General Discussion

JonLP24

(29,946 posts)

74. He was testing the wasters since it was recently overthrown

Fri Feb 6, 2015, 11:14 AM

Feb 2015

Thought maybe they could be vulnerable and ended up with a decade long war, massive debt to neighbors, he used poison gas on Iranian cities. Killed well over 100,000 civilians. What do they have to do with nukes?

Weren't we worried about Iraq developing Nukes? Isn't that what the Israeli airstrike was about it? The ones crazy enough to use one already have one & last thing I'm worried about, giving Saddam gas to use against Iranians seems kinda counter-productive in that they're probably more likely to use one after that but it is the hypocrisy of it. US & their allies are more likely to use one then claim the moral high ground after doing so.

The people that have nothing to do with nothing are killed over leaders' squabbles. Their lives shouldn't be so abstract as this.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nobody wants to admit this: Saddam Hussein would be our ally against ISIS [View all] bluestateguy Feb 2015 OP

I'll admit it. Coventina Feb 2015 #1

Couldn't have said it better forest444 Feb 2015 #18

+ 100 zappaman Feb 2015 #59

And amazingly, Christians under Saddam avebury Feb 2015 #61

Living proof in Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Christian Foreign Minister. Coventina Feb 2015 #66

I agree 99.9999% and have only one minor disagreement with your post. arcane1 Feb 2015 #2

this was my thought. barbtries Feb 2015 #30

100% n/t arcane1 Feb 2015 #37

Well, he was our ally against Iran... Wounded Bear Feb 2015 #3

Yes, very true, he kept Iran under control, Iran would never have gotten Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #14

He was testing the wasters since it was recently overthrown JonLP24 Feb 2015 #74

No doubt... jaysunb Feb 2015 #4

I think we can conclude that stability in the ME isn't the goal. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #6

yep. barbtries Feb 2015 #32

The goal was stability under US control. jeff47 Feb 2015 #51

PNAC toddwv Feb 2015 #28

He was a paper tiger to western interests. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #5

The same Saudi "royals" who are funding ISIS today? Those Saudis? BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #10

And bankrupt the West in every way. Bandar Bush was a traitor, like Ronny Raygun. freshwest Feb 2015 #46

For the oil. grahamhgreen Feb 2015 #50

I admit it, and said so just yesterday. herding cats Feb 2015 #7

True, but so would Stalin, Hitler, Qadafi, and any number of other despots bhikkhu Feb 2015 #8

Though many ISIS members are former Saddam loyalists. nt geek tragedy Feb 2015 #9

ISIS is made up of many of Saddam's Guys, maybe they learned from Saddam and to avoid JI7 Feb 2015 #11

ISIS is not really religious in the way Muslim Brotherhood or even Al Qaeda is JI7 Feb 2015 #12

Agreed Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #15

"they are more of a criminal gang" So, too, is the M.B. AverageJoe90 Feb 2015 #21

There would be no ISIS if Saddam ruled in Iraq. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #13

I admit it. 840high Feb 2015 #16

I'll admit it. He got on the wrong side of Poppy, and that was that for him. MADem Feb 2015 #17

Doubtful if he would have invaded Kuwait without COLGATE4 Feb 2015 #19

Yes, that mess goes down in history as a boneheaded conversation. MADem Feb 2015 #25

To this day, I suspect that Hussein got on the wrong side of Thatcher, who then helped put the KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #23

Gotta find someone who was in the room! Otherwise, we'll never know... nt MADem Feb 2015 #27

Ay, there's the rub. A lot of 'unknown unknowns' (to quote RummyDummy KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #31

I meant "In the room with Maggie and Big George!" MADem Feb 2015 #34

Yeah, my mind is jumping around, but I had taken your original meaning. You are bringing back KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #35

I think your 'private suspicions' would make a great academic thesis, actually! nt MADem Feb 2015 #38

It's been written about, see here yodermon Feb 2015 #55

Wow! Thanks so much for taking the time to find and copy that extract. While I cannot claim to have KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #57

Would he, though? AverageJoe90 Feb 2015 #20

What if the sun rose in the West? Bin Laden had declared a 'fatwa' against Hussein, in essence KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #33

Better the Devil You Know shadowmayor Feb 2015 #22

The old British imperialists always said the Baghdad was just a waystation on the road to KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #36

Please publish this as an OP. raven mad Feb 2015 #56

I second the motion. Excellent read and credible. libdem4life Feb 2015 #68

Bu$h's 2003 invasion was a criminal act. N/t roamer65 Feb 2015 #24

So we should support and prop up ruthless dictators? former9thward Feb 2015 #26

I remember when Realpolitik was seen as a vice in Progressive circles, and I'm not even 30. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #72

Wel I think one reason that the US went after Saddam Hussein was to de-stabilize that truedelphi Feb 2015 #29

England did NOT help out the South during the American Civil War. The ruling class may have KingCharlemagne Feb 2015 #39

Looking up and down this thread, I am convinced that . . . Jack Rabbit Feb 2015 #40

No doubt about that Jack madokie Feb 2015 #49

I'll admit it. He was a stabilizing presence in the Middle East. calimary Feb 2015 #41

The First Desert Slaughter shadowmayor Feb 2015 #44

Kuwait's slant drilling has gotten lost in the whole following story. pinto Feb 2015 #54

Welcome to DU, shadowmayor! calimary Feb 2015 #63

Thanks for your reply shadowmayor Feb 2015 #65

Hey shadowmayor - some of us WILL NOT forget. Many of us here, within DU, for example. calimary Feb 2015 #75

Thanks again for your thoughts and words shadowmayor Feb 2015 #76

Gaddafi would too. bvar22 Feb 2015 #42

+1000. Gaddafi was influential in all of Africa. polly7 Feb 2015 #67

Don't Drink the Propaganda Kool-Aid . . FairWinds Feb 2015 #43

But the neocons wouldn't have their dreams come true, if they hadn't succeeded in lying this country sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #45

Probably so Turbineguy Feb 2015 #47

The ol' "We have to support dictators to fight the terrorists, communists, etc." is flawed. pampango Feb 2015 #48

So you assert that ISIS would have been the same factor they are now or worse with Hussein in power? TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #52

Probably not. He repressed everyone from terrorists to people who opposed him. pampango Feb 2015 #60

Sure but the thread presented an "if then" question. No endorsement is required to give a straight TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #62

Saddam was not secular and ISIS is not religious AngryAmish Feb 2015 #53

Sure, but some allies are not worth having. n/t Chan790 Feb 2015 #58

yeah, he was a good U.S. dupe puppet bigtree Feb 2015 #64

Wasn't Saddam pulling cords out of incubators? Or do I have the wrong war? n/t libdem4life Feb 2015 #69

Iran is our ally now against ISIS Enrique Feb 2015 #70

Saddam was trying to ethnically cleanse the Kurds, the only ones effectively fighting ISIS. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #71

Violent oppression by the head-of-state is the cause of this JonLP24 Feb 2015 #73

ISIS would not have come into existence cwydro Feb 2015 #77