Talk:Saddam Hussein - United States relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May be this article can also tell a bit more that the opportunistic support of the USA for Saddam Hussein gave rise to a lot of anti-Americanism and strained the Iranian-American relations. As far as I can see there is still a lot of resentment among the Iranians (and not just among supporters of the theocracy) against the USA because of the American policy. Andries (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

There seems to be some limited language which may demonstrate against the United States in this article, even after reading only a few paragraphs. Of course, as an individual, I feel some bias and judgment regarding these matters (and it's not for the US). However, the language of an encyclopedia article must remain neutral and fair. I realize I am not citing any instances. That is because it is early in the morning, and I haven't the time nor the energy to list proposed amendments to this article. I intend to return to this article, however. However, before I conclude, I wish to mention that though this article is not poor in quality, it is lacking in many key qualities. To list: breadth, sources, neutrality, structure. Though I believe the original author(s) did an excellent job laying out the primer, additional material (40 years of the US and Saddam merits and demands more), sources (more than two primary sources), a more encyclopedic read (it seems more like an excerpt from a History of the World book to me), and a sense of a more logical structure (though the article is a good start, and only needs nudges this way and that) would elevate the page immeasurably. Please weigh in with more. Thanks for reading it all. DeftHand (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I had so many references about Saddam-USA collaboration, specially in the 60's, and it was not documented anywhere in wikipedia, so I thought this is the right place to do so. Imad marie (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I also find evidence of bias here, to describe Iraq as an "ally" of the US is not really accurate, the US had a long relationships with Iraq and provided some support to Iraq when it was losing the war with Iran. However, i don't think this makes Iraq an ally, it was an ally of convenience to some extent but to call Iraq a US ally (e.g. in the photo caption) is overdoing it. Also, I think it is worth noting that Iraq was on the State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism list from 1979 to 1982; it was taken off in 1982 when the US needed to provide support for Iraq in its war with Iran. I also think the attack on the USS Stark in 1985 is worth a mention (still learning editing, will try to get this in on my own when I learn how). Pepik70 (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"[T]to describe Iraq as an "ally" of the US is not really accurate" You are mistaken, both in definition and practice. Just as the U.S.S.R under Joseph Stalin was considered an ally during WWII (see Allies of World War II), so too was Iraq under Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (a war in which the United States is classified a "Belligerent"). ~ smb 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the US was an ally of the USSR in WW2, but ally to me means more than just "provided some support". Israel provided some support to Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, but I wouldn't call them allies. The US interest in the conflict wasn't to help Iraq win, rather it was to prevent Iraq from losing, which I don't find consistent with being an "ally". Pepik70 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. In the battle against Iranian extremism, the Unites States allied itself with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That is a statement of fact. The Reagan White House decided to restore full diplomatic ties. The State Department removed Iraq from a list of countries sponsoring terrorism. The US gave Saddam's government billions of dollars. They dispatched Specials Forces to advise Iraqi generals on the battlefield. Diplomats proposed new petroleum projects (like building a pipeline over land to the Mediterranean Sea). People were opposed to this, just as people opposed aligning themselves with Joseph Stalin, but the fact of the matter is: Saddam was for a time considered an ally. ~ smb 12:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it matters, and no, it isn't a statement of fact. Are you saying Israel and Iran were allies? Are you saying that if Syria provides intelligence to the US on Al Queda (as they have), then Syria and the US are allies? You are using the term "allies" extremely loosely. You are not showing how they were allies beyond the US providing support to Iraq for very narrow ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepik70 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are describing precisely the kind of relationship the U.S. and British had with the U.S.S.R during World War II. They allied themselves and collaborated against a greater enemy. Both parties remained weary of each other, and even disliked each other, but they were considered allies yesterday and today. Israel, for your information, did not provide anything like the support of the Americans, who, in fact, had to twist arms to get anything from them at all. See Twin Pillars of Desert Storm by Howard Teicher. ~ smb 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the right term to use is "allies of convenience". Imad marie (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April Glaspie's meetings with Saddam Hussein

The idea that the US "green lighted" the invasion is contradicted by Tariq Aziz, Iraq's Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister at the time. In an interview with PBS he said

Q: Could you elaborate on the point about mixed signals sent by the U.S. during the run-up to the invasion of Kuwait? How did those influence your government's decision?
Aziz: There were no mixed signals. We should not forget that the whole period before August 2 witnessed a negative American policy towards Iraq. So it would be quite foolish to think that, if we go to Kuwait, then America would like that...

His is interviewed again here by PBS, where he says

Q: In April, what was your assessment of what the Americans would do--what was April Glaspie saying?
Aziz: She didn't tell us anything strange. She didn't tell us in the sense that we concluded that the Americans will not retaliate. That was nonsense you see. It was nonsense to think that the Americans would not attack us. In the early hours of the 2nd of August, the whole apparatus of the leadership took precautions for an American speedy immediate retaliation. With the exception of me, as Foreign Minister, I had to stay in my office, the President and all the leadership apparatus was being repositioned..... a precaution from an American attack. So we had no illusions that the Americans will not retaliate against being in Kuwait because they knew that this was a conflict between the two of us-- Iraq and the United States.

I think the entire section should be deleted, it is just promoting a thoroughly debunked myth. The Glaspie meetings are not of any historical importance, although the Foreign Policy article link does make the relevant point that Bush hadn't decided how he would react if there was an invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepik70 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So add your material, in a balanced way. Deleting the section is not the answer of course, the allegations of giving a green light exist. Imad marie (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Prince

Smb, about your addition, I think you need to clarify who you are referring by "Crown Prince", Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah? Imad marie (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct to raise this. I am relying solely on a radio interview in which Mr Lando was invited to talk about his book. Of this tense period, he noted the conclusions of the US intelligence agency and that Norman Schwartzkopf had admitted to giving the Kuwaiti's private assurances the US would intervene if attacked, and how he thought it peculiar the US would not deliver an unambiguous message to Saddam, cautioning him against such action. I will endeavour to find a direct quote, to clear up any confusion. ~ smb 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar piece by the same author on Alternet In this article, he says the pledge was communicated to "the Kuwaitis". ~ smb 17:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"CIA had been advising the Kuwaitis to use their oil production policies to keep pressure on Saddam"

WOW, that is new for me... Imad marie (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)