Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't know Saddam was better than Faisal. Or that Pinochet was better than the socialist party, or that the Contras were better than the Sandinista, or that East Timor was better off with general Suharto, or how the shah was better than Mossadegh, or how Videla was better than Peron, or how saudi backed Islamic terrorist are the best path way for a geo-politically stable middle east.
Please tell me more, tell me how all of this was vital to our national security, please, do tell.
That's hard to evaluate, but I'll try to give a few answers.
Not too sure about whether Saddam was better than Faisal.
I think Pinochet, while still a dictator, ended up paving the way for today's Chile. Growth rate, under his rule was higher than before that.
Comparing the Shah to Mossadegh doesn't really make sense, since the latter was never truly elected to begin with. Sure, some Iranians may complain about how he was deposed in favor of the Shah in 1953, but they keep forgetting that the Shah had been ruling since 1941.
Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Islamic world, by virtue of being home to it's two most sacred sites.. That's why western countries are aligned (or more like give it a free pass) with it. Going against Saudi is a declaration of war against Islam which would be even worse than what we have now. Even Pakistan said it would nuke Iran if it ever goes to war with the Saudi's. That's why they can get away with many of the things they are doing.
On the other hand, there are also plenty of examples of organizations that allegedly fought against imperialism (nothing more than a front aimed at gaining popularity), but ended up making the country even worse.
Cuba under Castro is a perfect example of this. Overthrew a corrupt regime, only to become the new face of corruption. Vietnam under communist rule. Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro.
Complaining about coups is an oxymoron if ever there was one. Every regime that replaced another, effectively achieved power by displacing those who came before. Iran is a perfect example of this: Reza Shah brought down the Qajar dynasty in 1925, only to be forced to abdicate in favor of his son in 1941. Mossadegh tried to depose Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in 1951 only to have it blow back on him. The Iranian Revolution brought down the Shah in 1979 and is currently facing it's own crisis. That's just the way of things.
Well if the "facts" are not true, then you are right I am opposed to them.
The real fact of the matter is that by the time of the first Gulf War, the majority of the Iraqi Army was using Soviet and Chinese equipment, especially tanks and airplanes. After that came France, which supplied airplanes and missiles.
Did Iraq under Saddam have relations with the United States? Yes he did. But was the USA his main ally or even just his main supplier? No, it was not. But you ignored that in your quest to find yet another reason to attack the USA.
And that is the point. If you had said, look at all these nations and the history of Iraq for the past 50 years, including btw if you were actually honest, Russia, then I would say you were right. But once again your anti-American bias is showing and it is all about how the Americans are the bad guys.
I love these cranks who try to portray Iraq as some kind of American ally along the lines of the UK, France, or the Netherlands.
Please ...
Iraq was a treaty ally of the USSR. The vast majority of their armaments were Soviet built and supplied. What's next? East Germany was an American ally?
Saddam came out of the Baath Party. Baathism was one of the many "isms" that swept through the Arab world. Iraq under the monarchy was a British concern at the time anyway.
Yep, he was an ally for a long time. We gave him weapons to fight Iran.
If we are talking about the Iran/Iraq war: Iraq used mostly soviet weapons in the Iran/Iraq war as they were considered a Soviet satellite state until the Iranian revolution and the USSR broke up. During the war - more than 30 countries gave support to either Iran, Iraq, or both. The US mostly gave arms and intelligence to Iraq, but some weapons also went to Iran. The US played it wisely so that neither side can overpower the other. Iraq at one point could have been overrun. The US didn't want either side winning and destabilizing the balance of power. Not Iran. Not Iraq.
Well played by the US, one of it's better strategic approaches in the middle east during that time. It's not something to condemn, but something to applause.
The OP if I understand it is Iranian as she has some crazy threads about N. Korea in the Asian forum, just about every fact this person mentioned was innacurate. Might explain his or her viewpoint.
I love these cranks who try to portray Iraq as some kind of American ally along the lines of the UK, France, or the Netherlands.
Please ...
Iraq was a treaty ally of the USSR. The vast majority of their armaments were Soviet built and supplied. What's next? East Germany was an American ally?
Saddam came out of the Baath Party. Baathism was one of the many "isms" that swept through the Arab world. Iraq under the monarchy was a British concern at the time anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
If we are talking about the Iran/Iraq war: Iraq used mostly soviet weapons in the Iran/Iraq war as they were considered a Soviet satellite state until the Iranian revolution and the USSR broke up. During the war - more than 30 countries gave support to either Iran, Iraq, or both. The US mostly gave arms and intelligence to Iraq, but some weapons also went to Iran. The US played it wisely so that neither side can overpower the other. Iraq at one point could have been overrun. The US didn't want either side winning and destabilizing the balance of power. Not Iran. Not Iraq.
Well played by the US, one of it's better strategic approaches in the middle east during that time. It's not something to condemn, but something to applause.
The OP if I understand it is Iranian as she has some crazy threads about N. Korea in the Asian forum, just about every fact this person mentioned was innacurate. Might explain his or her viewpoint.
You guys are both saying what I also remember about Iraq. I remember that it was a major foreign policy change for the Reagan administration to start supporting Saddam, which before that was more allied with the Soviets than anybody else.
And that is a direct result of the Iranian Revolution and decline of American - Iranian relations. If the Iranians are going to treat the USA as the "Great Satan", well not surprisingly the Americans are going to start looking elsewhere. Sort of the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
All through the Cold War, the USSR leadership debated and fumbled its way across the globe trying to find developing countires that could be pushed with their help into the pre-ordained (they thought) path to the ideal Communist society. The US leadership somehow managed to covince themsleves that the Soviet dream was actually possible and, idealistically, decided to try to counter the USSR at every step to make the world safe for Democracy, sweeping aside anyone in the State Department who thought otherwise.
Well, we know how that turned out...badly, for everyone - the USSR, the developing countries and the US. Sadam was an outcome of this folly, so was the Iranian Revolution, Ethiopia, Angola, Eritrea, Vietnam,...the list is endless.
It has become a "Never Ending Story" of global stupidity.
All through the Cold War, the USSR leadership debated and fumbled its way across the globe trying to find developing countires that could be pushed with their help into the pre-ordained (they thought) path to the ideal Communist society. The US leadership somehow managed to covince themsleves that the Soviet dream was actually possible and, idealistically, decided to try to counter the USSR at every step to make the world safe for Democracy, sweeping aside anyone in the State Department who thought otherwise.
Well, we know how that turned out...badly, for everyone - the USSR, the developing countries and the US. Sadam was an outcome of this folly, so was the Iranian Revolution, Ethiopia, Angola, Eritrea, Vietnam,...the list is endless.
It has become a "Never Ending Story" of global stupidity.
And yet we managed to avoid World War III and global nuclear destruction. US policy was one of containment. It worked and the Soviet Union and the 20th century concept of communism that resulted in the death of some 100 million humans, is no more. In spite of terrorism and regional conflicts, which will likely always exist to some degree, the world is a safer place today. Probably the safest it's been in the history of the world.
Stupidity?
You guys are both saying what I also remember about Iraq. I remember that it was a major foreign policy change for the Reagan administration to start supporting Saddam, which before that was more allied with the Soviets than anybody else.
And that is a direct result of the Iranian Revolution and decline of American - Iranian relations. If the Iranians are going to treat the USA as the "Great Satan", well not surprisingly the Americans are going to start looking elsewhere. Sort of the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Yeah this is just a BS thread. Even by the time of the first gulf war we were fighting Russian T55 and T72 tanks manned by the Iraqis. Everything was Russian. MIGS. AK47 armed infantry. They had no American equipment at all that I know of.
The Russian tanks didn't fair well against M1 Abrams at all.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
The first Gulf War at the time seemed like a quick, decisive victory. And yet that war led directly to the two deadliest terror attacks in US history, the OKC bombing carried out by war veteran with PTSD Tim McVeigh and a 9/11 attack planned by an outraged Bin Laden. It's possible that in the year 2100 the FGW will be influencing world events more than WW2.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
