Maybe you can explain to me the point of the argument that the US armed Saddam.
Rather than continue to dispute the facts, let's cut to the chase.
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the Carter administration encouraged the Iran-Iraq war (which began in 1980), while the Reagan administration continued to assist Iraq unstintingly until the end of the war in 1988 (which, as you know, I dispute), how would that in any way affect US policy towards Iraq in 2003?
Sorry, but I just don't get it.
It's not as if Saddam is a monster of our making. His biggest benefactor was always the Soviets. Compared to the assistance he got from them, the US is a distant also-ran.
But at any rate, does that mean that nobody who gave Iraq military assistance in the past is allowed to say boo about him now? Is that the argument?
Once an ally of Saddam, always an ally of Saddam?
Given my interest in conspiranoia, I think if you peel the argument back, the underlying argument is that Saddam is still a creature of the US, oppressing the Iraqis and menacing his neighbors, in order to promote hidden US interests (presumably oil interests). What do you think about that? |
