Given what (and how) we knew of/about Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeni in the late 1970's/early 1980's, I'd say that at that time, he was the better of two lousy choices.
How about US knowing full well what Saddam was doing with the chemicals they sold him and continuing to support him anyway?
cooperativeresearch.org
Take a look at the links on that page. It is very enlightening.
Last I'd heard Iraq had still not accounted for a large volume of previously reported biological weapons.
They claim they are either destroyed or destroyed - i.e. passed their useful time, which, if you look into the useful lifetimes of these elements, is not so incredible.
Anyway, if that is a cause for launching war on Iraq, I trust the UN Security Council to do so.
supporting terror in the form of harboring Abu Nidal and paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers
If that was a cause for invasion, England would have invaded the US long ago. I am referring to the major support for IRA coming from the US, of course.
not living up to the agreed upon stipulations of the post-Gulf War agreements
If that is a cause for war, I am sure the UN Security Council will say so.
just now that the U.S. has an administration seeking to bring the complacency to an end.
Which is no different than me saying I have higher standards than my parents and now will hunt down every criminal in Monte-Carlo in my spare time, nevermind the police, because they are too soft (or something). You are talking vigilante here.
The truth of the matter is that such decisions (i.e. military action) can be decided only by UN. Not by the US. |
