The 1980s was before Iraq invaded Kuwait, before Saddam slaughtered his own people, and prior to at least 10 years of defying UN sanctions and orders to allow arms inspections. Maybe you are in the same camp as this Congresswoman:
"The 1980s was before Saddam slaughtered his own people."
Oh really? I thought that whole trial that ended in his execution was on charges that Saddam "slaughtered his own people" back in 1982. Or were those trumped up charges?
I am referring to these attacks in 1991 and after: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/uprisings.stm
And you don't disagree that early on Saddam opposed Islamic extremists? That the Gulf War began in 1990 after Saddam attacked Kuwait? That Saddam ignored UN requests beginning in 1990, which forced our hand to enforce them in 2003? My bad, Iraq ignored sanctions for 12 years, not 10.
As this photo shows pre Gulf War 1, Saddam was very much a creature of US making. He was our surrogate in the war against Iran. Our ambassador even gave him the implicate go ahead to invade Kuwait, IIRC.
And using WorldNetDaily as a 'news' source is like watching to the Fox Noise Channel for balanced commentary. Both are bought and paid for propaganda arms of the White House Thought Police.
Bush and Reagan acted appropriately on all available info at the time. You can't use hindsight for criticism; otherwise, we'd all always make the correct decisions.
Yes, Anonymous, the United States has never supported a horrible dictator despite knowing how evil he is. Except for Saddam, Batista, Pinochet, the Shah, Rios Montt, Trujillo, Diem, etc., etc., etc.
To say that Reagan and Bush "acted appropriately on all available info" is putting your head in the sand and wishing for a different reality. They knew exactly what kind of person Saddam was and they were more than OK with it until he no longer would cooperate with them.
I just looked at your declassified reports, and I still do not see major conflicts of interest until the late 80s. Welcome to the big leagues where sometimes you have to work with the perceived lesser of many evils or with the ones that support your interests. Seriously, at what ages did you stop sucking from mommy's breast?
LOL, yes, I have changed my tune, not because of your arguments and supporting quotes, but because of that pic...smartass.
Seriously, the US and Britain have been involved in Iraq since after WWII, so why do you find it surprising that the US has relations with Iraq from that point until now? And I think we all under-estimate the complexity of these relations. For example, if you want to maintain a positive relationship with a country because it contains valuable resources and is key to regional stability, then you have to work with who's in power short of invading.
From reading government docs, it looks like the US and Rumsfeld tried to maintain relations with Saddam while keeping him from gaining access to and illegally using chemical weapons and from encroaching on his neighbors through military action. But Saddam was too radical and followed his own border-expanding policies which required sanctions and eventually invasion.
Check out these interesting historical US-Iraq documents for context: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/iraq.htm
The 1980s was before Iraq invaded Kuwait, before Saddam slaughtered his own people, and prior to at least 10 years of defying UN sanctions and orders to allow arms inspections. Maybe you are in the same camp as this Congresswoman:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30114
Did you think you could just copy and paste into your little blog and that we would duhhhh buy it?
"The 1980s was before Saddam slaughtered his own people."
ReplyDeleteOh really? I thought that whole trial that ended in his execution was on charges that Saddam "slaughtered his own people" back in 1982. Or were those trumped up charges?
I am referring to these attacks in 1991 and after: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/uprisings.stm
ReplyDeleteAnd you don't disagree that early on Saddam opposed Islamic extremists? That the Gulf War began in 1990 after Saddam attacked Kuwait? That Saddam ignored UN requests beginning in 1990, which forced our hand to enforce them in 2003? My bad, Iraq ignored sanctions for 12 years, not 10.
As this photo shows pre Gulf War 1, Saddam was very much a creature of US making. He was our surrogate in the war against Iran. Our ambassador even gave him the implicate go ahead to invade Kuwait, IIRC.
ReplyDeleteAnd using WorldNetDaily as a 'news' source is like watching to the Fox Noise Channel for balanced commentary. Both are bought and paid for propaganda arms of the White House Thought Police.
Bush and Reagan acted appropriately on all available info at the time. You can't use hindsight for criticism; otherwise, we'd all always make the correct decisions.
ReplyDeleteYes, Anonymous, the United States has never supported a horrible dictator despite knowing how evil he is. Except for Saddam, Batista, Pinochet, the Shah, Rios Montt, Trujillo, Diem, etc., etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteTo say that Reagan and Bush "acted appropriately on all available info" is putting your head in the sand and wishing for a different reality. They knew exactly what kind of person Saddam was and they were more than OK with it until he no longer would cooperate with them.
I just looked at your declassified reports, and I still do not see major conflicts of interest until the late 80s. Welcome to the big leagues where sometimes you have to work with the perceived lesser of many evils or with the ones that support your interests. Seriously, at what ages did you stop sucking from mommy's breast?
ReplyDeleteOh wow... that's quite the image.
ReplyDeleteLOL, yes, I have changed my tune, not because of your arguments and supporting quotes, but because of that pic...smartass.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, the US and Britain have been involved in Iraq since after WWII, so why do you find it surprising that the US has relations with Iraq from that point until now? And I think we all under-estimate the complexity of these relations. For example, if you want to maintain a positive relationship with a country because it contains valuable resources and is key to regional stability, then you have to work with who's in power short of invading.
From reading government docs, it looks like the US and Rumsfeld tried to maintain relations with Saddam while keeping him from gaining access to and illegally using chemical weapons and from encroaching on his neighbors through military action. But Saddam was too radical and followed his own border-expanding policies which required sanctions and eventually invasion.
Check out these interesting historical US-Iraq documents for context:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/iraq.htm
I've seen that pic numerous times, but now that Rummie is out I want to ask: who's that standing next to Rummie?
ReplyDeleteThat is an excellent question. I'll bet that guy's been mixed up in some bad things.
ReplyDelete