Rumsfeld Warns Syria

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When confronted by multiple evils, the US chooses the one that best represents America's immeidate interests.

That would be the lesser evil to us.

[Az]

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

That would be the lesser evil to us.

I knew I should have said something about that.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] [SIZE=1]
Not from the begining. Hussein helped overthrow General Abdul Karim Kassem, who had pulled Iraq out of the Bagdad Pact (America's alliance in the ME), threatened to invade Kuwait when Britain relinquished its control in 1960, and had allowed Communists in the government. While Hussein was in Cairo, after a failed assassination attempt against Kassem, he became aquainted with the CIA, who gave him money. When the Ba'ath overthrew Kassem in 1963, the CIA gave Hussein a list of communists, whom were then murdered by Hussein and his people.

If he were the darling of the CIA, then why would Soviets support him? Your theory is interesting, but contradictory.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
If he were the darling of the CIA, then why would Soviets support him? Your theory is interesting, but contradictory.

Why did Noreiga and bin Laden turn against us? They were both helped and funded by the CIA? You think it's impossible for our allies one day to be our enemies the next?

However, to directly answer your question, what major event in the ME happened between 1963, when Hussein was first in power (not at the top) and 1969, when the Baathists returned to power? I'll give you a hint, it happened in six days in 1967.

Anyway, my "theory" isn't a theory. It's what actually happened. There's no interpretation of events needed. Hussein was a regular visitor to the American embassy in Cairo until he returned to Iraq. The CIA did give him money and a list of people who turned up dead.

This catapulted Hussein into the leadership of the Ba'athist party, and when they returned to power, Hussein was made cheif of internal security. Within a year or two he was the real power in Iraq, only openly assuming the presidency in 1979. Had the CIA not helped him prior to 1963, we may not have had to deal with him today.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I knew I should have said something about that.

I love making posts that can be taken in more than one way.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why did Noreiga and bin Laden turn against us? They were both helped and funded by the CIA? You think it's impossible for our allies one day to be our enemies the next?

However, to directly answer your question, what major event in the ME happened between 1963, when Hussein was first in power (not at the top) and 1969, when the Baathists returned to power? I'll give you a hint, it happened in six days in 1967.

Anyway, my "theory" isn't a theory. It's what actually happened. There's no interpretation of events needed. Hussein was a regular visitor to the American embassy in Cairo until he returned to Iraq. The CIA did give him money and a list of people who turned up dead.

This catapulted Hussein into the leadership of the Ba'athist party, and when they returned to power, Hussein was made cheif of internal security. Within a year or two he was the real power in Iraq, only openly assuming the presidency in 1979. Had the CIA not helped him prior to 1963, we may not have had to deal with him today.

Stop circumventing my question and continuing promoting your theory. And where did your get your evidence? 60 Greatest Conpiracies?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

I thought we've established earlier in that other thread that Israel did NOT want that war.

Whether israel wanted the war to come or not does not change whether, once the war begun and Israel saw how much it could gain, it decided to go for broke instead of being cautious. The US wanted a ceasefire early on, a ceasefire that might have gone into place before Israel secured the Golan and the West Bank fully.Obviously, it would be in Israeli interest to make sure that whenever the ceasefire came, thy would be in the most adventageous position.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Stop circumventing my question and continuing promoting your theory. And where did your get your evidence? 60 Greatest Conpiracies?

I answered your question.

Frankly, if you can't figure out the answer given the information I provided you, you're hopeless. I'm not going to hold your hand.

[GePap]

Noriega didn;t turn against us..we turned against him. In the early 1980's he was completely willing to let the US use Panama as a conduit for aid to the Contras, and as long as aid to the Contras was the most important thing in Central America, we were fine with Noriega. But of course, the Contras and their buddies were drug dealers and Noriega became more involved in the Drug trade. By the time Reagan is out, the Contras are a loosing issue (even a criminal one for various people) and the "War on Drugs" becomes the great evil of our times. Noriega thus is no longer useful to the US in Nicaragua, and is now mixed up in the new great enemy of the US, the international Drug trade.

[Spiffor]

I am amazed by the sheer stupidity Rumsfeld displays every time he opens his mouth. While I understand the US will sanction Syria for its cooperation with Iraq in this war, I think it is utterly absurd to do it publically.
The terrible PR impact that Rumsfeld creates will slowly alienate all those who are neutral/somehow hostile to his splendid little war, and turn them to real hostility. He alienated France and Germany, and much of these countries' population with his "witty" comments, and has now started alienating the Muslims.
Keep up the good work, Rummy

[chequita guevara]

It was kinda mutual. Noriega began making those anti-American speaches at almost the same time that we began to say he was a drug dealer. The main reason we turned against him, however, is that he refused to allows the Contras to base in Nicaragua (why they needed to be there, God and the Reagan administration only know). He was perfectly willing to allow Panama to be a conduit, but he wasn't too keen on having a rebel army based on his soil.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144
can i get a list of succesful american set up "democracies" vs. unsuccesful "democracies".

The biggest problem i find with the whole american line of spreading american values is that sometimes the result is only self serving to the US rather than being beneficial to the people.

Like Germany and Japan?

What are you talking about? What democracies have we set up?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I am amazed by the sheer stupidity Rumsfeld displays every time he opens his mouth. While I understand the US will sanction Syria for its cooperation with Iraq in this war, I think it is utterly absurd to do it publically.
The terrible PR impact that Rumsfeld creates will slowly alienate all those who are neutral/somehow hostile to his splendid little war, and turn them to real hostility. He alienated France and Germany, and much of these countries' population with his "witty" comments, and has now started alienating the Muslims.
Keep up the good work, Rummy

Who is alienated that was not "alienated" before. I think you are being disengenuous.

[Spiffor]

Many Germans seem to have badly taken being compared with Lybia. The Germans' goodwill towards the US was huge a short time ago, and seems to have decreased at huge speed. Also, most of the damage done to the French American relationship could have been avoided if Rummy hadn't insulted France with his old Europe crap (I'm the first to admit France should have behaved much better too).

Before the diplomatic barking -that I admit France and Germany have begun- the opposition to war wasn't as clear. In fact, Chirac had warned his troops and his diplomats very shortly before it that they should "be ready for anything" (i.e taking part in the war). Hadn't Rummy opened his mouth, and had he let diplomats do their jobs, the whole UN charade could have been avoided yet. Well, if Chirac hadn't opened his mouth too.

Currently, Syria has shown a 'very cautious' neutrality, to say the least (they are against the US, but didn't enter clear hostility yet). If Rummy openly threatens it, you can be sure his speeches will serve as propaganda-fodder against America. It will also make the diplomatic relations between US and Syria much more awkward. Same with Iran, and same with Jordan if Jordan cooperates less than Rummy needs due.

Edit : In short, Rummy has the skill to turn a "somehow against" country or population into a "completely against" country or population.