Did Saddam's embrace of Socialism spell his doom?

It occurs to me that this whole "Global War on Terrorism" is really a war against Socialism in the Middle
East. We've been fighting wars against Socialism in Latin America for many years as well. Nothing makes the corporate masters fear more than the prospect of Socialism. I just wonder how long Chavez will be able to hold on. Perhaps he's as stubborn as old Fidel Castro, or perhaps Fidel has let him in on his secret to longevity?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Al-Atraqchi_Osama-Saddam.htm

Form of govt was only a red herring. Gets people riled up to talk about the evil 'socialism'.

Regarding Saddam.

I really don't know enough about Chavez, except unlike Saddam some have found nice things to say about Chavez. (But is that genuine or because Chavez is politicizing as well?)

one of our useful tools...that argument holds no water for me.

America defended his actions when he was doing that stuff.

I don't think that had anything to do with it.

Don

about Saddam's treatment of his own people, do you? We're good buds with loads of dictators as bad or worse than Saddam was. The "gassing his own people" was just a PR ploy to get the American people behind what they wanted to do in the first place.

I mean, the nazis used the word in the name of their political party, but that didn't make them socialists at all. I think Saddam was about as socialist as Papa Doc.

There were plenty of (bad) reasons to invade Iraq but socialism probably didn't play much of a role.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

There are reputations to consider.

but he was definitely to the left of the Saudis, and all indications are they wanted him gone. On the other hand, they will never stand for a true Democracy in their region either. This is all a charade to put a puppet government in Iraq. I think we, or rather Bush and the neocons were duped by the Saudis.

Maybe they had to dupe the rest of the party, but not the bushes.

just the idiot son. Poppy never would have invaded Iraq. His BFF Brent Scowcroft was very vocal about his opposition to the war.

I think the deception was for those outside of the inner circle.

He kept ambitions at a sort of stalemate. Now, well, you know.

why was Saddam so unpopular with the Saudi royal family?

:rofl:

I recall special sections in at least one major newsmagazine promoting it, many of the people calling the most loudly for war after he invaded Kuwait were, just a year previously, some of the biggest promoters of Iraq. Far from "embracing socialism", Saddam was in a position to become the Shah's relacement as "our guy" in the region.

Right up until he got greedy in settling his dispute with Kuwait, and Poppy decided to take advantage of the situation.

He wanted Kuwait to cut him a break in regards to Iraq paying back the billions in loans that they had to borrow from Kuwait to defend Kuwait from Iran during that war.

And it wasn't really poppy Bush taking advantage either....the Kuwaitis had billions invested in the US stock market as well as billions in US Treasury bills that could be liquidated immediately. At one point, the Al-Sabah family had close to 100 billion invested in the US economy. The economy was already in bad shape under poppy Bush when Hussein invaded Kuwait, and it would have crashed pretty hard if they had to liquidate everything they had invested.

...though with something the size of Kuwait, it may have been hard to avoid, too, once he went to a military option.

Poppy Bush spent three days before he publicly came out determined to disloge Saddam by force of arms. My own humble opinion is that some early back-channel phone calls reminding Saddam that it wasn't the thick of the Cold War anymore, so everything we had in Europe to fight WW3 could be shifted down to drop on his head, could have pushed Saddam in the direction of pulling his forces back and calling the whole thing a "punative raid" for Kuwait's intransigence. Instead, Bush let it fester until he had been handed the perfect excuse for dismissing any more talk of a "peace dividend". I may be wrong about the "Saddam pullback" scenario, but it can't be denied that Bush scuttled any and every chance of resolving the crisis without a war.

but it always boils down to money.

I believe that is what got him killed, his country destroyed, and his people murdered by the tens of thousands.

was he delusional enough to think that his defiance could be sustained? Did his greed get the better his judgement? Was it a purposeful trap? :shrug:

protected. And they are, until they're not.

BushCo was going into Iraq no matter what Saddam did.

When you think about it he had let inspectors return and run all over the country, he was singing from every rooftop that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and he had the UN unwilling to go for an invasion. He probably thought he could survive. Just a guess.

reasonable like Poppy was. As evil as he is, Poppy still has a modicum of common sense. Not so the dim son. Perhaps Saddam miscalculated the abilities and ruthlessness of the neocon movement.

And the fact that when OPEC raised prices, he released more oil on the market to keep prices low. Saddam pissed the Saudis off and they told their buddy bush to get rid of him.

Also the Kuwait invasion was a set-up. The US told him to invade and they would back him up. He crossed the border, the US wasn't there to back him up...on the contrary. Lesson: never trust the government of the U.S.

It was Saddam's intention to demand payment for oil in Euros that was the immediate trigger, but his long standing refusal to allow a pipeline from Iraq to Israel was a major contributor. News reports of late indicate that the pipeline to Israel is now progressing.

When he switched from the dollar to the euro as payment for oil in late 2000.


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

What was his endgame?

http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/saddam-hussein-may-get-the-last-laugh/

There are many countries out there that would love to take us down a peg or two. Time will soon tell how fast they may pull out of our markets.

Ask yourself: Have we pissed in the well only to have to drink from it tomorrow? Have we started a war in Iraq that has set up a situation and a world movement, which may cause considerable damage to our standard of living and our economy? Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride folks.

Somewhere Saddam may be smiling to himself knowing that even in defeat he may have had the last laugh and although he lost the war, he may have started a war the U.S. may not win, the geopolitical oil dollar war.

And I really don't have enough data to do so with much hope of accuracy.

But I agree that we have likely started an avalanche that may well be the end of us.

If Saddam indeed has the last laugh it will be maximum irony.

"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron." -Spider Robinson

"Ask yourself: Have we pissed in the well only to have to drink from it tomorrow? Have we started a war in Iraq that has set up a situation and a world movement, which may cause considerable damage to our standard of living and our economy?"

What an outstanding question. You should post that as a stand-alone question. I think it should evoke a discussion we could all learn from.

This country would collapse like a house of cards if OPEC did that tomorrow. You want to know what I think is the only reason it hasn't happened? Hold on to your hat - because the Chinese don't have enough Euros to pay for their expected oil needs .... yet.

and I fully agree, the Chinese are major players in our future. This is all an elaborate chess match, and guess who our ace is? George Fucking Idiot Bush.

Or no peek poker?

And boy george is the mark.

and decided that Iraq's resources were for Iraq, he did it.

However, the doofus in the white house had plenty of time to plan it, and had come to power with invading Iraq as a goal.

"and decided Iraq's resources were for Iraq"?...:shrug:

Here's a gentle hint: trying to get paid in a rising currency instead of declining ones is simply wanting to be paid more, in other words MAXIMIZING YOUR PROFITS. There's nothing whatever about that that is inconsistent with capitalist motive or practice. Maximizing profit is in fact the soul of capitalist enterprise.

As for the other thing you posted, you are trying to make NATIONALISM stand in for socialism.

Shrug less and read more.

he'd hold back and then flood the market, not allowing price fixing to hum along nicely.