Why did conservatives glorify Saddam and support the terrorist when in war with Iran?

Question

I call him a terrorist because he gassed his own people during that time and Regan put a blind eye to it. Where was the conservative condemnation? where was your sense of humility and God fearing love to human life as claimed by your bible thumping lies?

Answer 1

cause it served our interests...i mean neocon/Zionist interests

Answer 2

Hmmm......you actually don't remember much about these times do you?

Iran was on a roll back then, and since the worst president in the history of the country was running things, the decision was made to back Iraq against Iran when Iraq staged an invasion. Look up the dates if you are confused on this.

Saddam nerve gassing his own population was something that very few people chose to accept at the time, just like they didn't accept that the Soviets were doing the exact same thing in Afghanistan. Have you pilloried the Russians yet? Why not?

Human life is cheap all over the world, and you pretending that it isn't is rather comical. The two countries involved...Iran and Iraq...certainly don't put much value on any human life. Why are you getting so bent about it if they don't care themselves?

By the way....your avatar was a statist swine who pretty much got what he deserved at the hands of an honest self-serving opportunist. Just thought you might want to know.....

Answer 3

The enemy of my enemy is my buddy. seem on the time line. JAN seventy 9...Shah of Iran over thrown, JUL seventy 9....Saddam takes capacity in Iraq. Nov seventy 9....Hostages taken in Iran. Dec seventy 9..u.s. invades Afghanistan. summer season 1980 Iraq assaults Iran. u . s . helped Iraq as a capacity of having back at Iran. yet we actually did no longer want Iraq to win the two so we secretly helped Iran. (have self belief it or no longer, Israel helped Iran additionally.) by way of helping the two elements, the warfare dragged on for 8 years and neither had the capacity to reason issues someplace else.. as quickly as the warfare ended, they began meddling in different countries. What we could constantly have carried out is provide each and each a nuke and the capacity to furnish it to the capital city of the different. think of how many issues that could have solved.

Answer 4

Regan did what he should have done, Stayed out of the disputes of other countries. We aren't the world police force and we have no right to force our values on other nations. The hard fact is not everyone wants freedom or more truthfully not everyone is willing to fight for it. We should only go to war if our national security is directly threatened and only then if we have a declaration of war from Congress. That's right boys and girls the President can't declare was (no matter how much he wants to)

Answer 5

His usefulness to our govenment was over because he could no longer be controlled. And so as is typical of the US, we simply eliminated him in order to protect our oil interests and to be strategically placed in the middle east. We've known for the last 25 years that the real threat to the US is Iran.

Answer 6

He was our boy, we put him in power, we kept him there and now we removed him, the rest is rhetorical pablum for the masses who consume talk radio, main stream media. He was a tool we used him to control/ balance post Shah Iran, and before he was a major consumer of US arms and he sold oil to Standard oil and Exxon etc. and we know they have a lot of say in our Mid east policy.

Answer 7

My only guess is the hope that they would have been effective enough war fighters to wipe each other off the face of the earth....course we see now that they can't fight at all.....can I interest you in an Iraqi rifle? Never been shot and only been dropped once........

Answer 8

They think alike. Saddam was, after all, as right-wing as you can get.

Answer 9

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Answer 10

because