Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drew on May 18, 2005, 06:16:29 pm
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050518/D8A5QH881.html
-
This is actually good for the US economy as a whole, for once. Only problem is, he's not doing enough of it.
-
And again, the rich will benefit and the poor will get the opposite. Fits perfectly well with what we know about G.W. Bush.
-
I think that BOTH would profit. Less imports means more domestic factories, which means more jobs for US workers. Also, the company will have to pay the US workers more than they payed the cheap Chinese ones. Which means that the rich will suffer and the poor will benefit (but not my much, either way).
Of course, this is all done to curtail China's rising power on the global stage. It's completely political, and has little, if anything, to do with Bush helping the lower and middle classes.
-
It's unsurprising, but I wonder what the WTO reaction will be....and indeed the rest of the world (general reaction of protectionist trade is IIRC the rest of the world puts similar punative measures in place against your stuff...the huge defecit with China should make this a no-brainer, of course, but the ramifications could be interesting).
-
Other countries already do the same thing, I believe, by imposing huge tariffs on foreign imports and such.
-
Well, this will cause the prices to rise.
Companies imprort to get they producion stuff cheaper, if they stop importing, things will get more expensive.
After all nobody can stop the globalization. :(
IMHO America should stop shutting itself off from the rest of the world. Some multilateral actions are needed.
-
That's what the VAT in the EU is, when you get down to it, and I don't see any punitive sanctions by the WTO.
-
First America gets lauded for outsourcing, now it's getting lauded for pulling industries back into it's own territory. This is why a lot of Americans have the general attitude of "screw the world, we're going to do what we want". While it's not good in many situations, in situations such as this, it's excellent. Since America is the only remaining superpower, nomatter what it does it will always be attacked by the people's of the world and other countries. It should do what is best for the world as a whole, and I believe that one of the best things it can do is simply stay a free and powerful democracy (on most UN missions that the US chooses to cooperate on, it is the driving force behind any action. I'm not saying it's good that we often don't cooperate with the UN - in fact, I think it's disgusting. I'm just saying that when America does cooperate, it is often the tip of the spear for any operation). If that takes tariffs and other such items that most other Western countries already have then so be it. You don't see Germans complaining about British tariffs, but you do see them complaining about American tariffs.
-
What Bush seems to forget or ignore, is that the US economy is largely based on exports. Doing this will force many countries to impose damaging taxes on US goods, wich in the long run will hurt the US economy more than it helps. Any economist knows this. Why Bush´s economists don´t, is beyond me...
He is digging himself a big hole. From wich other future presidents will spend decades trying to get out of. Aren´t you happy you voted for the idiot yet?
:doubt:
-
It's kind of a Lose/Lose situation for Bush, when he does something about the complaints, he gets blasted by a whole lot of other people.
I'm never ever neverever running for Pres.:doubt:
-
A) I didn't vote for Bush. Even if I could vote, I wouldn't have.
B) I would run for president, except I don't want children, and the only way you can get elected is if you prove your responsability and connect with the voters by being a "family man".
C) If the US economy is based on exports...who do you think would be cutting off one of their main trade parterns? The countries banning or imposing heavy duties on US products. So in reality, it might work in the short run, but in the less short run, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. In the meantime, I believe that the US can last without importing clothes from China.
-
That's your major reason for not running for President? Not, like, homsexuality, or a criminal record, or lack of rich, well-connected patrons?
Hell, most politicans try to hide the fact that they have kids, particularly the illegitimate ones they had with their underaged black housekeeper.
-
The fact is that Americans look for something they can relate to in a president. They also look for proof that he is responsible, in a way that they can relate to. Since most (as an understatement) Americans have never held any positions of governmental power, the only way they can relate is through family. Notice how much of a mockery it can become when a president has ill-mannered children? And do you notice how presidents often run on the "family ticket"?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I think that BOTH would profit. Less imports means more domestic factories, which means more jobs for US workers. Also, the company will have to pay the US workers more than they payed the cheap Chinese ones. Which means that the rich will suffer and the poor will benefit (but not my much, either way).
Of course, this is all done to curtail China's rising power on the global stage. It's completely political, and has little, if anything, to do with Bush helping the lower and middle classes.
That makes no economic sense at all. Less imports means consumers have to buy higher priced american goods, loosing money. The american manufacturing company will pay a higher wage to american employees than chinese, but the american employee has to pay a higher price, so that increase dosnt really matter. Hell, the wages of the chinese employe will be able to buy more beacause of the cheap prices due to lack of taxes and tariffs on the stuff he buys. Basically, more american jobs are being created at the expense of the consumer.
-
Nationalism == bad.
If everyone was to suddenly consider themselves to be merely 'members of the human race' (rather than 'Americans' or 'Chinese' or 'British' or whatever), a whole load of problems would be solved at a stroke.
Of course, the chances of this happening are about the same as the chances of a cat displaying altruism. Per person.
Yes, I'm a cynic. Take a long, hard look at the world, compare it to an idealist's view of the world, and tell me that every single damn faction on the planet isn't wrong in at least one way.
I'm past caring. If the American government fscks the American people, it's their fault for voting it in. If the British government fscks the British people, it's their fault for voting it in (I didn't vote, because all the parties who had any chance of winning were equally bad, and voting for a party that has no chance of winning is indistinguishable from not voting at all).
In the case of dictatorships, it's the people's fault for allowing the dictator to become entrenched. And let's not forget America's culpability as the 'protector of the free world' that should be liberating the oppressed peoples of the world, but only as long as it works out OK in the end...
-
I posted this before IIRC.
*sigh* hypocracy
-
i was pretty goddam phsyced when i heard the administration was repealing the sanctions like woowee now i can my spring clothes cheap but no, goddamn muther****er has to secure the votes of the american industry.... christ its like 1816 all over again
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
The fact is that Americans look for something they can relate to in a president. They also look for proof that he is responsible, in a way that they can relate to.
Yeah, americans looked at Bush´s DUI for a show in responsablility. They looked at Bush´s dealings with cocaine. They looked at his mediocre grades in school, and at his daddy bailing him out of combat duty.All stuff americans can relate with.
Sure, even i can relate to that... That´s why he won, TWICE!!
:lol: :lol:
-
No Swamp_Thing, he won because he is a RWC, and to those types, only three things matter: Being rich, being white, and being christian. He won because the smart people are the minority :(.
-
he won because he sucked straight up to both sides at once, and did so quite skillfully
-
And because the electorate were far too stupid to see that was exactly what he was doing.
-
Originally posted by Drew
That makes no economic sense at all. Less imports means consumers have to buy higher priced american goods, loosing money. The american manufacturing company will pay a higher wage to american employees than chinese, but the american employee has to pay a higher price, so that increase dosnt really matter. Hell, the wages of the chinese employe will be able to buy more beacause of the cheap prices due to lack of taxes and tariffs on the stuff he buys. Basically, more american jobs are being created at the expense of the consumer.
You know how much they pay Chinese workers? It's, like, $5 per T-shirt or something. Then that shirt gets sold here for about $80-$100. If that's not getting ripped off, I don't know what is. The companies that make these things could probably survive a move to the US.
Also, Bush won because had "good Christian values" and brought out most of the Christian voters in the South. It's known that they're the ones who brought him to victory, and a lot of Christians I talked to voted for him because he had "good values".
Another reason he won was because a lot of Americans didn't want to switch presidents in the middle of a war.
But this thread isn't about how or why he got elected :p
-
Another reason he won was because a lot of Americans didn't want to switch presidents in the middle of a war
Despite the fact that the US is not really at war.
And because the electorate were far too stupid to see that was exactly what he was doing.
Bingo. :)
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Despite the fact that the US is not really at war.
Er...then what were we doing in Iraq when we attacked? Taking the Iraqi soldiers out for a picnic?
Sure, the administration might say that we're not at war right now, but we are, and everyone else knows it. We are fighting a guirrillae (spelling?) war in Iraq right now.
-
Er...then what were we doing in Iraq when we attacked? Taking the Iraqi soldiers out for a picnic?
There was no declaration of war. In fact the administration went out of its way NOT to declare war.
-
Just because they haven't declared it doesn't mean we're not at war. Everyone else considers us "at war" but the administration doesn't want to come out and say it.
-
I can't help but wonder why a President is rewarded for starting a war with a fairly decrepit, non-threatening country with another 4 years.....
Mind you, so was Tony Blair (66 seat majority with 36% of the vote - WTF!?), so us British voters aren't much brighter either....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I can't help but wonder why a President is rewarded for starting a war with a fairly decrepit, non-threatening country with another 4 years.....
Mind you, so was Tony Blair (66 seat majority with 36% of the vote - WTF!?), so us British voters aren't much brighter either....
Agreed. What kind of democracy is that?
The only reason left for the war is now: "Saddam is an evil man".
That's an oppinion. You can't start a war because you don't like somebody.
They lied to the the american people. They said there was a proof for the weapons of mass destruction. They knew it was a lie before.
How can anybody vote for Bush again? :mad:
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
Agreed. What kind of democracy is that?
The only reason left for the war is now: "Saddam is an evil man".
That's an oppinion. You can't start a war because you don't like somebody.
They lied to the the american people. They said there was a proof for the weapons of mass destruction. They knew it was a lie before.
How can anybody vote for Bush again? :mad:
I could almost have accepted the war if the basis was that Saddam was a bit of an evil ****er.
But even then, the worlds not exactly short of them, and more than a few are propped up by the US (being the largest country and hence able to do so; the UK can't, so we haven't really done so... that i can think of at least).
The whole war, even from a domestic perspective only, was a betrayal... Of the people, who should rightfully be able to expect an honest government, and of the troops, who shouldn't be made to risk their lives on the back of a lie. It pisses me off, because I feel like theirs millions of voices crying out for a say, and being ignored.
This is going a mite OT, though. Perhaps I can tie in the two :D...
I think... it's interesting that the US is perhaps introducing protectionist trade, yet the satellite state of Iraq has one of the most 'open' markets in the world.
-
You all are aware that the Chinese Yuan is deliberately undervalued by up to 40% versus the US dollar, right? Considering the trade that goes on between the two that is a simply immense imbalance towards China. China is on the brink of achieving 'currency manipulator' status due to this. And you guys are saying the US is in the wrong over this?
Seriously kids, stop the reflexive anti-Americanism. It's possible that someone else is guilty.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
You all are aware that the Chinese Yuan is deliberately undervalued by up to 40% versus the US dollar, right? Considering the trade that goes on between the two that is a simply immense imbalance towards China.
This is only a temporary action to stabilize China's economy.
And just because China does this, it doesn't mean every country should do so.
I'm not anti-American. I like America. I just think nobody will benefit from this action.
-
The problem with chinese imports is not that they are cheap or whatever...
The fact is that they churn out cheap imitations of high quality, pricey stuff.
That's what hurts the businesses most, here in EU we suffer the hell out of it as it takes revenue out of the legitimate maker and hits the maker's image as the chinese stuff is not quite the same when we talk about quality...
It would be more complicated but a lot more honest if the restrictions were imposed on these products, that way jobs are saved and cunsumers gets chep stuff if they want it...
*NOTE: chinese items on the market are a 20 years old thing, what we're seeing is a side effect of WTO acceptance that made exporting stuff a lot easier for them...
**Rant: no one is clean, everyone tries to create products very similar to foreign stuff, don't get me started on it as we italians are a bit "upset" (read: outraged) when we see stuff like "parmesan" and so on...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Mind you, so was Tony Blair (66 seat majority with 36% of the vote - WTF!?), so us British voters aren't much brighter either....
Never said they were. At least they didn't increase his majority though. Shows at least some rational thought is getting through (Or at least that the sheep are bleeting more than one set of rhetoric at a time).
-
Our electoral systems unrepresentative, that's our problem. US has the same problem too, AFAIK; particularly the whole electoral college thing.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Never said they were. At least they didn't increase his majority though. Shows at least some rational thought is getting through (Or at least that the sheep are bleeting more than one set of rhetoric at a time).
Majoritary system with proportional quota... Favours political stability and at the same time gives a better chance to smaller parties to get some voice...
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
You know how much they pay Chinese workers? It's, like, $5 per T-shirt or something. Then that shirt gets sold here for about $80-$100. If that's not getting ripped off, I don't know what is. The companies that make these things could probably survive a move to the US.
no, thats good business practices right there. were talking an unskilled labor force that can live off less, making stuff to sell to those , overtaxed americans who are used to buying stuff at that price anyway. The 75 dollars like company makes goes to paying for their expenses company wide, so americans can keep getting their ****. getting rid of the sanctions would improve the situation of the chinese worker, because american companies would have to reduce their price for their shirt cuz of competetive pressures, and chinese workers would be gettin less ripped off so to speak. saying the chinese workers are getting ripped off is just stupid, thats the way its worked for centuries, make **** at low price and sell it high as you can, and what your saying is that chinese industry should shoot itself in the foot because its trying to make money
-
I'm against protectionist policies like this... mostly. What I would say however is that just because the poor have always been trampled on for the sake of global profits, does not mean it should always be that way, Drew.
-
What...?
The US is imposing the new regulations on China, not China imposing the regulations on themselves. So...when it costs more to import Chinese goods, you're saying that the American companies are going to pay them more? Huh? What're you trying to say?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
What...?
The US is imposing the new regulations on China, not China imposing the regulations on themselves. So...when it costs more to import Chinese goods, you're saying that the American companies are going to pay them more? Huh? What're you trying to say?
i dunno where you got that idea, but i was just responding to a statment that was already random and off the wall and didnt really have anything to do with the thread topic.
-
Originally posted by Drew
no, thats good business practices right there. were talking an unskilled labor force that can live off less, making stuff to sell to those , overtaxed americans who are used to buying stuff at that price anyway. The 75 dollars like company makes goes to paying for their expenses company wide, so americans can keep getting their ****. getting rid of the sanctions would improve the situation of the chinese worker, because american companies would have to reduce their price for their shirt cuz of competetive pressures, and chinese workers would be gettin less ripped off so to speak. saying the chinese workers are getting ripped off is just stupid, thats the way its worked for centuries, make **** at low price and sell it high as you can, and what your saying is that chinese industry should shoot itself in the foot because its trying to make money
Crikey. Calm down and try punctuation for a sec, eh?
Presumably by the same extent it's perfectly fine to pay 12 year olds in Pakistan a pound a day to stitch footballs?
-
Originally posted by Drew
i dunno where you got that idea, but i was just responding to a statment that was already random and off the wall and didnt really have anything to do with the thread topic.
If you bothered to try to comprehend my post, you''d see that it was on topic and replying to another post.
That, and aldo makes a good point.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I can't help but wonder why a President is rewarded for starting a war with a fairly decrepit, non-threatening country with another 4 years.....
Mind you, so was Tony Blair (66 seat majority with 36% of the vote - WTF!?), so us British voters aren't much brighter either....
Don't be so quick to think that Saddam was a two bit dictator. Considering his actions in the past and the fact that he was sitting on emense oil reserves which would give him emense amounts of cash. That cash could plausibly finance a build up in his forces.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Don't be so quick to think that Saddam was a two bit dictator. Considering his actions in the past and the fact that he was sitting on emense oil reserves which would give him emense amounts of cash. That cash could plausibly finance a build up in his forces.
If it wasn't for sanctions.
Both Hans Blix, the war, and the subsequent failure to find WMD have shown sanctions had been effective - despite abuse for financial gain - in preventing Iraq having WMD or a 'threatening' military.
Saddam may have been a threat in the past, but there was no way in hell he was a threat after the 1991 Gulf War, and certainly not in a way that required war.
-
I find it amusing that people fell for the same propaganda as in WW2.
Generally speaking, Fear.
In WW2, most fighting countries used fear. For example the American government supposedly allowed Pearl Harbour to happen to gain the support of its people. Plus if you look at alot of the propaganda posters and radio telecasts back then it was all about fear of the German and Japanese Empire.
Compare it to today. 9/11 presented an oppertunity to the American Government. It motivated the Weapons of Mass Destruction story, which was used to generate fear to gain the support of the people. A great deal of the governments speeches concerning WMD was all about fear of Terrorists.
For the most part each major media broadcast in each country is usually influenced in some part by the government. Each has a varying degree of influence but its usually always there in some form or another.
China is fighting a silent war IMO. Why go to war when you can conquer a nation with economics.
Trade tarrifs etc are quite common in the world. I don't really see the big deal about this one either. It makes perfect sense that America should want to at least slow its debt increase with China. It's one of the more intelligent things I've seen the US administration do in a long time.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If it wasn't for sanctions.
Both Hans Blix, the war, and the subsequent failure to find WMD have shown sanctions had been effective - despite abuse for financial gain - in preventing Iraq having WMD or a 'threatening' military.
Saddam may have been a threat in the past, but there was no way in hell he was a threat after the 1991 Gulf War, and certainly not in a way that required war.
I am speaking in the long run. Eventually countries like France, Russia and Germany would have pushed for the sanctions to be lifted.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I am speaking in the long run. Eventually countries like France, Russia and Germany would have pushed for the sanctions to be lifted.
Or Saddam might have been ousted in a coup. You can't declare a justifiable casus belli based upon one thing that might happen in the future. Even if all 3 pushed for sanctions to be lifted (and didn't Rumsfeld also push for sanctions to be lifted during the Clinton years? Clearly didn't regard it as that much of a threat), the US could probably veto it in the Security Council. It's also IMO highly unlikely they would have pushed for the removal of sanctions given the political reaction it would have generated.
Every nation is a potential threat in the long run, if you make the necessary assumptions and guesses.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Or Saddam might have been ousted in a coup. You can't declare a justifiable casus belli based upon one thing that might happen in the future. Even if all 3 pushed for sanctions to be lifted (and didn't Rumsfeld also push for sanctions to be lifted during the Clinton years? Clearly didn't regard it as that much of a threat), the US could probably veto it in the Security Council. It's also IMO highly unlikely they would have pushed for the removal of sanctions given the political reaction it would have generated.
Every nation is a potential threat in the long run, if you make the necessary assumptions and guesses.
On the subject of a coup, I doubt there would have been one since the last time there was one attempted we removed our support at the last minute. ****ing Clinton.
The US vetoing a UN resolution to remove sanctions would entirely depend on the administration in power.
But, the point I was trying to make is that he should not be discounted as a 2 bit dictator.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
On the subject of a coup, I doubt there would have been one since the last time there was one attempted we removed our support at the last minute. ****ing Clinton.
The US vetoing a UN resolution to remove sanctions would entirely depend on the administration in power.
But, the point I was trying to make is that he should not be discounted as a 2 bit dictator.
Why?
Maybe not in the 80s, but in the 90s and 2000s he was definately a 2-bit dictator. Doesn't mean he wasn't a bastard, but in terms of actually posing an immenent threat..... there was none. IMO Saddam was about as dangerous to the US as Zimbabwe or Uzbekhistan.
You cannot justify a war on the basis of an immenent threat, when that threat is based on solely what might happen, if the right conditions occured.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Why?
Maybe not in the 80s, but in the 90s and 2000s he was definately a 2-bit dictator. Doesn't mean he wasn't a bastard, but in terms of actually posing an immenent threat..... there was none. IMO Saddam was about as dangerous to the US as Zimbabwe or Uzbekhistan.
You cannot justify a war on the basis of an immenent threat, when that threat is based on solely what might happen, if the right conditions occured.
I am not using that to justify the war. However, with oil reserves in the middle east dwindling I would see the sanctions lifted and the amount of money flowing into his control would be huge and dangerous, I do see something having to be done. This is based on what he had done in the past as well.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I am not using that to justify the war. However, with oil reserves in the middle east dwindling I would see the sanctions lifted and the amount of money flowing into his control would be huge and dangerous, I do see something having to be done. This is based on what he had done in the past as well.
That's a bloody big assumption to go to war on. I would have thought it'd make more sense to agressively campaign to expand the oil-for-food program and in doing so add in more safeguards against the firms & individuals (which included US as well as European, etc ) abusing it.
Certainly I doubt there would be, in any case, any form of viable cause for war until it was proven that rearmament was taking place.
Otherwise it would be fair justification to attack any country which had or discovered significant natural resources, on the basis that the money might be used to build a large military, which might be used aggressively, if the wrong person was in charge at that time.
In the period of 1991-2003, i don't think Saddam posed any form of military threat to the United States, or even to his neighbours. Whether or not he may have posed a threat in 2010 is irrelevant; you don't convict people for crimes they could commit.
-
Iraq borders Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, all of which have militaries far inferior to America's. And yet, somehow, none of these countries were afrad of Saddam and his thousands upon thousands of nukes. None of them particularly liked Saddam, with the possibe exception of Syria, but none were afraid of him. And yet, the United States, supposedly the world's strongest military and half a world away, was.
Venezuela buys 100,000 AKs to replace their 40-year old weaponry, and suddenly it's the end of the world. Really tells you something about the atmosphere or fear and paranoia which is pervasive in the US.
The risk of Country A being attacked by the US, where Country A is any country on Earth excluding the major military powers, is far greater than the opposite.
-
the only reason we went to war in Iraq was because it was an easy sell to US citizens.
that's it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's a bloody big assumption to go to war on. I would have thought it'd make more sense to agressively campaign to expand the oil-for-food program and in doing so add in more safeguards against the firms & individuals (which included US as well as European, etc ) abusing it.
Certainly I doubt there would be, in any case, any form of viable cause for war until it was proven that rearmament was taking place.
Otherwise it would be fair justification to attack any country which had or discovered significant natural resources, on the basis that the money might be used to build a large military, which might be used aggressively, if the wrong person was in charge at that time.
In the period of 1991-2003, i don't think Saddam posed any form of military threat to the United States, or even to his neighbours. Whether or not he may have posed a threat in 2010 is irrelevant; you don't convict people for crimes they could commit.
The difference between him and other 2 bit dictators was the proven propensity to invade others for reasons of greed. As for the oil for food, do we actually have any proof that this money was actually spent on food? Was it distributed evenly? Was the money from oil for food just horded in Saddam's coffers? Is it being used now to fund the insurgency in Iraq? Put simply you can install safegaurds, but as long as people wish to line their own pockets, there would always have been some sort of corruption either by saddam or UN officials or their friends and relatives.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
The difference between him and other 2 bit dictators was the proven propensity to invade others. As for the oil for food, do we actually have any proof that this money was actually spent on food? Was it distributed evenly? Was the money from oil for food just horded in Saddam's coffers? Is it being used now to fund the insurgency in Iraq? Put simply you can install safegaurds, but as long as people wish to line their own pockets, there would always have been some sort of corruption either by saddam or UN officials or their friends and relatives.
Actually, I already pointed out that I'd expect any drive to expand oil-for-food would of course require further safeguards (althought I wonder if the US would do so, as 4 US oil companies were implicated in the scandal).
The success of oil-for-food is debated, partly because discrediting it is a useful way to justify the invasion of Iraq and is also useful in attacking political opponents within the UN or nations oppossed to the war.
The US & UK (in 2001) partly helped in this by bankrupting the programme; using their influence (within the comitte running the programme) in order to setup a system where oil buyers had commit to buy oil without knowing the price beforehand (causing a collapse in oil sales). At the same time no-one - including the US - acted to police the well-known Iraq-Jordan smuggling route.
Despite corruption and abuse (it was estimated by the GAO that Iraq made $5.7bn through smuggling in 1997-2001), the programme did have a humanitarian impact; upon its former termination in 11/03, it had delivered $31bn humanitarian aid - between 97 & 2002 the nutritional value of the food basket delivered almost doubled from 1,200 to 2,200 calories per day per person, communicatable diseases (malaria, cholera) were reduced , electricity become more reliable, and more drinkable water was available.
As for Saddams propsensity to invade others; he didn't have the military capability to do so. The situation as it was all through the last and this decade, was that he was unable to gain arms to even be capable of invading another country. And even if he had wished to, he would have been in no doubt of the response from the US and allies (in a far more coherant, legal way than what transpired).
I would note that Iraqs war against Iran was supported directly by the US; as well as providing weapons & satellite images, they also allowed Iraqi oil tankers to fly the US flag (and thus they would be protected from Iranian attack). The later invasion of Kuwait was partly due to an $14bn debt owed to that country (as well as nationalist ambitions - Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British created the state), and Iraq was not aware the US would oppose it (they were told George W Bush would veto any sanctions congress set against Iraq, and that the US position was that they had 'no stance').
Clearly, the political situation was far less amenable for the Iraqis after the 1991 Gulf War; whilst their prior wars were waged with either tacit approval, or the anticipation of disinterest (Kuwait invasion), Saddam would now know that any aggressive invasion would result in a military response. Having been utterly decimated in 91, I doubt Saddam would have wished to risk it again - he's a tyrant, but not suicidal. IMO the only war Saddam could have contemplated without fear of the US would be against Iran.
-
If we look closely at the timeline, and the weeks leading to Iraq´s invasion of Iran, it becomes clear Saddam did so with 2 objectives in mind:
To secure the large iranian oil sources was one.
To secure and legitimize his own govt. was the other. Saddam declared war on Iran at the US´s behalf. The rise of the Ayatollahs had Washington spooked, wich is why several diplomatic missions were conducted by the US, to secure support from Saddam in overthrowing the iranian regime. Who doesn´t remember the infamous hand shake of Rummsfeld and Saddam?
Or the fact that the US blocked any efforts from the international community to condemn the supposed chemical attack on the kurds. The US wanted Saddam to thrive.
The war with Iran was not an attempt on territorial conquest, far from it. Saddam did it because he would be rewarded by the US aknowledging his rule over Iraq. The oil was a bonus that he needed just as bad, but that he would not cmpromise his rule unless he knew he had his back covered.
As for the Kuwait invasion, we can reason that Kuwait was infact part of Iraq. And after a decade of war, Iraq was bankrupt, and he was left out to dry by his former buddies in the White House.
The point being, that neither of those 2 wars were a direct consequence of Saddam´s desire for conquest. He was a tyrant yes. He was ruthless, yes. But stupid he was not, nor was he a power hungry madman waging war left and right. I seriously doubt he would have lift a finger against anyone, after the Gulf War.
-
As per the US actions during the Iran-Iraq war, I don't agree with them except to say that we were still in the cold war mentality(meaning we were helping him incase the communists became more active in the Middle east)
But, basically I am saying that because of his propensity to invade others, and if sanctions were ever lifted (which would depend on the administration; think Jimmy Carter) he would be dangerous. And it is this that I come to the conclusion that he is not just a 2-bit dictator. That doesn't mean going to war with him though. But, when we invade he posed absolutly no threat to anyone except those in his own country.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
As per the US actions during the Iran-Iraq war, I don't agree with them except to say that we were still in the cold war mentality(meaning we were helping him incase the communists became more active in the Middle east)
But, basically I am saying that because of his propensity to invade others, and if sanctions were ever lifted (which would depend on the administration; think Jimmy Carter) he would be dangerous. And it is this that I come to the conclusion that he is not just a 2-bit dictator. That doesn't mean going to war with him though. But, when we invade he posed absolutly no threat to anyone except those in his own country.
I would define a 2-bit dictator as one who, as well as the usual trappings of dictatorship, may have empirical/expansionist aims but which crucially which he is unable to act upon. By that context, I would define Saddam as a 2-bit dictator.
Whether he would or would not seek an aggressive rebuilding and militaristic expansion of Iraq, if given the chance, is neither here nor there, as these are based on possibilities and scenarios which are inherently unpredictable. Were Saddam to begin to do so (although this of course is now impossible), then I'd no longer 'rank' him as a 2-bit dictator.
EDIT; 2-bit with respect to international context. There are a lot of completely and utterly nuts dictators who destroyed their whole country, but in terms of threat to the outside would be seen as '2-bit'.
-
None of them particularly liked Saddam, with the possibe exception of Syria,
Syria didn't like him either. The Ba'ath party in Syria and that Ba'ath party in Iraq have had a feud going for many, many years.
2-bit with respect to international context. There are a lot of completely and utterly nuts dictators who destroyed their whole country, but in terms of threat to the outside would be seen as '2-bit'.
So does that make Bush a 64 bit semi-dictator? :p