America created Saddam Hussein.

Post Reply New Topic

I've been doing some interesting reading on wikipeda, to me it seems that without America supporting Saddam Hussein the guy wouldn't have come to much

So I believe the America is responsible(or at least partly to blame) for the rise of Saddam Hussein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._suppo ... n-Iraq_war

Who is say how history would have turned out if America didn't back Iraq against Iran? It's all speculation at this point.

No difference really. Iraq lost the war with Iran with Americas support.
Iran never invaded Iraq, so history would not have been any different. Just the war would have been shorter.

All America did was help turn him into what he became.

I don't think he became a brutal dictator because of anything America did.

Think again my friend, you wouldn't know what the full story of it is.

Wow this is all new to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus ... _relations

We Americans supported Saddam, under Reagan's administration, while he was regularly gassing people, and our CIA trained Osama bin Laden. Those are the facts.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost, as they say.

Under the current Bush regime, what I am saying is considered unpatriotic. But it's still the simple truth.

Well, if you create a monster, it's your responsibility to kill the monster. He's dead. The Iraqis did it, but I can pretty much say we can take credit for it. So, no argument here. We created him, so getting him and his family killed was our moral obligation. Fixing all the problems in Iraq that he caused by staying in Iraq until it's a stable country however long that takes, all that's also the right thing to do. So, yeah, totally with you. Oh, did you want us to get out of Iraq as soon as possible? Yeah, taking responsibility for one's actions is for losers. I'm with you.

-Frank

I like how Reagan was an administration while Bush is a regime. Was that conscious word choice?

Patriot Act! Patriot Act! Burn the heathen!


It's true, it's disgusting, and I'm amazed most Americans know so little of the history of their involvement in the area. At least, those I speak to.

It's hardly fair to say America, as at the end of the First World War, with the break up of the Ottoman Empire, the whole of the Middle East was divided into little countries by the western winners of the war, and rulers who were sympathetic to the west's ideals were 'installed'. This was at the beginning of the period in the west's history when I was developing a dependance on oil, so was of huge strategic and economic advantage to have that area destablilised. During the war the tribes of the Ottoman Empire were bribed with the promise of self rule (and often set up against each other too).

Having borders drawn accross their homeland and leaders put in place is behind a lot of the Middle East's hostility towards the west, and a lot of the wars there have happened because the people there wanted to rule themselves (Look at Iran in particular). Unfortunately, as with most revolutions, the replacement is as bad as what was replaced, because the vacuum of power is soon filled by the same type of people.

It's going into the realm of conspiracy theory (because it's not public knowledge), but it's your standard divide and conquer tactic.

Saddam was installed? I knew Bill Gates was up to no good.

Buggy uninstall program

Ask any Iraqi and he will tell you "Lost? We won the war!"


Now, should we blame Brit/France for creating Hitler?



Also, to CityAsylum, I know you wont take the word of the Bush Regime when they say CIA did not train bin Laden, but will you take the word of bin Laden and Zawahiri when they declare to have not been supported by the U.S.? I'm only asking cause people prefer to take the word of a criminal.

If you bothered to think for a moment, you should see why bin Laden would oppose from any aid by U.S.

They didn't need the Turks for that.




I don't think drawing border lines created hostility. There wasn't an idea of Arab nationalism. It was all tribal.

Leaders forced onto the people however did play a role.

No, it was around 1 am and I was exhausted - I would have happily said "Reagan regime" as well, although with a different word to avoid redundancy.

But to be fair, politicians are politicians, and there is a puke factor with every last one of them.

I personally don't take anybody's word for anything - the facts are before you. The US has repeatedly trained and armed foreign fighters only to have them turn our own weapons upon us, and we are are always so surprised at their betrayals.

Bin Laden's many supporters aren't stupid, and they were, for example, more than happy to take US Dollars to help 'find' Osama bin Laden, and then surprise, surprise, helped him escape. After making deals like this over and over again, to a man, they all deny taking aid from the US.

Also, bear in mind that Saddam's properties were absolutely stuffed with American money. Business is business, and when it comes to bucks, our dollars suit the Arab world just fine.

This administration, and ones before it, can't seem to get that they are fighting a culture they do not understand.

Last edited by CityAsylum on 07 May 2008, 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Saddam was a great example of what it's called as "blowback".

Essentially the US installed Saddam for a purpose and supported him. But Saddam did something that was not in America's interest, so they cut him off and treated him as another enemy of America.