Talk:Saddam Hussein – United States relations

More on the opportunistic support of the USA for Saddam Hussein

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)

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)

WordWeb offers the following definition: alliance: A connection based on kinship or marriage or common interest. There was undoubtedly a common interest. So I will amend the lead section appropriately. — eon, 17:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They did ally indeed, but how do you differentiate between long-term alliance and short-term alliance? that's why IMO saying "alliance of convenience" would be more accurate. Imad marie (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We need not sugarcoat words to get the point across. This article does a good job of informing people when the alliance ended, and why it ended (annexation of Kuwait). What is good enough for Allies of World War II should be good enough for this page too. — eon, 19:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED! SADDAM cannot be called HUSSEIN because that is NOT his family name, that is his FATHER'S FIRST NAME. You can check that from several sources. He has to be called either Saddam Hussein or Saddam. If his name was Hussein Saddam, then you could call him Hussein. You can also see in the main article of Saddam that he is never called Hussein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.60.105 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have added the second quote. Dynablaster (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

should be redirect to Iraq–United States relations

There is already an article Iraq–United States relations, which would be far more appropriate for the content presented here. The problems with this article begin already with the title, as they suggest that the US had special relations with Saddam, not with Iraq. Or to put it another way - would we have a separate article on Josef Stalin-United States relations or Adolf Hitler-United relations? Furthermore, the first paragraph makes already clear that there will be no NPOV in this article. Claims by diplomats etc. are equated with a confirmation as if the existence of a Hussein-U.S. alliance etc is an established fact. It doesnt help that the references given are from a dubious news organization, respectively an opion piece. I guess this first paragraph, that tries to make the case for that Saddam Hussein was as instrument (a CIA stooge?) for more than 40 years, is needed to justify the existence of this article under this title. The best solution would be redirect to Iraq–United States relations, and if not a complete rewrite is needed that get rid of all rumours and uncomfired claims. Novidmarana (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the two articles should be merged, and I have suggested this here.

I disagree that this article is based on rumors, US aid to Iraq in general or Saddam in particular is a fact. Imad marie (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So I redirected, nothing of the material here is worth merging as Iraq–United States relations covers the material discussed here in a (slightly) more neutral way without subscribing to the idea that Saddam Hussein was a stooge of the US.

I did not say that the article is based on rumours, I said that the article contains rumours and unconfirmed claims and does not give any space to oppossing views (the talk page discussion above make that abundantly clear). Novidmarana (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is material to merge. I will add the merge tag so that me and other editors will have the time to merge the articles. Imad marie (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS ULTRA CRAPPY AND WRITTEN LIKE AN AD FOR PRO AMERICA. Tag with something like 'biased needs to be rewritten'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benindigo (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE POINT IN MERGING THE ARTICLES TOGETHER...SADDAM IS DEAD, THERE IS A "NEW" IRAQ, SO ANY FUTURE TRADES BETWEEN IRAQ AND THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE NOTED IN THIS ARTICLE AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SADDAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlovG (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose merger for the reason expressed by the last editor. This article deals more thoroughly with a with specific period in Iraq's history. Plus there are no space constraints here. Dynablaster (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger. These are two different topics. The United States relations with Iraq and Saddam are separate issues. The relation with Iraq is not the same as relationships between a dictator and his supporters.--Orionpilot (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I too disagree with the merger. Having read the article I don't think any overt US bias exists (I say that as I non-US citizen and staunch critic of the Iraq war by the way). The article goes into considerable depth on an issue that wouldn't have sufficient space in the main parent article. Fronto (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kuwait pre-Invasion

Donald Schmidt's book, The Folly Of War: American Foreign Policy, 1898-2004, deals with U.S. relations with Saddam Hussein during the Kuwait pre-Invasion period (see this diff). I think it is important to include voices that disagree with those who suspect the U.S. gave Saddam authority and permission to proceed with the invasion (a "green light"). And Schmidt offers a different explanation for why Saddam ultimately decided to invade. Dynablaster (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection. Regardless of the reason why Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, the Kuwaitis were arrogant, or Saddam wanted more oil, or he wanted more sea shores, regardless of all this; Saddam got a green light from the US. So what does the arrogance of the Kuwaiti has to do with Saddam-US relations? I fail to find the connection. Imad marie (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The implication is that Saddam would not have moved to invade Kuwait had the United States sent a clear message, warning him not to do so. But both Tariq Aziz and Donald Schmidt offer reasons why this might not be so. Schmidt says Saddam was so angry with what the Kuwaitis had said about Iraq, that he immediately ordered an invasion (the quoted passage is found on the very same page as his analysis of April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam [1] ), and Aziz says that Saddam expected an American military response. Again, I think we should allow for multiple interpretations, however I did not want to burden the main body with yet another quote, so I placed this one alongside the reference. Dynablaster (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the relation is obvious for the reader, maybe you need to elaborate more in the paragraph to show the relation. Imad marie (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is some interesting information in this video I knew the British and French had trained Iraqi armed forces on home soil, including officer training at Sandhurst, however according to Barry Lando, Saddam's special forces also received training on U.S. soil. Iraqi soldiers trained with the Green Berets in America. They kept that quiet. Dynablaster (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirected to Iraq – United States relations

There is no such thing as Saddam Hussein-United States relations. The US had relations with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, not with Saddam Hussein personally so the proper place for this article is at Iraq – United States relations. As it happens the Iraq – United States relations relations does a better job at maintaining POV, with better sources and a more even-handed handling of the material. The introduction of this article makes it already clear that NPOV is not the goal as it presents one point of view as a fact (and United Press International is not exactly a reliable source). The article then goes on, various mixing rumours and claims that are mainly presenting the one POV that Saddam Hussein was a puppet of the US, ignoring the other POV that there was a strong element of realpolitik in Iraqi-US relations. Anyway, given that this has been brought up repeatedly by other editors in the past, that nothing has really happened, not a cleanup or some efforts of introducing NPOV and realiable sources into the article, a redirect is finally in order. Pantherskin (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You can press for merger if you wish, but need to follow procedure, tagging the two main articles and allowing for users to have their say. Dynablaster (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to merge, then to you need make merge efforts, not just delete this article by putting a redirect link.

The merge tag was here for a long time. Besides, I did not say anything about merge as the content of this article is an unsalvagable POV mess, as has been pointed out by several other editors before. Pantherskin (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus, dictator that ruled Iraq for 24 years, certainly had personal diplomatic relations with the US.Imad marie (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such as thing as personal diplomatic relations. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, you said that "I believe there is material to merge. I will add the merge tag so that me and other editors will have the time to merge the articles" one year ago and nothing has happened - well, apart from you removing the merge tag a month ago. One more reason to redirect then. Pantherskin (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No consensus to merge. User Pantherskin may find agreement if (s)he follows procedure. There is some reliably sourced information on this article not present on the other. This needs to be done properly. Dynablaster (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, maybe you should read this talk page. Several editors have explained why this article has no place on Wikipedia and should be redirect (not merged) to US-Iraqi relations. Almost a year has passed since one editor promised to transfer salvagable information into the US-Iraqi relations article, but nothing has happened. That suggests that there is no savagable information or that this was a bad faith promise to buy time. And stop claiming that there is a procedure that has to be followed to redirect an article to the appropriate title. Pantherskin (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC

There was clearly no consensus to merge. Now, if blanking reliably sourced information is deemed controversial, which in this case it is, then you are required to start a discussion on the talk page, otherwise editors are perfectly entitled to revert. Read the guideline: WP:MM Dynablaster (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Preparation for merge/redirect

Some content deleted that was either POV or not reliably sourced, such as for example everything sourced to United Press International, the media outlet of the Moon church. Hardly a reliable source, even if it would be properly used as a source - that is claims by (anonymous) individuals in the UPI article wouldnt be presented as historical fact as has been done in this article. Wikipedia is not the place for conspiracy theories, and in particular any extraordinary claims require outstanding reliable sources. Pantherskin (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

UPI is an established media outlet. The owner is irrelevant. Sun Myung Moon was a friend of Ronald Reagan and is also a friend of George Bush. I can't strike out every media outlet belonging to Rupert Murdoch just because I don't like him! Dynablaster (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please address the issue I have raised here instead of reintroducing dubious and misleading information in the article. UPI has the expressed purpose to further the goals of the Unification Church, it is neither an independent media outlet, nor does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accurate news coverage. If this information is true, you should have no problem finding the same information in reputable sources, remember that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and UPI is not exceptional but fringe. Pantherskin (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Both UPI and The Washington Times are media outlets of News World Communications, owed by Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church. I see no evidence that their coverage is deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community. It is just one of many Conservative media outlets across the United States. Saying UPI is an unreliable source is circular; you are merely assuming what you are required to prove. Dynablaster (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should seek advice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? Oh, I see you have already done it. Dynablaster (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Moon sect is controversial, and correspondingly their media outlet which serves the express purpose of furthering the goals of the church (according to Moon himself) is not a reliable source. It is not a mainstream source, and it not even just another conservative media outlet. And we wouldnt even accept a conservative media outlet as the sole source for exceptional claims.... You also failed to address the point that the UPI article attributes claims to individuals whereas this article represents these claims as historical facts. Pantherskin (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your second point. Controversial views should always be attributed to individuals and/or press sources who make them. And, yes, it is indeed unquestionably true that other sources say there was no early connection between Saddam Hussein and the CIA; others arguing that there was a connection, but that it has been greatly exaggerated. Elsewhere -- namely, the Kuwait pre-Invasion section -- the information is notable, solidly sourced, and takes into consideration different points of view. I will be looking to incorporate this information into the other article, should this one be rejected. Dynablaster (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the pre-invasion part of the article, but the excessive quotes should be culled and more weight should be given to Tariq Aziz relative to the opinions of those authors who can only draw indirect inference as they were not participants. Pantherskin (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pantherskin, what are you objecting to here? or what do you think is a conspiracy theory here? That diffirent US government appeased Saddam? Is this not a fact? are not all the sources listed in the article (NYT, Reuters, Boston News, CBS news, etc..) enough for you to believe that Saddam was appeased by the US at a period of time? Imad marie (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that the sources do not support the claims made in the article. Start with the first sentence. First source: UPI - not a reliable source. Second source: Boston Globe. Looks reliable at first glance, but if you actually click on the Boston Globe link you will see that it is an op-ed, a clear violation of WP:RS which says that "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact". Besides, even if UPI would be a reliable source the first sentence depicts the appeasement of Saddam Hussein as an historical fact, instead of describing it as an opinion. The article then goes on like this, variously citing unrealiable sources or depicting claims and opinions by individuals cited in reliable sources as historical fact. And I am even ignoring that it cherry-picks its sources to further one particular point of view. NPOV and RS are not optional Pantherskin (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)