Thread: Saddam Hussein as "Moderate" by the New York Times in the 80's

At a time when Saddam was a Washington favorite because of:

our duty to support U.S. exporters..

So 'if he wants to develop weapons of mass destruction it's our duty to support it.'

Iraq Is Improving Links to Both U.S. and Soviet

a dramatic but little discussed Iraqi swing from Arab radicalism toward moderation and a warming relationship with the United States.

Washington supported Saddam right up untill the invasion of Kuwait. Strongly supported him in fact. They provided him with the means for developing weapons of mass destruction- nuclear, chemical, biological. Saddam interprited the US ambassedor's assurances to him that Washington was nuetral on his decision to invade Kuwait as a green light. Kuwait had been slant drilling and stealing Iraq's oil.

So someone is going to say that Saddam was a moderate now?

Originally Posted by Horhey

So someone is going to say that Saddam was a moderate now?

Its true the US supported Saddam.. He was pivotal to the US policy called "containment" of Iran.

But moderate? NO.. He was a ruthless Baathist who controlled factions in Iraq that hate each other.

Originally Posted by Margot

Its true the US supported Saddam.. He was pivotal to the US policy called "containment" of Iran.

But moderate? NO.. He was a ruthless Baathist who controlled factions in Iraq that hate each other.

No, the US continued to support Saddam long after the war with Iran was over, right up untill the invasion of Kuwait. The Bush administration gave the reasons publicly and the reasons were:

our duty to support US exporters.

-as John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State explained.

And then they returned to support for Saddam after the Gulf War in 1991, when they authorised him to crush the shi'ite uprising which probobly would've overthrown him.

Administration reasoning was outlined by New York Times chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman:

While oposing the popular rebellion, Washington did hope that a military coup might remove Saddam, and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein.

In 1993, The New York Times added that:

While officials will never say so publicly, It has always been American policy that the iron-fisted Mr. Hussein plays a useful role in holding Iraq together.

The New York Times reported:

the United States and its Arab coalition partners [came] to a strikingly unanimous view: whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression.

In other words, 'we dont want Iraqis to rule Iraq and if we cant do it we rather have Saddam'.

Originally Posted by Horhey

No, the US continued to support Saddam long after the war with Iran was over, right up untill the invasion of Kuwait. The Bush administration gave the reasons publicly and the reasons were:



-as John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State explained.

And then they returned to support for Saddam after the Gulf War in 1991, when they authorised him to crush the shi'ite uprising which probobly would've overthrown him.

Administration reasoning was outlined by New York Times chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman:



In 1993, The New York Times added that:



The New York Times noted that:



In other words, 'we dont want Iraqis to rule Iraq and if we cant do it we rather have Saddam'.

Our foreign policy in the region has been horrible for 50 years.. Look at Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq....

Read British history on Iraq circa 1920.. Churchill thought it was a great idea to drop poisonous gas bombs and kill thousands of Arabs and Kurds.