Skip to main content

View Diary: What happened to...? Unanswered Bush Administration Questions (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I find (none)
    the constant references to our support of Saddam in the 80's to be immensely boring and tiresome.

    So what?

    We did not want Iran to prevail in that war.  We did not want Saddam to prevail in that war.  We wanted them to pummel each other.

    The reason that Saddam gassed the Kurds was because they were displaying questionable patriotism.  We didn't complain at the time because Saddam was on the verge of losing the war, which we did not want.

    In fact, we probably supplied some of the battlefield munitions that were used against the Kurds.  

    But that doesn't mean that we are condemned to continue an immoral policy by supporting Iraq after the war was over.

    If we woke up one day and decided it was a mistake to support Saddam and that we now oppose him, there is no hypocrisy in that.

    Now some of the rhetoric has been hypocritical, but changing our position in not.

    With the millions of things to critisize this government and this war about, bitching about Saddam in the 80's is not a promising angle.

    They were Nazis, Walter?

    by BooMan23 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 09:09:07 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I would certainly not deny (4.00)
      your right to be bored with the fact that members of the current administration facilitated war crimes when they were members of previous administrations.  However, I do think that the American people should be aware of the facts.
      •  I agree (none)
        The American public should be aware that the Reagan administration was pro-Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war.  It should be aware that we may have provided Saddam with some WMD and then looked away when he used it.

        Actually, it's not really a secret, even if it has been grossly underreported.

        However, those facts do not give Saddam the right to do anything he wants in perpetuity.

        If he invaded Kuwait and took over the whole country, and began plundering...well, that might be something that changed the foreign policy establishment's view about the man, his regime, and our relationship to it.  No?

        We might consider that event as a fundamental change in the dynamics of our relationship.  No?

        I know there are theories about whether we encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait or not.  I don't really know.  We may have sent mixed signals.

        I certainly think that the Persian Gulf War was a mistake that has caused us a lot of headaches and mass civilian casualties.

        But the problem was not that we once favored Saddam.

        I'd also like to point out that Saddam's army was mostly Russian and French, not American.  We did supply him with sattelite imagery, and other logistical support, but most of the weapons were not American.

        In any case, the sins of this administration are much deeper than a turnabout on the virtue of Saddam.

        We were wrong to cynically support him, without actually wanting his to win.  It is a sick mind that sets out to promote a policy of perpetuating a war indefinitely.

        We were more in the right to take umbrage at Saddam's methods of retaining power.

        The charge of hyposcrisy is fair on the question of WMD, but not in the decision to cast Saddam as a bad guy.

        They were Nazis, Walter?

        by BooMan23 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 12:44:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't forget that Clinton's regimen of cruel (none)
          economic sanctions (peppered with periodic airstrikes) on Iraq allowed for the deaths of literally 10s of thousands of Iraqi children, and steep rises in malnourishment and disease, while strengthening, not weaking Saddam Hussein and his regime.  
          Our ways of inflicting misery on the rest of the world are manifold.
    •  Boo Hoo - (none)
      the America aversion to history, even recent history, is why it is so easy for those in power to manipulate this country.  If this country ever understood and appreciated how our policies of supporting rightwing thugs throughout the world has fomented opposition to us then maybe we would stop creating these conditions.  Iran was a response to the US installed Shah and Saddam was just another one of our SOB's that got too big for his breeches, like Noriega.  The Taliban were once our warlords in our proxy war with the USSR.  The scariest to date is our guy in Pakistan because they have nukes.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site