PDA

View Full Version : You know, if Saddam had some brains, he might have had himself a nice little empire.



dave22
04-14-2004, 11:48 PM
After Israel once again kicked the Arabs asses in 73, there were talks between Iraq and Syria of a possible union. Problem is that Asad and Saddam hated each other, and that union never occured.

The Iraq-Iran war, within the first couple of weeks it looked like Iraq was going to win that war hands down. After 4 weeks, Saddam told all of his troops to halt their advances, and he decided that with his charming personality, that he could negotiate a peace with the Mullahs. BIG MISTAKE!!!!! The Mullahs rounded up their armies, and counter attacked, reclaiming all the land that was lost, and thus the war lasted for 8 years.

If he waited until 93 to invade Kuwait, it was estimated that he would have nuclear capablity then. He could have invaded Kuwait, and then declared that Iraq was now a nuclear power.
Saddam would then control a good percentage of the world's oil, and there might not have een a Gulf War.

What do you guys think??

The Kurgan
04-15-2004, 02:01 AM
If Saddam had nationalised oil, supplied it cheap to America, denounced terrorism and taken hundreds of random people to death camps in an attempt to "combat world terrorism", tightened his totalitarian powers and replaced Al Jazeera with goverment controlled TV, he'd still be in power today. Just look at Algeria.

badbart2000
04-15-2004, 11:15 AM
I never understood the moron. He could have had a powerful country but he keep screwing up. He seemed very good at keeping his power but very stupid with international affairs.

JigaroKagan
04-15-2004, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by badbart2000
I never understood the moron. He could have had a powerful country but he keep screwing up. He seemed very good at keeping his power but very stupid with international affairs.

Just look at his minister of misinformation.

dave22
04-15-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by badbart2000
I never understood the moron. He could have had a powerful country but he keep screwing up. He seemed very good at keeping his power but very stupid with international affairs.

Well other than Iraq, the only place that Saddam has been to is Syria and Egypt. He also didn't expect the backlash that he received when he invaded Kuwait.

On a side note, remember when Dan Rather interviewed him, and he told Rather something along the lines of, "My people love me, I was reelected with 100% of my people's votes."

LordNeon
04-15-2004, 12:20 PM
Why was invading Kuwait a dumb idea strategically? Obviously it hurt him in the long run, but some time before the invasion, the US ambassador to Iraq said the following to Saddam:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Translation: go ahead, invade. We don't care.

dave22
04-15-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Why was invading Kuwait a dumb idea strategically? Obviously it hurt him in the long run, but some time before the invasion, the US ambassador to Iraq said the following to Saddam:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Translation: go ahead, invade. We don't care.

Don't make excuses. Secretary Baker was green when it came to being an ambassador. Also, why didn't he ask other ambassadors for their opinions?? Hell, even Arab nations condemned the invasion.

LordNeon
04-15-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Don't make excuses. Secretary Baker was green when it came to being an ambassador. Also, why didn't he ask other ambassadors for their opinions?? Hell, even Arab nations condemned the invasion.

Making excuses? What does it matter if he was "green"? The point is that the message sent to Iraq was "We don't care if you invade Kuwait." Whether it was "justified" or not, from a strategic point of view, it wasn't a dumb idea if they had reason to believe the US wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

dave22
04-15-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Making excuses? What does it matter if he was "green"? The point is that the message sent to Iraq was "We don't care if you invade Kuwait." Whether it was "justified" or not, from a strategic point of view, it wasn't a dumb idea if they had reason to believe the US wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

Let me get this straight, Saddam asks "one" person, who happens to work for the US, if they care about Kuwait and Iraq problems, and that "one" person say's, we really don't care.

Maybe Saddam should have asked more than one person, if they would care if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Maybe they should have asked ambassadors from Europe, and Asia. Maybe he should have asked other people that worked for the US.

Ak47
04-15-2004, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Let me get this straight, Saddam asks "one" person, who happens to work for the US, if they care about Kuwait and Iraq problems, and that "one" person say's, we really don't care.


thats a really stupid thing to say. The ambassador didnt just make up his own opinion on the matter, he works for the government. The government gives ambassadors information like that, the ambassador just passes it on.

dave22
04-15-2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Ak47
thats a really stupid thing to say. The ambassador didnt just make up his own opinion on the matter, he works for the government. The government gives ambassadors information like that, the ambassador just passes it on.

It's not like she had a phone in her hand, when he asked her these questions. Plus like I repeatedly said, why didn't he ask other ambassadors their opinions??

Funny how people are blaming the US for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, but aren't blaming Saddam himself.

Ak47
04-15-2004, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by dave22
It's not like she had a phone in her hand, when he asked her these questions. Plus like I repeatedly said, why didn't he ask other ambassadors their opinions??

Funny how people are blaming the US for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, but aren't blaming Saddam himself.

Maybe, just maybe, saddamn didnt call up the ambassador on a lazy saturday afternoon just to chat, and maybe he didnt say, "so (whatever), do you guys care if i invade iraq, i mean, seriously?" and maybe (whatever) didnt say "i think i can speak for all of america when i say, go ahead man. i think we all know that kuwait had it coming." This may be hard for you to believe, but america hasnt always just jumped into things like in this administration. Saddam might have asked america if they cared and not gotten an answer for weeks, while the info was being sent to the ambassador. Saddam asked the US because he knew the US because of all of their previous connections (not trying to imply anything here.)

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

dave22
04-15-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Ak47
Maybe, just maybe, saddamn didnt call up the ambassador on a lazy saturday afternoon just to chat, and maybe he didnt say, "so (whatever), do you guys care if i invade iraq, i mean, seriously?" and maybe (whatever) didnt say "i think i can speak for all of america when i say, go ahead man. i think we all know that kuwait had it coming." This may be hard for you to believe, but america hasnt always just jumped into things like in this administration. Saddam might have asked america if they cared and not gotten an answer for weeks, while the info was being sent to the ambassador. Saddam asked the US because he knew the US because of all of their previous connections (not trying to imply anything here.)

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Listen Kuwait was our ally, it wasn't an enemy, it's full of oil, and I don't believe that they support terrorism. So why wouldn't we care if they invaded Kuwait.

And why didn't Saddam ask the other ambassadors of the world?? You know, the United States wasn't the only nation that was against the invasion.

Ak47
04-15-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Listen Kuwait was our ally, it wasn't an enemy, it's full of oil, and I don't believe that they support terrorism. So why wouldn't we care if they invaded Kuwait.

And why didn't Saddam ask the other ambassadors of the world?? You know, the United States wasn't the only nation that was against the invasion.

it wasnt our ally until saddam invaded. Saddam didnt invade until the US gave him the go-ahead. It sounds stupid because it is, but its what happened. Saddam asked the US because if it wasnt for the US, he wouldnt be in power.

dave22
04-15-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Ak47
it wasnt our ally until saddam invaded. Saddam didnt invade until the US gave him the go-ahead. It sounds stupid because it is, but its what happened. Saddam asked the US because if it wasnt for the US, he wouldnt be in power.

OMFG!!!!! Read some history, we didn't put him in power!!!!! Also we didn't give him the go-ahead, we said that we have no interests in Arabic affairs. Jesus Christ!!!

FatFat Bastard
04-15-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by dave22
OMFG!!!!! Read some history, we didn't put him in power!!!!! Also we didn't give him the go-ahead, we said that we have no interests in Arabic affairs. Jesus Christ!!!

Early Influences:

His father dies while mother was pregnant with him.
His older brother also dies during this same pregnancy.
His mother tries to commit suicide before he was born.
He is given to an uncle to raise until about the age of three.
He goes back to his mother and step-father at about the age of three.
He is mistreated by his parents and flees back to his Uncle who lives in Bagdad in 1945.
In 1957, he joins the Baath Party.
In 1958, the monarchy is overthrown.

Education:

He studies law at the Cairo Law School in 1962. In 1971, Hussein receives his Law Degree from the University of Bagdad.

Major Activities:

Assassinates a communist leader for the Baath Party in 1958 and spends six months in jail.
In 1959, he attempts to assassinate the head of the Iraqi government. He is wounded and flees to Syria and then Egypt.
The Baath Party overthrows the government in 1963 and Saddam returns to Bagdad.
Saddam is arrested when the Baath Party loses control in in November 1963.


He is arrested on October 14, 1964 and placed in prison. Although, he is given a position in the Baath Leadership.
Hussein escapes from prison in 1967.
The Baath Party seizes power again in 1968 with the organizational help of Saddam Hussein.


From 1968-1977, Hussein rises through the ranks of the Baath Party. He begins as a central figure but gathers more power during this time.
In 1977, he assumes control of the government with the present Baath Party leader Bakr's health ailing.
On July 16, 1979 Bakr formally steps down and Hussein begins to take formal control.
The next few weeks are a period of purging and consolidation on Hussein's part.
In 1980, Shi'ites of Iranian origin are deported to Iran by the thousands.

BTW AK 47
you education is limited go read some history instead of conspirace theories...
....Saddam asked the US because if it wasnt for the US, he wouldnt be in power....
This is BS because, it is clear that saddam has gained power by luck and strong will power....

reignoffire
04-16-2004, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Let me get this straight, Saddam asks "one" person, who happens to work for the US, if they care about Kuwait and Iraq problems, and that "one" person say's, we really don't care.

Maybe Saddam should have asked more than one person, if they would care if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Maybe they should have asked ambassadors from Europe, and Asia. Maybe he should have asked other people that worked for the US.


Your wrong. An ambassador is just that....ambassador. He represents the will of his government. And what he basically said is "Go ahead...invade, we won't stop you."

dave22
04-16-2004, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by reignoffire
Your wrong. An ambassador is just that....ambassador. He represents the will of his government. And what he basically said is "Go ahead...invade, we won't stop you."

Great, another guy blaming the US. It was already quoted what she said, and why didn't he ask other ambassadors??

LordNeon
04-16-2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Great, another guy blaming the US.

:rolleyes: It's not "blaming the US". Saddam chose to invade. The US nonetheless made a really stupid and inappropriate move in telling him, through a diplomatic representative, that they didn't care.

dave22
04-16-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
:rolleyes: It's not "blaming the US". Saddam chose to invade. The US nonetheless made a really stupid and inappropriate move in telling him, through a diplomatic representative, that they didn't care.

Did Saddam say, "Would the US care if we invaded Kuwait??" Nope.

Ak47
04-16-2004, 04:32 PM
Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990

(Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie -

I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?

Saddam Hussein -

As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie -

What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein -

If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam’s view, including Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. What is the United States opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie -

We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

On August 2, 1990 four days later, Saddam’s massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait.

irpker
04-16-2004, 11:19 PM
Rofl, Saddam should have never trusted America, after he find out how they played both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. On top of that, he's attacking a nation which contain's one of America's national interests.

The Kurgan
04-17-2004, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by irpker
On top of that, he's attacking a nation which contain's one of America's national interests.

I think the whole world is pretty interested in oil, considering it's the only reason we can sustain a population of over 6 billion. If, say, oil was a finite resource (which it is) which is about a peak (which it almost certainly is) we can predict a population drop in human race over the 21rst century. You could say that wars like the second Gulf War, and even the first, are the beginning of many more to come. It's like a tremor before an earthquake.








Oh, by the way, the population decrease is expected to be 90%, which is the usual decrease in animals when they exceed the capacity of life-giving resources.