2016 Election
Jan 17th 2016, 1:21 am
#3226
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA USA
Posts: 1,206
Re: 2016 Election
Both Iraq and Syria under the Baath Arab socialist parties were modern secular countries each under a tyrannical dictator. Saddam led his country into war against a country with 3 times his population with predictable results. Although his army was better equipped, the Iranians fought with fanatical religious fervor and the thing ended in stalemate. We didn't give enough support to Saddam in this effort.
Unfortunately, the cost of the war led to the invasion of Kuwait, which Saddam felt owed money for the war and that the Kuwaitis were stealing his oil with horizontal drilling (probably correct on both counts.) We probably jumped in on the wrong side in this matter.
Query, how do you all think things would have worked out if we had remained neutral and let Saddam incorporate Kuwait? Could this have strengthened him enough to threaten Saudi or Israel? Would he have continued to be a bulwark against Iranian ambitions? Would we eventually have paid the price for supporting a dictator, as we did for installing and supporting the Shah, who was likewise trying to turn Iran into a secular country?
Unfortunately, the cost of the war led to the invasion of Kuwait, which Saddam felt owed money for the war and that the Kuwaitis were stealing his oil with horizontal drilling (probably correct on both counts.) We probably jumped in on the wrong side in this matter.
Query, how do you all think things would have worked out if we had remained neutral and let Saddam incorporate Kuwait? Could this have strengthened him enough to threaten Saudi or Israel? Would he have continued to be a bulwark against Iranian ambitions? Would we eventually have paid the price for supporting a dictator, as we did for installing and supporting the Shah, who was likewise trying to turn Iran into a secular country?
Last edited by FlaviusAetius; Jan 17th 2016 at 1:27 am. Reason: Corrected spelling of Saddam's name
Jan 17th 2016, 8:40 am
#3227
me/moi
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,531
Re: 2016 Election
You'll have to reach your own conclusions mate. I can only repeat from what I've learned from news and discussions on the middle east by people whose expertise runs to matters concerning that part of the world.
I do remember picking up a copy of Time magazine in a dentists office back in the early 80s and reading an article called "the rising crescent" which predicted the rise of Islamic extremism across the middle east. That turned out to be true.
Saddam for whatever else he was, was certainly not an Islamic extremist. Iraqi society under his rule would today be called a society of infidels and apostates by the extreme religious nut wingers who now have so much influence in that part of the world
The Saudis hated and feared him partly because of his military aggressiveness but also because of the fear that his secular form of society would encroach upon their strict Islamic ways and culture
Bush got it all wrong. He though he was going to war against Iraq for freedom and democracy. He got the wrong country. it should have been Saudi, the land that bred Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, That country which todayt calls itself an ally of the west but funds ISIS under the table
I do remember picking up a copy of Time magazine in a dentists office back in the early 80s and reading an article called "the rising crescent" which predicted the rise of Islamic extremism across the middle east. That turned out to be true.
Saddam for whatever else he was, was certainly not an Islamic extremist. Iraqi society under his rule would today be called a society of infidels and apostates by the extreme religious nut wingers who now have so much influence in that part of the world
The Saudis hated and feared him partly because of his military aggressiveness but also because of the fear that his secular form of society would encroach upon their strict Islamic ways and culture
Bush got it all wrong. He though he was going to war against Iraq for freedom and democracy. He got the wrong country. it should have been Saudi, the land that bred Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, That country which todayt calls itself an ally of the west but funds ISIS under the table
Agree with your comments on Bush, Saddam and Saudi.
Last edited by Shard; Jan 17th 2016 at 9:03 am. Reason: Add YT link
Jan 17th 2016, 8:52 am
#3228
me/moi
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,531
Re: 2016 Election
Query, how do you all think things would have worked out if we had remained neutral and let Saddam incorporate Kuwait? Could this have strengthened him enough to threaten Saudi or Israel? Would he have continued to be a bulwark against Iranian ambitions? Would we eventually have paid the price for supporting a dictator, as we did for installing and supporting the Shah, who was likewise trying to turn Iran into a secular country?
Jan 17th 2016, 9:36 am
#3229
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2016 Election
Whatever you think of Obama that may be taking it too far. A bit Racist?
Jan 17th 2016, 12:20 pm
#3231
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,567
Re: 2016 Election
That's the problem; Bush was an amiable fool, obviously never should have been elected to high office. But his senior staff were evil, extremist ideologues. So if Trump becomes President, who do we get advising him and putting his "policies" into practice?
Jan 17th 2016, 12:39 pm
#3232
me/moi
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,531
Re: 2016 Election
P.S. Great re-drift to main topic Robin.
Jan 17th 2016, 2:35 pm
#3233
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,567
Re: 2016 Election
An ideologue, yes, but presumably absolutely clueless in the practicalities of politics, budgets, the various arcana of getting stuff done in government. So presumably even more dependent on his staff than a "normal" politician who becomes POTUS, who has been a senator, state governor etc...
Jan 17th 2016, 2:55 pm
#3234
Banned
Joined: Dec 2015
Location: california
Posts: 6,035
Re: 2016 Election
[QUOTE=robin1234;11840179]That's the problem; Bush was an amiable fool, obviously never should have been elected to high office. But his senior staff were evil, extremist ideologues. So if Trump becomes President, who do we get advising him and putting his "policies" into practice?[/QUOTE]
That would be SPECTR, Blofeld and Dr Strangelove
That would be SPECTR, Blofeld and Dr Strangelove
Jan 17th 2016, 3:00 pm
#3235
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: 2016 Election
I see an....The Oval Office versions of The Apprentice....to choose cabinet members, and fire them. 
Jan 17th 2016, 3:22 pm
#3236
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA USA
Posts: 1,206
Re: 2016 Election
An ideologue, yes, but presumably absolutely clueless in the practicalities of politics, budgets, the various arcana of getting stuff done in government. So presumably even more dependent on his staff than a "normal" politician who becomes POTUS, who has been a senator, state governor etc...
Jan 17th 2016, 3:31 pm
#3237
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,567
Re: 2016 Election
I don't think anyone called Bush a clueless ideologue! Whatever you say about Bush, I don't think he was particularly ideological. That was Trump!
Jan 17th 2016, 3:36 pm
#3238
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: 2016 Election
Clueless is appropriate though. He was not called the Shrub for nothing.
Last edited by dakota44; Jan 17th 2016 at 3:51 pm.
Jan 17th 2016, 6:19 pm
#3240
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,386
Re: 2016 Election
I cannot remember an election that offered so many awful combinations of potential choice.