You are all right and you are all wrong!

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Even if we gave him weapons or supported him in other ways, that doesn't change the fact that, as history unfolded thereafter, it became clear that he was an evil person, and represented a danger to his neighbors, to the legitimate interests of the US, and to his own people.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you hadn't reached the age of awareness during the Iran/Iraq war but your comments are SO off the wall they require clarification and correction. Back then Saddam was well known to the world as an evil gangster whose primary role model was Stalin. He presented a constant danger to all the other Middle Eastern countries. He wanted to be another Nasser but he was just a murderous thug. The USA cynically armed him in an attempt to cripple Iran in a long war of attrition. It was the worst example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" since the Allies joined with Stalin in WWII - worse actually because that time it was a matter of survival whereas in Saddam's case it was merely cynical geopolitics, worthy of the Dulles award for clu$terf^(k of the decade.

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Europe's justifications for causing regime change in Libya, which Libs supported, were no better.

Not the same thing at all - the NATO actions over Libya were merely helping out a general uprising or rebellion by the populace against a thuggish dictator. It was not a planned and plotted regime change by the NATO powers

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Yeah, yeah, and Japan sneak-attacked the US in 1941, and Germany gassed Jews and others in WWII, and the Spanish Conquistadores committed genocide, and South Africa imprisoned Mandela and killed many citizens, etc., and I guess that's supposed to mean that we should all condemn not just the perpetrators of these evils, but all their descendants as well, forever and ever.

Not at all but if they are continuing those sort of things or can reasonably be expected to continue them then yes, they should continue to be condemned. None of the examples you gave are still having an effect on current events and decisions.

You seem to be arguing against the old statement that "Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it".

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

As long as the US remains the most powerful nation on earth, there will be no end of "antagonism" against us. Doesn't matter what we do, certain segments of the world will hate us. We could throw Israel under the bus, they'd still hate us. We could have no troops anywhere outside of the US, they'd still hate us. It's no more complicated than that.

Actually it's a lot more complicated than that. Thinking that it isn't is a big part of why it continues to happen.

Obviously the biggest, richest country in the world will draw negative attention to some extent no matter what, but routinely shooting yourself in the foot only adds to the pain (pardon the mixed metaphor, if that's what it is. )

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you hadn't reached the age of awareness during the Iran/Iraq war but your comments are SO off the wall they require clarification and correction. Back then Saddam was well known to the world as an evil gangster whose primary role model was Stalin. He presented a constant danger to all the other Middle Eastern countries. He wanted to be another Nasser but he was just a murderous thug. The USA cynically armed him in an attempt to cripple Iran in a long war of attrition. It was the worst example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" since the Allies joined with Stalin in WWII - worse actually because that time it was a matter of survival whereas in Saddam's case it was merely cynical geopolitics, worthy of the Dulles award for clu$terf^(k of the decade.

I'm always amenable to clarification and correction, but my information is that the claims that the US armed Saddam are vastly overblown. Some companies sold him some things that were prohibited, and they were criminally prosecuted for it. Some non-weaponized biological materials were apparently sold to him that he could have obtained virtually anywhere. The government did provide him some unarmed helicopters. At the time, practically every other nation was selling Iraq military equipment, including Switzerland and Canada. It appears there was enough truth to make vastly overblown claims credible, but not enough to justify your indictment.

Not the same thing at all - the NATO actions over Libya were merely helping out a general uprising or rebellion by the populace against a thuggish dictator. It was not a planned and plotted regime change by the NATO powers.

...and they were only protecting the rights of the Libyan citizens to protest against the regime, and they kept on protecting the rights of those citizens until Moammar finally had to crawl into a drain pipe to escape those protective French jet fighters. That sounds like the action was pressed far beyond a mere protective action. That sounds like (dare I say it?) regime change.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

I'm always amenable to clarification and correction, but my information is that the claims that the US armed Saddam are vastly overblown. Some companies sold him some things that were prohibited, and they were criminally prosecuted for it. Some non-weaponized biological materials were apparently sold to him that he could have obtained virtually anywhere. The government did provide him some unarmed helicopters. At the time, practically every other nation was selling Iraq military equipment, including Switzerland and Canada. It appears there was enough truth to make vastly overblown claims credible, but not enough to justify your indictment.

It was an open secret at the time that the USA was providing and arranging for munitions to be delivered to keep him from being overrun by Iran. It was so long ago that I don't have the details anymore but it was essentially admitted to by the administration at the time. Don't forget that in that murky world, not everything gets shipped in crates stamped "Gift from the USA" - it gets "arranged" through people like Adnan Kashoggi or, in those days, Sam Cummings.

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

...and they were only protecting the rights of the Libyan citizens to protest against the regime, and they kept on protecting the rights of those citizens until Moammar finally had to crawl into a drain pipe to escape those protective French jet fighters. That sounds like the action was pressed far beyond a mere protective action. That sounds like (dare I say it?) regime change.

They definitely backed the right horse for a change but it wasn't like Iraq or the bad old days of the CIA in Chile etc. They saw an opportunity to help the Libyan people, shut down a troublesome and murderous dictator, encourage the other Arab states to do the same, possibly increase the reliability of the Libyan oil industry, etc. It's never about just one thing

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

I'm always amenable to clarification and correction, but my information is that the claims that the US armed Saddam are vastly overblown.

The US supported Iraq in the Iran - Iraq War

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

Just as they supported the mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

It was so long ago that I don't have the details anymore but it was essentially admitted to by the administration at the time.

A word of advice -- When you aren't prepared to back up your statements, don't make over-the-top allegations of villainous behavior.

The over-the-top allegations of villainous behavior were the following:

The USA cynically armed him (Saddam) in an attempt to cripple Iran in a long war of attrition. It was the worst example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" since the Allies joined with Stalin in WWII - worse actually because that time it was a matter of survival whereas in Saddam's case it was merely cynical geopolitics, worthy of the Dulles award for clu$terf^(k of the decade.

There are so many things wrong about that statement that I hardly know where to begin, but let's start with the most obvious. Offhand, I don't recall any recognized historian or other authority who has criticized the Allies for supporting Stalin during WWII. Stalin was known to be a bad guy at that time, but the Russian people were not, and they were being slaughtered by Hitler's troops. By helping Stalin, we were helping the Russian people and we were crippling Hitler by preventing him from enlarging his conquests and consolidating them. Stalin was indeed a devil, but it made perfect sense at the time to deal with him. In life, we don't always get to choose who we deal with. Sometimes we are forced to deal with people who aren't very nice. Neither you nor anyone else has shown me a shred of proof that President Bush did anything more cynical or wrong-headed than any worldly-wise grown-up would expect of a world leader in the same circumstances. You don't know what information President Bush had before him at the time, or what went through his mind when he decided to do whatever he did. Opinions of pundits don't count for much, because they always leave an open question as to whether the person is offering an honest opinion, or an ideologically contrived opinion, and they leave an open question as to the reliability of the information on which his opinion was based. Presidents aren't the only people who receive bad intel. Sometimes pundits do, too. I will, however, give you credit for creativity. At least you didn't resort to the trite technique of likening President Bush to Adolph Hitler in order to discredit him. Instead you substituted the reviled name of Stalin.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The US supported Iraq in the Iran - Iraq War



Just as they supported the mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan.

Yeah, and that worked out pretty well, didn't it! US support of the mujahideen contributed to the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union. Some Hollywood libs even made a movie about it, crediting a Democrat with it. I guess it's heroic when a Democrat does it, but it's cynical when a Republican does it. I'm sure glad you guys are here to keep me informed about the complicated principles of "nuancing." I'd be lost without your guidance.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

A word of advice -- When you aren't prepared to back up your statements, don't make over-the-top allegations of villainous behavior.

Give me a break Mon - I could easily spend a few hours looking up the details, I just can't be bothered spending the time. You well know that everyone remembers situations of all kinds that happened long ago but have long forgotten the minutiae. I also know where and when I was born but good luck remembering the Doctors name or how big the hospital was. I could look THOSE up too. I also never said their behaviour was villainous, only the cynical manipulation of events.

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

The over-the-top allegations of villainous behavior were the following:

The USA cynically armed him (Saddam) in an attempt to cripple Iran in a long war of attrition. It was the worst example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" since the Allies joined with Stalin in WWII - worse actually because that time it was a matter of survival whereas in Saddam's case it was merely cynical geopolitics, worthy of the Dulles award for clu$terf^(k of the decade.

There are so many things wrong about that statement that I hardly know where to begin, but let's start with the most obvious. Offhand, I don't recall any recognized historian or other authority who has criticized the Allies for supporting Stalin during WWII. Stalin was known to be a bad guy at that time, but the Russian people were not, and they were being slaughtered by Hitler's troops. By helping Stalin, we were helping the Russian people and we were crippling Hitler by preventing him from enlarging his conquests and consolidating them. Stalin was indeed a devil, but it made perfect sense at the time to deal with him. In life, we don't always get to choose who we deal with. Sometimes we are forced to deal with people who aren't very nice. Neither you nor anyone else has shown me a shred of proof that President Bush did anything more cynical or wrong-headed than any worldly-wise grown-up would expect of a world leader in the same circumstances. You don't know what information President Bush had before him at the time, or what went through his mind when he decided to do whatever he did. Opinions of pundits don't count for much, because they always leave an open question as to whether the person is offering an honest opinion, or an ideologically contrived opinion, and they leave an open question as to the reliability of the information on which his opinion was based. Presidents aren't the only people who receive bad intel. Sometimes pundits do, too. I will, however, give you credit for creativity. At least you didn't resort to the trite technique of likening President Bush to Adolph Hitler in order to discredit him. Instead you substituted the reviled name of Stalin.

If you read my post more carefully you would realize that I specifically stated the necessity of dealing with Stalin in WWII - I stated no criticism of that fact, only using it as a comparison to demonstrate the lack of necessity for a similar dance with the devil in Saddam's case. The Iraqi people were generally blameless as well, just like the Russians before them. I also pointed out that Saddam was a well known monster when the USA aided him - Reagan and Bush had that info and presumably a lot more (at least I would hope so) available to them. Assisting him was driven by several motives - revenge against Iran for the hostages and all the rest, weakening Iran in the hope of triggering unrest, equally weakening Saddam due to the war attrition and thus stabilizing, somewhat, the oil supplies of the area - neutralizing or minimizing Saddam's threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states was a big part of it.

Oh, and by the way, I fail to understand your Hitler/Stalin reference - I made no comparison anything like you imply.

I am completely comfortable with my recollections of what went on then - you should look up some documentation from those times - old newspaper stories etc. You will see my comments are accurate, not Leftist anti-American rantings.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Yeah, and that worked out pretty well, didn't it! US support of the mujahideen contributed to the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union. Some Hollywood libs even made a movie about it, crediting a Democrat with it. I guess it's heroic when a Democrat does it, but it's cynical when a Republican does it. I'm sure glad you guys are here to keep me informed about the complicated principles of "nuancing." I'd be lost without your guidance.

It probably DID have something to do with the fall of the USSR, maybe even as much as Lech Waleza and the Pope. What it did very specifically do was to arm and later turn the Mujahedin into the Taliban with the well known consequences.

It's an old story with proxy wars.

Oh, by the way, it was Charley Wilson.