I don't think the use of DU munitions against tanks on a battlefield amounts to contaminating the entire region.
Saddam Hussain was on "best buddy" status
I keep seeing the charge. Apparently many people think there is a category of international relations known as buddyship. Via "buddyship", the western "buddy" country becomes morally responsible for all the sins of the tyrannical "buddy" and even the existence of the tyrannical "buddy". And that seems to be the important point to the "buddyship" proponents. Seems silly to me and completely morally confused to me.
It is a fact that Saddam was armed primarily by the USSR, France, and China to the tune of millions of dollars of armaments. All his major weapons systems (planes, missiles, tanks and armored vehicles, artillery, even rifles) came from these countries. During most of Saddam's reign - including pre-Kuwait, the US didn't have diplomatic relations with Iraq and had Iraq on the State Dept's list of terror supporting countries. I know we provided some assistance to Iraq late in the Iran-Iraq war - but I'd characterize that as a case of helping a lesser enemy hold out against a greater one - similar in nature to our much more massive arming of Stalin during WWII. I guess "best buddy" must describe the FDR-Churchill relationship with Stalin too.
We helped put Saddam Hussain in power by brutal elimination of his political opposition.
I think you're probably talking about US - British opposition to Communists taking power. I don't think anti-communism is necessarily equal to pro-fascism. I think the Baath party seized power on its own because it was stronger and maybe more ruthless than its opposition and in later years Saddam seized personal power on his own too. I think US or British ability to influence events within Iraq was insignificant. A shame or we might have been able to overthrow Saddam without invading.
The UK government under Thatcher even shipped him supergun components plus many, many armaments and WMD materials to suppress his own people, and those of the region.
I think western govts have been negligent in the past re. what they let get sold abroad of military use. I don't think it demonstrates an evil plot however.
It has also been shown CONCLUSIVELY that he complied with all WMD destruction UN requirements, and that all rumors to the contrary are BOGUS. i.e CONCLUSIVELY PROVED TO THE WORLD much to the embarrassment of the UK and USA military hawks.
Well, that is not what UNMOVIC was saying in March 2003:
un.org
Finally, wrt the Iraq sanctions. They were a disaster from start to finnish. How many USA law suits would be filed if say, a foreign country stopped the supply of fuel filters to ambulances for a ten year period? How many deaths would have occurred from problems of getting an ambulance to an accident in the USA??
It can certainly be argued sanctions punished the people for the crimes of a dictatorial government, but that's the kind of thing the UN prefers to military action. All the more reason, Saddam's regime should have been overthrown after most of his army was destroyed in Kuwait. |
