or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Our Troops Must Stay
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Our Troops Must Stay - Page 4

post #121 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
A little bird told me that the US was responsible for Saddam's rise to power in Iraq in the first place. Someone want to verify or explain and expand on this? Sounds intriguing.

That would be giving the the US far too much credit for a dastardly mastery of world affairs it obviously lacks, and underestimating Saddam Hussain, who proved one of the most enduring rulers of the Middle-East, which would be quite a big stunt to pull for a mindless puppet not even responsible for his own rise to power.

Forgive the length, I write this mostly from memory, cheking out a few details for accuracy's sake.

Saddam Hussain has been in the Baath party since the middle nineteen-fifties.

A little about the Baath party: the word itself means re-birth or renaissance (or resurrection perhaps), the party itself was founded in 1945 by Michel Afleq and Salah a-Din al-Bitar (who were both active in similar movements before), it was a nationalist movement seeking to unify and modernise the Arab countries, drawing from Western political thinking of the early twentieth century, both right-wing and left-wing, we can see those influences in the Baath's affection for charsimatic leader-figures, impressive military parades, and a strong dosage of tough fatherly authoritarianism. The Baath motto (lest my memory fails me) is Wahda, Qawmiya, Ishtariqiyah meaning unity, nationhood, socialism.

In 1958, colonel Abd-El-Karim Qassim overthrew king Faisal II of House Hashem (descendent of the Shariff Hussain who was allied to the British in the first world-war and assisted by the famouse T E Lawrence, like in Jordan, Iraqi monarchy was Hashemite and installed by the British). Qassim was Arab nationalist and left-wing (but not Baath), soon enough a plot to assassinate him was foiled, those plotters quick enough to flee did just that, among them was the ambitious Saddam Hussain, who found refuge in Egypt, then the epicentre of Pan-Arab nationalism under the leadership of Gamaal Abd-El Nasser. Although both Iraq and Egypt were now under socialistic nationalist regimes leaning toward the Soviet Union, they weren't seeing eye to eye all that much. Saddam spent a few years in Egypt, studying Allah knows what.
In 1963, a Baathist coup détat removed Qassim, repolaced by another colonel, one Abd-El-Salam Arif. Saddam could now return to Iraq, but he soon got into trouble involving Baath internal strife, and was incarcerated. After his escape in 1967, Saddam gets serious in organising a intra-Baath coup which in 1968 brings Hassan al-Bakr (a relative to Saddam) to Iraq's Number One spot, with Saddam as Number Two.

Saddam Hussain soon proved the real power-head (with al-Bakr as figurehead), he kept busy reshaping Iraq domestically while orienting its foreign policy, seeking to reclaim Egypt's place as the new centre of Arab aspiration to national achievment of power and unity, as well as a symbol of Third-World anti-imprerialism (hence somewhat anti-US). So Iraq closest partners in the nineteen-seventies were the Soviet Union and France (and both countries had deeply invested in that partenrship). The only time Saddam left the Middle-East throughout the seventies was to Saclay (near Paris), to visit the Osiris nuclear facility, of which a clone facility, named Osirak was built in Iraq (till it was shamelessly destroyed by an Israeli air attack).

Saddams relation with the Yanks began to warm up in the nineteen-eighties, at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. the US had been a long-term supporter of traditional Middle-Eastern monarchies like Saudi-Arabia and Iran (a longtime rival to Iraq, notably disputing sovereignity on the Shatt al-Arab riverbanks). As the Iranian monarchy folded in 1978, and the country taken over by rabid religious fanatics (soon taking over the US embassy in Tehran as well), Saddam thought this a golden opportunity to attack Iran which he perceived as internally weak due to revolutionary tribulations.

Now under Iraqi attack (seen by Iran as a second Arab invasion the first having been the conquest of Persia by the Muslim armies in the seventh century, a historical and national trauma for Iran), both Khomeni followers and former imperial soldiers found common national cause, and soon it was Iraq which was under threat of collapse. The idea of Iraq being subdued by the Persian Shia religious revolutionaries was something unacceptable for the US, and even more for nearly all Arab countries (except Syria, led by a rival stream of Baath political philosophy, tis a long story), that's when the US really begins propping Saddam (all the while covertly assisting Iran since is could not be allowed to collapse either, what with the USSR at its northern border, likely to seize any opportunity and whatnot), I must stress out that even then the Yanks are hardly the main partners of Iraq, and come far behind the Soviet and the French.
So when Iraq executes the Anfal operation in the mid-to-late eighties, notably using gas against civilian population, neither western nor communist blocs found it to be ground for any serious concern, after all Saddam's Iraq was their son of a bitch, and it is to Saddam's credit to have been able to make himself deemed precious to all participants of the Cold War.

In 1988, the Iran-Iraq war ends, both countries claiming victory (well both were worn out and devastated so it was kind-of true) and finding it easy to sign a cease-fire agreement.
To Saddam's dismay, he then found out that his dear Arab allies whom he was defending against the common enemy, were expecting him to repay the money they lent him during the war. Quite an obnoxious attitude, particularly coming from the various oil-rich monarchies of the Gulf, who would be unable to fend against a horde of angry Indonesian/Filipino guest workers (and one day the latters will find out about it).
Angered by such lack of gratitude from those fat slimy princely statelets, he invaded Kuwait, the poster boy of oil-rich princely slimy-ness, in August 1990.

[Embarassing spelling mistakes removed]
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #122 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
That was a little beyond passionate, I think.

He may have taken offense at my " kids " statement. Which was just a reference to learning. There's nothing wrong with being young ( as a matter of fact some of us wish we still were ). I just know that there are probably some people here too young to be clear on what happened in Vietnam ( or why you'd make a comparison ). After all if someone tries to relate events and attitudes during WWII I'd listen. And compared to them I'm just a kid.


Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Our Troops Must Stay