Why did the US originally put Sadam Hussien in power years ago?
479626
A year after Saddam had joined the Ba'ath party, army officers led by General Abdul Karim Qassim overthrew Faisal II of Iraq. The Ba'athists opposed the new government, and in 1959, Saddam was involved in the attempted US backed plot to assassinate Prime Minister Qassim. He was sentenced to death, in absentia. Saddam studied law at the Cairo University during his exile.\n\nTorn by factionalism, however, the new government was ousted within eight months. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964 when an anti-Ba'ath group led by Abdul Rahman Arif took power. He escaped prison in 1967 and quickly came to be a leading member of the party. According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Ba'athist government, which informed his measures to promote party unity as well as his ruthless resolve to maintain power and programs to ensure social stability.\n\nIn July 1968 a second coup brought the Ba'athists back to power under General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, a Tikriti and a relative of Saddam, who by this time had become an interrogator and torturer at the infamous "Palace of the End," the cellar of the former palace of King Faisal II. The Ba'ath's ruling clique named Saddam vice-chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and vice president of Iraq.\n[edit]\n\nConsolidation of power\nSaddam Hussein talking with Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr\nEnlarge\nSaddam Hussein talking with Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr\n\nIn 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government. At the time Saddam was considered an enemy of communism and radical Islamism. Saddam was integral to U.S. policy in the region, a policy which sought to weaken the influence of Iran and the Soviet Union. As Iraq's weak and elderly President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr became increasingly unable to execute his duties, Saddam took on an increasingly prominent role as the face of the government both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. He was the de facto ruler of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon gained a powerful circle of support within the party.\n[edit]\n\nModernization\n\nSaddam consolidated power in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant. Stable rule in a country rife with factionalism required the improvement of living standards. Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.\n\nSaddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.\n\nAt the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam Hussein oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, had a monopoly on the country's oil. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 world oil shock, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.\n\nWithin just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and cont
123983
It is from the will of the people.  US became free from Great Britain because we went to war and got our independence.  In many countries, it is run by a dictator because it has always been like that.  Many Mideast countries have been run by dictators.  It is up to the people to risk their lives if they want to change their government.
475883
Actually it began with Afghanistan,and the war on terror. And the last time I checked, we were not in Iran. Last time I checked, these countries want to kill americans and have since the spineless jimmy carter president wouldnt do anything about IRAN taking US hostages.  It is so easy to blame Bush for everyone else's mistakes isnt it.And Michael Moore's movie is a load of crap. IMHO.
955653
Yes I do because at the battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December of 2001, we had Osama Bin Laden cornered, and rather than using Special Forces troops to either nab him or just kill him, our military paid Afghan War Lords to go after him, and god knows where he went or what happened. Point being, he got away. Ever since then, I think America has had a black eye because the rhetoric of our president after 9/11 was we're going to get him dead or alive, and it never amounted to what he promised.
1099887
The US had a presence there since 1950's, even before that if you count the OSS operatives during WWII. Our involvement was to stem the tide of Communism, and also to step in to fill the gap after the French were leaving to comply with the Geneva Accord of 1954. \n     In the context of the times, fighting Communism was a more important and justifiable pretext than oil. \n    It seems apparent that actual motives changed and got muddied as the scope of involvement became lengthy. \n    In the end, US objectives are actually beginning to be realized, and that area of the world moves to more of a self determined free-market based economy. It is a shame that there had to be so much suffering of the general population AFTER US withdrawal to see this come about. \n     I have read memoirs and interviews from former Viet Cong of how they were immediately disenfranchised when the South was overrun, (and they were on the same side as the North, and did much of the dying at the hands of the US!), so one can imagine how bad it must have been for the remainder of the population.
783267
Unfortunately, the Americans have the power to impose their way of life on the rest of the world, which is rather unpleasant if you are at the receiving end. The Europeans resent the fact that the US is the current bully in the schoolyard. History shows that there is always one dominating power which has the capacity to bully the rest of the world. However, these powers will eventually fall into corruption and decadence. See the history of the Roman empire as an example. When will it be the turn for the US to follow the same fate and which power will become the next bully?
1084897
WE ALL KNOW IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED THE USA. Pres. Saddam Hussein was trying to make sure the flow of oil to the Zionists and America wasn't as fluid as America would like. Hence the reason they got rid of him. The pretext of saving the Iraqi people from Saddam is nothing but a lie. Just like 9/11
759934
Sadam's Obviously. He had his nation under control regardless of his methods.Less people died.The American invasion has resulted in the deaths of more people than any weapon of mass destruction used by Sadam...ever!
933682
Remember we have a thousand year of history behind us and have survived and co-exsisited. Saddam was installed in power by the Americans. He was financed and armed by the US(to combat Iran). We now have another American puppet in power. Then we paid the price of America's mistakes and today again we are paying the price of America's mistakes with our lives. All we want is America to get out of Iraq and we will solve our own problems. The sectarian violence will not cease unless American's leave our country. They are doing more harm tham good with there presence. Dont they realise, we dont want there "democracy" or way of life. Just let us be. We dont need any help from the Americans. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW.
507665
Of course! Don't forget than Osama Bin Laden was trained in the USA in the early 80's. The american government needed a motive to declare the so-called "war against terrorism". And to succeed that it sacrificed its own people...
933931
What does 9/11 have to do with it? No Iraqis were involved in the World Trade Center attacks. \n\nThere really are not any good reasons. Sadam was a terrible person, but no more terrible than other dictators who have been supported by the US.  The Iraqis have a lot of oil, and it is true that when we got to IRaq we protected the oil fields before we protected the hospitals, power plants and waterworks. But they were already selling us the oil, so why attack to get it? It probably helped President Bush's image, but even George Bush is not a bad enough guy to sacrifice thousands of young American soldiers just to win an election. \nSo, there's really no reason at all. \nSad, isn't it?
423941
Why did the US support Saddam. Gave him money and weapons in the 80's
869833
Iran's government was a moderate republic. In order to keep the oil revenues at home to work for the country, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq worked to expel the foreign oil companies and nationalize the oil industry. The UK and US oil companies complained, and Eisenhower in 1953 sent in the CIA, which destablized the country and brought about a coup, installing the Shah. The Shah was brutal, his secret police killed off or scared off the moderate opposition, leaving the country quite radicalized.\n\nIf the US really believed in democracy and human rights, or even its own best long term interests, it would not have have done this.
210807
I think the way the whole thing was approached has been a complete disgrace.\n\nThe objective was to remove Sadaam Hussein as he was seen as a threat to world peace.  Wheteher it's right to remove a leader of a country is a different matter - personally in this case I think it was.\n\nBut how can removing one person result in the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and leave the country on the brink of civil war.\n\nIf they wanted Sadaam out why not send in small crack teams with the objective of removing him or was the whole thing more about gaining control in the country, installing an acceptable political system, having a foothold in the Middle East and securing oil interests.
841781
Yes, the United States of America and her allies must all pitch in and help rebuild Iraq. When Saddam Hussein first came into power, he was Mr. Nice Guy but once the 1980's came around, he went from being Mr. Nice Guy to becoming Mr. Not So Nice Guy and started to build palaces for himself and had his people live in ruins. Not that Hussein is no longer the President, Iraq is moving everyday towards democracy. If you want to hear the Truh of the Democracy taken shape in Iraq, I recommend that you watch a show titled The 700 Club.
25463
During the Cold War, many countries relied on the protective umbrella offered by the US which included troops on the ground to ensure a commitment to defend our friends if attacked.  It did keep the peace.  Now that that particular threat is over it is not surprising that many countries wish to be far more independent.  Perhaps they had to like or lump US foreign policy then, but not now.  Only time will tell whether the world is really less dangerous, especially if there is little protective cooperation against terrorism.  I believe the US has that right.
48666
Instability in the Middle East existed long before the United States did.