Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (81155)	3/11/2003 10:52:04 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

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?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (81155)	3/11/2003 1:04:53 PM
From: didjuneau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Regarding the helicopter gunships used by Saddam against the Shiites, there was a good, but disturbing explanation for why it was allowed in a recent PBS Frontline show. After the offensive was stopped short for political reasons due to the carnage on the highway out of Kuwait, a meeting was arranged by Schwarzkopf and he was snookered into allowing helicopters in the no fly zone in the south, supposedly to bring in aid, etc. Without much thought, he aquiesced that they could be armed helicopters. Only later did he realize what a mistake that was. You make it out to be a deliberate and supportive decision to prevent civilian revolt and aid the Iraqi regime during the war. The war at that time was effectively over, and it was an acknowledged mistake that could not be corrected without reigniting hostilities. I think, in that case, the acknowledgment of past mistakes that you are seeking has already been made. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that it was done to keep Saddam around.