He was an ally even after he gassed the Kurds and used chemical weapons against Iran. We knew of his domestic brutalities for decades. We were perfectly fine with his regime from Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I (until Kuwait), Clinton, Bush II (until 9/11 which Saddam had no part in) So why all the moral outrage over his deeds now, after we invaded and found no WMD's?
Is it just a case of "any excuse will do" because we want to control the Middle East and have a permanent military presence there? If so, then why would we not expect other ME countries to aid the insurgency and try to get us out of their region. Or develop nuclear weapons like Iran ( the U.S. doesn't mess with countries that have nukes...)
If Mexico or Canada were invaded, wouldn't we send them weapons and aid their fight against an occupier on our border?
2007-09-04 06:23:54 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They don't. As a matter of fact Republicans don't think all that much about anything in detail, which is why they're so easily manipulated by corporatist windbags like Bush.
2007-09-04 06:27:57 · answer #1 · answered by Jason 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Foreign policy is more subtle than a school yard brawl. Many of the answers to this question are on the level of a childish lashing out. Our relationship with Iraq and Iran is not like our relationship with allies in a war we did not start (WWII). The Nazis attacked our European allies. Our alliance with the Soviet Union was a wartime alliance. We were not at war with Iran in the 80's. We were a third party offering military support in their war. Oil and revenge for Iran's hostage taking (which was itself blowback from the U.S. British overthrow of an elected Iranian president ) was the motivation not defense of our nation. Why we use military force and under what circumstances is morally and strategically important. When we act with disproportionate aggression, especially for weak reasons we are likely to suffer blowback. We get caught in a continuous cycle of revenge which has negative consequences even for an 800 lb gorilla like us. We are suffering these consequences now.
2007-09-04 07:07:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, you have to understand the definition of an ally. An ally does not mean a friend. In WWII the Soviets were allied with the UK and the USA. They were never friends with either and soon after, were enemies with both. France was a staunch enemy of England. Now they, too are in alliance.
Saddam's Iraq was allied with us in it's opposition to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran who was responsible for overthrowing the Shah and kidnapping our embassy staff.
Saddam wrote his own death warrant when he invaded Kuwait another of our allies. This changed Iraq from ally to enemy. After spending ten years violating the terms of the cease fire by shooting at our aircraft in the no-fly zone and refusing to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors we had to do something to prevent him from passing WMD or its technology on to those who attacked us.
To address your final point, if Mexico or Canada were a being run by a rogue tyrant and they were invaded by a democratic government hell bent on freeing their people, no we would not send them weapons or aid. In fact we would probably aid the invader.
It really bothers me that you cannot see that.
.
2007-09-04 06:43:55 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's funny isn't it that after all the years of supporting him while he was the same "blood thirsty tyrant" and especially during his most heinous years of genocide while we provided him with arms, we didn't have a bit of a problem with him.
Please don't forget to mention that we also supported and funded and supplied Bin Loudmouth when we called him a freedom fighter as he was gaining power in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion there. If we would just realize that when we interfere in other nations' business, that eventually these interventions end up coming back and biting us in the rear, then we may begin to get why we're in the mess we're in.
I recommend Steven Kinzer's book "All the Shah's Men" to anyone who likes a good read. It shows how our foreign policies get us short term gain, at a HUGE long term price.
2007-09-04 06:33:45 · answer #4 · answered by TJTB 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Japan was an Alli, for decades, before Dec. 7, 1941.
Germany was also an Alli( having allowed many millions of their countrymen to migrate to the USA, between 1700 and 1917!!!
Times, and "old friends change" !!
Uncle Wil
2007-09-04 06:32:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
greater liberalism (sigh) you be attentive to what proportion orphans there have been after ww2? ww1? now tell me might you have supported those wars? you be attentive to why individuals supported those? because of the fact we've been attacked. we joined ww1 because of the lusitania and a telegram the germans despatched to mexico to invade the US. ww2 because of the fact of pearl harbor. those have been low casualty assaults. now do you keep in mind the day constantly marked in US historic past, 9/11? now do you keep in mind what proportion father and mom died that day on the palms of 15 adult men? nicely over 3000. could the muslims that "like us" undertake those childrens? of direction no longer. you be attentive to why? because of the fact they didnt kill the father and mom. now of all the civilian casualties in iraq what proportion have been brought about via the US military, 5, 10%? you be attentive to what proportion orphans there have been in iraq earlier the conflict? hundreds of hundreds greater and increasing on a daily basis. earlier you whine like the little toddler you're seem into this, retard.
2016-10-09 22:43:16 · answer #6 · answered by yagoda 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same way I reconcile the fact that the Soviets were our allies against Nazi Germany
2007-09-04 06:28:18 · answer #7 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
The dog went rabid and so we had to shoot the dog. I would have rather someone else have shot the dog. But everyone else lacked the guts to do what should have already been done. Everything else is just red herring. You got a problem with that?
2007-09-04 06:32:02 · answer #8 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
So was Stalin, you intellectually challenged individual. I guess in your static little liberal world, it's BFF forever, huh? (That's 'best friends forever'. I'm trying to stoop to your intellectual level.) Geez you guys are shallow. Don't they teach critical thinking in public schools any more?
2007-09-04 06:34:59 · answer #9 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Iran was a bigger threat in the 1980's so we sided with Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war.
Why is that hard to underastand?
2007-09-04 06:28:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋