http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqdubabiespix.html#DUBABIESPIX
check out this entire site to learn more. of course it is not but remember this is what evil people do.
2006-06-11 14:17:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by wedjb 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Owning such weapons is one thing.
Turning them on an unarmed civilian population many years later, in a surprise move, is quite another.
That article you cited lists 13 other nations that were also dealing weapons there in that era. It says there were more nations doing the same thing, too.
The Gulf War (1990-1991) was entered by the US after Iraq carried out a military invasion of its neighboring country, Kuwait.
During the course of the war, Iraq fired bombs into other countries bordering it such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Over a decade prior to that war, Iraq's military invaded Iran.
A decade after that war, Iraq was taking measures to make it difficult to impossible for the UN weapons inspectors to carry out their duties. The inspectors were supposed to have unfettered access. What they got was fettered, at best.
The conclusion after all that might have been that Saddam Hussein was dangerous. More so than average. More than he had been previously.
2006-06-11 21:47:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by John C 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes it is fair, but you are not understanding why we attacked. You are asking the wrong questions.
When we sold Iraq the weapons, it was legal for Saddam to have them. After Desert Storm (1991) is became ILLEGAL for Saddam to have those weapons. He said he did not have them, he did not give any evidence of what he did with them.
It was SADDAM's responsibility to account for his entire arsenal. After 12 years of bribes, throwing weapons inspectors out of his country, and breaking the rules of the 1991 cease fire agreement, the USA had a responsibility to go into Iraq and determine what was what.
2006-06-11 21:32:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is it fair; absolutely. In the circumstances described and presented its most fair. We offered aid to Saddam and Iraq when they we're at war with Iran. Iran had just taken Americans' hostage and basically became an enemy state. Iraq had made no such hostile moves.
Later Iraq became hostile and tried to take over Kuwaitt who we agreed to support. We, and about 97% of the world, kicked Saddam and Iraq out of Kuwaitt. And Saddam turned his country into an enemy state.
There was nothing wrong with these decisions. It only serves the far left in their hatred of GW Bush and all things Republican to bring them up.
...by the way the ground work for supporting Saddam was started in 1979...look and see who started it...kind of interesting to the left but often ignored. Especially with the kind of chatter he presents in the world community today.
2006-06-11 21:30:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by netjr 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Welcome to the inconsistencies of the US Foreign Policy!
Next chapter: Arming the Talibans in Afghanistan, and arming the Iranians and the Iraquis at the same time so that they could kill each other in the 1980's!
Saddam Hussein was supported and armed by the US. Even when the sick f*ck was gassing his own people, the US kept having very friendly relationships with him. Iraq only became an enemy of the US in 1991, coincidentally, just when Saddam decided to nationalize Iraq's oil fields.
Can you say US corporate interests?
2006-06-11 21:19:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Firefox 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you are talking about Iraq - why don't you ask them for the specifics of (such as the exact name/model) of the weapons that were supposedly sold?
For over 20 years the same people have been getting away with their bogus claims that the US sold weapons to Iraq - simply because people like you are too naive to call them on it.
2006-06-11 21:52:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
who attacked a country for buying weapons?
or owning them?
are you 12 years old?
2006-06-11 21:22:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
is it fair for a country to elect it's leaders and change it's policy a little every 2 years and a lot every 4 years?
We should all just have a king or dictator that would be much better!
2006-06-12 04:17:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by MP US Army 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why don't we just roll over and play dead for the enemy? Obviously countries change from being a favorable to the US to unfavorable over time. At one time we fought a war with Mexico and another we fought with Canada. No one seems to know of this but it did happen and it could happen again. Our foreign policy isn't inconsistant it's consistant with our national defense.
2006-06-12 16:07:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by supermontage1975 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not fair but I can assure you it is a practice the U.S. engages in more often than not.
2006-06-11 21:15:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pretty_Trini_Rican 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
fair game dude
2006-06-12 11:29:16
·
answer #11
·
answered by FeNdEr BeNdEr 2
·
0⤊
0⤋