SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PartyTime who wrote (5597)2/5/2003 5:00:39 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 25898
 
Did you support Clinton's interverntion in the Balkans and Somalia?



To: PartyTime who wrote (5597)2/5/2003 5:05:43 PM
From: LPS5  Respond to of 25898
 
I agree that comparisons between Hitler and Saddam are specious...

...if, that is, you're talking about Hitler in the 1940s.

As for the 1930s, well...I believe the comparison could be apt.

LPS5



To: PartyTime who wrote (5597)2/5/2003 5:31:22 PM
From: Scott Bergquist  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 25898
 
Suggest you read "The Threatening Storm" by Kevin Pollack.

The New Yorker magazine recommended it, and I went to B&N and bought it. All questions about US and Iran/Iraq War are addressed (warts and all). All sanction scenarios discussed. Containment discussed. Very thorough job.

How is Saddam like Hitler (actually, he is a bigger admirer of Stalin)?

Excerpt from the book (page 149)

"Saddam Hussein is a man of grand ambitions. "Saddam's pursuit of power for himself and Iraq is boundless. In fact, in his mind, the destiny Saddam and Iraq are one and indistinguishable, " in the words of Jerrold M. Post, a psychologist who formerly worked for the U.S. intelligence community and has written extensively on Saddam's personality and leadership. Saddam calls himself "al=qa'id ad-darura', which means "the indispensible leader." The connotation of the title is that he was "meant" to rule Iraq in some kind of eschatological sense. Indeed, Saddam thinks of himself as a great man of history, someone marked to accomplish great deeds. In his vast personality cult he is constantly compared to great figures of Iraq's past. He is the new Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king who conquered biblical Israel, sacked Jerusalem, and took the Jews into captivity. He al-Mansur, the caliph who built Baghdad and conquered new lands for Islam.
... the new Saladin" (tired of typing here...gonna skip)

self-bestowed appellations:
al-qa'id al umma >>the leader of the Arab nation
al-ayyam al-tawila >> the man of the long days (the leader of the days of Arab glory).

Saddam > "No great power has ever reached security "without moving along the road of force.""

That is enough from that section. Read it in the store if you don't buy the book. The security apparatus, the torture, the deaths in Iraq. They all match Hitler's horrors except in numbers.

Read about it in the book.



To: PartyTime who wrote (5597)2/5/2003 8:14:19 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 25898
 
You've been sold a bill of goods. You said:

His war with Iran was to the liking and inspiration of the United States;

The US did not inspire or "like" the war with Iran. Saddam started it himself. The US only tilted toward Iraq after an Iranian victory seemed possible and US involvement was limited. The main US goal was to preserve the free flow of oil from the Gulf. Here's some info on that war:

fas.org
By the end of 1982, Iraq had been resupplied with new Soviet materiel, and the ground war entered a new phase. Iraq used newly acquired T-55 tanks and T-62 tanks, BM-21 Stalin Organ rocket launchers, and Mi-24 helicopter gunships to prepare a Soviet-type three-line defense, replete with obstacles, minefields, and fortified positions.
....
Beginning in 1984, Baghdad's military goal changed from controlling Iranian territory to denying Tehran any major gain inside Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq tried to force Iran to the negotiating table by various means. First, President Saddam Hussein sought to increase the war's manpower and economic cost to Iran. For this purpose, Iraq purchased new weapons, mainly from the Soviet Union and France.
....
Despite Iraqi determination to halt further Iranian progress, Iranian units in March 1984 captured parts of the Majnun Islands, whose oil fields had economic as well as strategic value.
....
In 1986, however, Iraq suffered a major loss in the southern region. On February 9, Iran launched a successful surprise amphibious assault across the Shatt al Arab and captured the abandoned Iraqi oil port of Al Faw. The occupation of Al Faw, a logistical feat, involved 30,000 regular Iranian soldiers who rapidly entrenched themselves. Saddam Hussein vowed to eliminate the bridgehead "at all costs," and in April 1988 the Iraqis succeeded in regaining the Al Faw peninsula.
....the Kuwaiti government sought protection from the international community in the fall of 1986. The Soviet Union responded first, agreeing to charter several Soviet tankers to Kuwait in early 1987. Washington, which has been approached first by Kuwait and which had postponed its decision, eventually followed Moscow's lead. United States involvement was sealed by the May 17, 1987, Iraqi missile attack on the USS Stark, in which thirtyseven crew members were killed. Baghdad apologized and claimed that the attack was a mistake. Ironically, Washington used the Stark incident to blame Iran for escalating the war and sent its own ships to the Gulf to escort eleven Kuwaiti tankers that were "reflagged" with the American flag and had American crews. Iran refrained from attacking the United States naval force directly, but it used various forms of harassment, including mines, hit-and-run attacks by small patrol boats, and periodic stop-and-search operations. On several occasions, Tehran fired its Chinese-made Silkworm missiles on Kuwait from Al Faw Peninsula. When Iranian forces hit the reflagged tanker Sea Isle City in October 1987, Washington retaliated by destroying an oil platform in the Rostam field and by using the United States Navy's Sea, Air, and Land (SEAL) commandos to blow up a second one nearby.
....
Iranian military gains inside Iraq after 1984 were a major reason for increased superpower involvement in the war. In February 1986, Iranian units captured the port of Al Faw, which had oil facilities and was one of Iraq's major oil-exporting ports before the war.
In early 1987, both superpowers indicated their interest in the security of the region. Soviet deputy foreign minister Vladimir Petrovsky made a Middle East tour expressing his country's concern over the effects of the Iran-Iraq War. In May 1987, United States assistant secretary of state Richard Murphy also toured the Gulf emphasizing to friendly Arab states the United States commitment in the region, a commitment which had become suspect as a result of Washington's transfer of arms to the Iranians, officially as an incentive for them to assist in freeing American hostages held in Lebanon. In another diplomatic effort, both superpowers supported the UN Security Council resolutions seeking an end to the war.
The war appeared to be entering a new phase in which the superpowers were becoming more involved. For instance, the Soviet Union, which had ended military supplies to both Iran and Iraq in 1980, resumed large-scale arms shipments to Iraq in 1982 after Iran banned the Tudeh and tried and executed most of its leaders. Subsequently, despite its professed neutrality, the Soviet Union became the major supplier of sophisticated arms to Iraq. In 1985 the United States began clandestine direct and indirect negotiations with Iranian officials that resulted in several arms shipments to Iran.
By late spring of 1987, the superpowers became more directly involved because they feared that the fall of Basra might lead to a pro-Iranian Islamic republic in largely Shia-populated southern Iraq. They were also concerned about the intensified tanker war.