Re: "That said, why not look at great Americans like Reagan as doing the best they can at a complicated job instead of insinuating they support vile and dispicable actions by dictators and thugs. When you say "the Reagan/Bush admin. cared more about displacing Soviet influence in Iraq, and about 'containing' the Iranians, than they did about Saddam's little habit of using poison gas in 'military' campaigns", you are probably right."
>>> I'm only judging the results of a failed foreign policy which was based upon faulty assumptions. Seeing the entire world through the prism of the US/Soviet Cold War caused us to take actions (eg: supporting the Shah instead of democratic asperations of the population) which did damage to our own long term national interests.
Re: "But that was the right position to have. The Soviet Union was a bigger threat than Saddam, and if Iraq was less of a threat than Iran, why not let them beat the crap out of each other. Your response indicates that you think we would have been better to stay out, and I'm not sure that is true."
>>> I disagree. If we had not interfered in the Iran/Iraq war by arming Saddam, then the later Desert Storm war likely would not have been necessary. If the Iranians had made advances (after Iraq attacked *them*) then the Arab world would have turned to the US for support, and our position would have been stronger... and Saddam might not be on the scene anymore.
Re: "Anyway, I understand your view better, but still feel that you question the motives of our leaders and our nation in a way that is not flattering or accurate."
>>> I don't question their 'motives', just their judgement. And, facts are facts: the policies failed to advance US national interests (peace, democracy, free markets, trade). |
