would have fallen without US support. In fact, that the US actively opposed despotic regimes in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba (just to name a few) to little effect shows the myth to the assertion that despotic regimes would fall without US support. Crazy, huh?

 

Isn't atttacking Iran an attempt by Saddam to acquire more power in ME? And US supported/assisted him on that

 

Lol, what difference does that make? First, he wasn't successful and took a pretty good beating from Iran. So that whole escapade doesn't have any effect on how much power Saddam held other than maybe DECREASING it. Second, you're getting confused on what is being talking about re: power. We're talking about his internal power - ie whether he would be in power or not.

 

so is just so happened that it failed.. he attempted and us gave him assistance but he failed..

the point is US assisted him in his quest for power.. howbout gassing his own people? didn't US provide assistance to? and if US just did nothing.. thats supporting too IMO..

 

Uh, that's not the point. Everyone acknowledges that the US was allied with Saddam at one point. I said as much in the previous post on the subject, silly. Stop wasting our time.

Uh, no. There is no indication of that.

So we shouldn't support him....and we shouldn't do nothing? Hmmmm....then maybe we should......

REMOVE HIM FROM POWER? (YES, I AM LAUGHING AT YOU). You can stop chasing your tail, little doggie - you're obviously getting dizzy.

 

I wanted to respond to these two quotes. There is no evidence that Saddam came to power because of the United States and/or the CIA. I would like to see something to back that claim up. Saddam came to power by his own ruthless actions, and driven ambition, and with the aid of his family and tribe in Iraq.


Here is a timeline from NPR showing the highlights of Saddam's rise to power:

NPR.org, November 28, 2005 · Saddam Hussein has a long history of using violence to achieve political ends. From his early days as a dangerous Baathist revolutionary to his final days as a ruthless dictator, death has followed Saddam through the years.

April 28, 1937: Saddam Hussein is born to a peasant family in a desert village near Tikrit, north of Baghdad. His name in Arabic means "one who confronts."

1957-1958: Joins the underground Baath Socialist Party in 1957. The following year he is arrested for killing his brother-in-law, a Communist, and spends six months in prison.

Oct. 7, 1959: Is a member of a Baath assassination squad that ambushes Iraq's military leader, General Abdel-Karim Kassem, riddling his car with bullets. Kassem is wounded, but survives. Saddam, wounded in the leg, flees Iraq and spends the next four years in Syria and Egypt.

Feb. 8, 1963: Returns to Iraq after helping the Arab Baath Socialist Party organize a coup that overthrows and kills Kassem. After a short run in power, the Baath government, torn by factionalism, is overthrown by a group of military officers led by Abdul Rahman Arif in November 1963.

1964-1966: Is jailed for participation in the Baath Party. Escapes from jail and becomes a leading member of the party. (According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Baathist government. This memory may have contributed to his ruthless style of governing.)

July 17, 1968: Baathists and like-minded army officers overthrow the Arif regime. Saddam's cousin, Gen. Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, becomes president. As vice president, Saddam becomes Iraq's second most powerful leader, taking charge of internal security and building security apparatus that infiltrates all corners of Iraqi society.

July 16, 1979: Takes over as president of Iraq after pushing his cousin, President al-Bakr, to resign. Purges the Baath Party, eliminating his rivals in a power grab captured on videotape. (The chilling video shows a meeting of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council where members identified by Saddam as having suspect loyalty are removed from the hall to be shot.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4961744#email


Saddam both used and abused his family and tribal connections. He rode them to power, and then killed whoever he thought was in his way, related or not. Some of you need to get some facts to back up your assertions. What I posted is sited several times on the net, from different sources. The one I posted was very concise.

We didn't install Saddam. We didn't put him in power. Different American governments either helped Iraq and Saddam when that government felt it was in the interests of the US to do so, or they worked against him, for the same reason. There was also a certain amount of "benign neglect." I've had several dustups with supporters of the war and believe me, you don't need to be making things out of whole cloth to make your argument with any of them. And I'll also add that the United States isn't automatically bad and evil, as one would assume from reading some of the posts in this thread. We have done both good and bad things in this world since our ascendancy after World War II. There has never been a "perfect" Great Power. Throughout history, every great power has acted ruthlessly, at one time or another, to further it's own interests, and those of it's allies. In the case of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, an incompetent government made a great blunder.

Some of us saw that before it started.

I also wanted to add that the same information is on Wikpedia. Just because tinman has fiddled with the history of Vernon Maxwell doesn't mean that it is a poor source. Most of what I've found there I agree with, and have seen in other sources. Just an FYI.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

yeah but iran was threatening saddam's governments existence thats why US assisted him push them back.. so that's an example how US supported a dictator to hold on to power..

are you obliged to read and respond to my posts? just ignore them if you think their a waste of your time or you can't respond to them..

well US removed him from power just after 20 years of him being a dictator.. when there was some other vested interest involved..

 

did I say saddam came about because the US put him in there? what I mean was in the earlier stages of his dicatatorship.. saddam's govt existed and survived because of us assitance.. during iran-iraq war, saddam's govt could have possibly been toppled by iran and iraqi shias and US assisted iraq vs iran..

I even compared it to Sauds which the US never put in place but are currently supporting their existence/survival..

 

us actively supported saddam while he committed his worst atrocities and most egregious human rights violations in the 1980s