Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (133961)	5/22/2004 8:23:11 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I simply pointed out that the CIA were a major force in his climbing to power for our self interests Evidence, please? None of the bios of Saddam I've seen say that the CIA had a dog in those intra-Ba'athist fights, and once Saddam did make it to power, he became much closer to the Soviets than to us. No sorry, this just sounds like the old every-dictator-is-really-the-fault-of-the-USA-because-of-the-CIA line that gets trotted out, evidence not necessary. I don't buy it. Saddam's regime was always far closer to the French and the Russians, from beginning to end. The US only gave him help, which was still relatively minor help, in the 1980s, in the furtherance of the 'keep'em fighting' policy we had during the Iran-Iraq war, a piece of cynical realpolitik that was most heartily endorsed by every single other state in the Gulf region. You want to talk about a policy that was really popular with our allies, that was it.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (133961)	5/23/2004 10:38:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We also supported him during his war with Iran.....these are facts. Yes, they may be facts, but they are irrelevant facts Michael. The level of aid and assistance we might have provided to Iraq paled in comparison to the direct sales of conventional and chemical weaponry sold to them by the Russians and French. It's pretty clear-cut Michael.. We "rolled the bones" in helping the Baathists to overthrow Qasim, and we failed to maintain any influence over them.. And because we supported Israel, the Baathists opted to depend upon the Russians and French for weapons. And even the Soviets couldn't control Saddam. Which is what lead Reagan to perceive there was an opportunity to sway Saddam from the Russian camp and back over to the West in 1983, due to Iraqi bitterness over a 2 year arms embargo by the Soviets on both Iraq and Iran. countrystudies.us It's very clear-cut that the Soviets and French were far more willing to give him the means to threaten his neighbors, as well as repress the Iraqi people.. And this is revealed by Putin's concern over the $40 Billion in debts that Iraq owed to Russia. So if you want to divide responsibility for Saddam's regime up on a pie chart, the US will possess a very small slice in proportion to the other nations involved with the Baathists. Again, read my post. I never said that or alluded to that at all. They were there when we needed them to be lest we not forget! But hey... weren't we also providing weapons and satellite intelligence to Iran as well?? Does that mean that they were there when we "needed them" also? Hawk