Liquidrage

Speaking of Basra.

From this Reuters Article:




And, just so I don't get accused of comparing Saddam to Hitler, telling people to "love it or leave it", or killing baby seals, here's the anti-american/british part of the article:

Grad Student Humanist

No baseless assertions have been made. It is common knowledge that Reagan provided arms to Hussein's regime, weapons that were used by Hussein against Iran. The fact that the US also sold weapons to Iran does nothing but show the levels of treachery attained by the Reagan administration, treachery which is defended by people like you. The fact that other countries also armed the dictator in no way absolves the US of guilt.

And even though you admit that it's the US's double dealing and opportunistic foreign policy that causes these messes, still you insist that the US has a moral right to interfere in the affairs of other countries.

Liquidrage

Funny how so many pro-war apologists like to compare Hussein to Hitler and talk about him being evil personified.

Baseless and mass generalization. This would be akin to saying "funny how so many black people like to sell drugs". It was a stereotype that has no evidence to support it.

Gee, I wonder when they realized this? Must be a rather recent development since the GOP administrations in the 1980's had no qualms about dealing with him, or providing him with weapons.

Baseless and mass generalization.
One does not need to support the supplying of Saddam to support removing him at this time.


OK, then a world response is also warranted against Ronald Reagan and his administration (and the US) for enabling Hussein's dictatorial regime and providing him with the weapons needed to wage a genocidal war against his neighbor, Iran.

This isn't totaly baseless, however, you are leaving out the rest of the story, in fact the largest part of the story.
Saddam was enabled for his war with Iran mostly by French and Russian equipment.
It was the world supplying Saddam. I don't consider "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" justification for giving Saddam weapons and ignoring what he was doing and I wouldn't have supported the arms sales. However, if a world response is warranted to Reagan then it would be a world war considering the number of countries that would deserve the same treatment.

And like it or not, every country that is guilty is a permanent member of the UN SC.
Including Iraq's two biggest trading partners.



Even though?

So if the US hadn't sold arms to Iraq it would be OK to go into Iraq but because they did they forfeit that right? I would think they never had that "right".

Why in this war is morality of the nation performing an action relevant to the need for the action?

Either you believe Iraq needs liberating or you don't. Either side is an opinion and can be defended.

In a perfect world, no country would exist. We'd all be one big world. But it isn't like that.

For a counter point I could easily say that because of all that Saddam as done he's lost the right to govern 24 million people, even if its a "double dealer" like the US (and every other nation on Earth basically) that removes him.
To me that is the easier case to defend.

Vorkosigan

'rage, we were allied with Hussein at the time. Every single nation in the Gulf region was appalled at our betrayal and our geopolitical naivete. We not only betrayed Hussein, we betrayed longtime friends and allies like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia when we dealt arms to Iran.

Also, we dealt arms with Iran to get $$ to aid our terrorist allies in Central America. Hardly a morally defensible act, involving terrorism at one end and betrayal at the other.

Democracy, as Le Carre once said, is knowing that whatever you do, you will never, never be as bad as the Nazis.

Vorkosigan

Liquidrage

You've confused my position for one that is morally defending the US's sale of arms to Iraq and then later Iran.

My position is blamming the US and only the US is not factual. Neither is saying that the US created Saddam. Saddam was created by many countries.
I believe it is relevant for a few reasons.
First is that "other" countries are also UN security council members.
Second, altough I would not except it to sway someone's opinion, the existence of "other nations" and the extent to which other nations armed Iraq is rarely stated.

Lastly, it does add perspective.

motorhead

http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2003/mar/mar20.html

Thanks to Vorkosigan for the link to this site. This is what I was trying to say in my first post on this thread. Great article.

Farren

One thing I'd like to inject

"Reasons Saddam should go" is not analogous to "Reasons the US should invade". Keep that in mind.