Where was the neo-con's outrage when Saddam killed civilians with nerve gas in 1988?

Question

"March 16th, 1988 – In the Iraqi city of Halabja thousands unknowingly face a hellish death"

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=51755&display_order=6&sub_display_order=12&mini_id=51673

Answer 1

Four months after the attack on Halabja, the US said nothing when Bechtel won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons, rather than continue to acquire them.

Iraq used chemical weapons in 1983, yet Reagan sent Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam despite the fact that the US had documents detailing the almost daily use of chemical weapons by Saddam. Apparently the use of chemical weapons was not so abhorrent then. Of course, since the US had also supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, any criticism was somewhat muted until it became convenient to criticize later.

Answer 2

"The Iraqi civilian death count is around 60,000" according to a_wood80. That figure is an amount that he can sleep with. 60,000 innocent men, women and children slaughtered who had done nothing wrong is okay according to this guy. Lets just say for a minute that it is not the 650,000 which is accurate by the way and estimated by groups on the ground counting in Iraq. But lets just say that a_wood has a more accurate count from his plush recliner. The figure of 60,000 still represents 9/11 times 20. Or 9/11 repeated over and over again in lets say these cities: New York Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia Phoenix San Antonio San Diego Dallas San Jose Detroit Indianapolis Jacksonville San Francisco Columbus Austin Memphis Baltimore Washington D.C. Boston Denver If this happened we would be launching nukes at somebody no questions asked. But you cons think it is okay to happen to somebody else? These are the Christian values you claim to stand up for? What a bunch of hypocrites.

Answer 3

Are you attempting to say we are inconsistent or do you actually want to attack every country that oppresses its people?

Should we attack every communist country for killing people indiscriminately. I am outraged that anyone can defend and support these countries. It is happening right now with Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Should we go to stop the violence in Darfur, Somalia (as far as I know it's still hellish).

If you want to push that agenda, go right ahead, but I think your point is just to say we didn't invade THEN. Maybe we should have.

Here is the difference.

Saddam Hussien, pretty much for his entire existence as a dictator, ruled much like Hitler. Substitute some rape rooms and nerve-gassing for concentration camps. He invaded another country for their natural resources and would have exterminated anyone in his way. Hmmm, just like Hitler.

The reason George H. W. Bush stopped and did not depose Saddam is not because he didn't want to. He probably laments the decision to this day.

The reason is because he wanted to maintain his "grand coalition." EUROPE is the reason. The countries with so many memorials that say "Never Again" refused to depose the ruler that has come the closest to being a modern day Hitler.

But the way to solve Iraq is to bring in Europe who is doing so well in Darfur, Palestine, Syria, and Iran. Go UN!

I am outraged by ANY mass extermination of civilians, but I don't want our military in 20 countries around the world. The reason we are in Iraq is because we never left. From the time we sent troops and equipment over there to remove Iraq from Kuwait, we have been bombing and warning Iraq. We still are, and maybe, if we have the courage, someday we can stop and Iraq will become the next Germany or Japan. Countries we re-built to become great again.

Answer 4

Well I was 6 at the time, so I pretty much didn't know what was going on. But I would have been outraged if I knew about it.

There is a lot of evil in this world and our media does not cover it.

The genocide in darfur, the oppression of women in the middle east, the human rights abuses in China, the tamil tigers in Sri Lanka, the Maoists in Nepal. The child-sex tourism industry in southeast asia....

I could probably go on

Answer 5

The "neocons" lead by Sr. Bush capitulated to the "world" in an agreement not to invade Bagdhad and take out Saddam. Now isn't this ironic that here we have peacnics who want us to capitulate to the world but here they criticize Bush Sr. for doing just that.

Answer 6

when the same time you Buddie Clinton never cared about the Iraqi's when they where getting gassed he just let them walk all over us.

Answer 7

Selling him the Nerve Gas

Answer 8

Where is their outrage at the fact that the Ethiopian government rapes and oppresses its own people? Women raped by Ethiopian officials and the government denies it and kills many of its own people. Where is their outrage?

Answer 9

What always gets done when the violators are US friends... some comments, nothing much done. However all hell broke loose a few years later when he invaded a better friend... Then they couldn't stop talking about it.

Answer 10

Because the USA, supplied the weapons to him. Too use as he pleased, and also money, and other things.