Are we returning to the primitive laws of revenge?

Question

I'm thinking of the Bush family's oil politics and their relationship with Saudis and Saddam prior to 1991. The War in Iraq seems like a war of revenge for 9/11 and for Saddam's embarassing (to his Amerian ally) invasion of Kuwait. He gassed the Kurds when he was our ally. Why didn't we impose sanctions on him in 1990? Why did we obstruct sanctions for the gassing of the Kurds? Did we understand his gassing of the Kurds was a revengeful decision? Did we empathize with it?

Answer 1

Primitive laws of revenge don't usually include appealing to a corrupt body of the world's nations or including armies from 20 or so countries.

Your question seems to assume that alliances must ALWAYS remain constant. A more realistic approach is "What is expedient now may not be expedient tomorrow" and so there is nothing wrong with changing your alliances as the world changes. Or should we quit giving Eygpt a billion a year because they were allies with the Nazi's?

If you want to research the rational for Hussein's request for nerve gas you'll find he convinced the Reagan adminstration it was needed to combat the Iranians who used gas against the Iraqi's during their protracted war. Since the Saudi's were shi.tting their robes in fear of the Iranian's and their revolution, the Reagan administration supplied the REQUESTED weaponry. I don't believe anyone knew of Hussein's intentions to gas Kurds.

As far as "empathizing" is concerned, I think the Bush administration empathized with the Kurds and Iraqi people by deciding to do what an impotent and greedy Europe would not do, topple a psychopathic despot. 10 years of "containment" and "engagement" produced nothing but a boondoggle called "Oil for Food" which funded any number of terrorist groups, palaces, and WMD. The same boondoggle that was pushed by pacifist humanitarians was funding a terror machine that produced al-quaida. Just ask Abu Nidal or Zarqawi- oh wait, they both DIED in Iraq, they can't tell the truth.

I'd like to make one more comment related to answerer talking about the "Iraqi's" fighting currently against the US occupation forces. If the recently killed Zarqawi is ANY indication of the type of "insurgent" being faced by occupation forces then take note- mercenaries from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria are the BULK of this insurgency. They'll be killed by Iraqi's soon enough.

Answer 2

Well its a matter of great concern for the entire world population that the way the bush administration is twisting the arms of other countries there is bound to be a very seriou back lash and mind you 9/11 will be nothing in comparison to it. The iraqis are giving a tough time to the us in Iraq. No body in this world will give away their country just like that they will fight for it and they will fight till the end.The US admin is not letting out the body bag count and mind you they never will, cos the day they let the cat out its going to be all hell loose in thier own country. The bush family is going to be tried for war time crimes in the near future. The US tax payer is not at all bothered that his/her money is being spent in killing their own people. The people should stand up and ask Is it worth it?

Answer 3

Returning to? When have we humans not pursued revenge? Its about time we started learning not to though...