Originally posted by Dowding
Sometimes national security requires the use of political expediency. This can often result in the backing of regimes and leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, that use terror and commit atrocities.
IMHO,
It is due to this reasoning that the US is viewed negatively in the world. But I need to ask myself a few questions first:
1. What was the climate of the various allied nations at the time.
2. What was the climate in the US at the time.
3. The US consults with it's allies on a continual basis and implements these when concidering foriegn policies.
By commenting on the policies of the past, too often the overall picture is ignored. We cannot use the current environment to judge the past and too many fail to understand this.
The very act of us being able to place our thoughts on these BBS's is a testament to the many men and women, foriegn and domestic, which have laid down thier lives for us.
I remember the hatred of Iran inside the US when our citizens were held hostage. I personally didn't have any animosity over Iraq engaging in the border war with Iran because I believed the Islamic fundimentalist were a very real threat to the region. Anyone who had dealings with the region at that time remembers the concern. As time went on, Saddam started using the chemical weapons and more information came to light on how cruel this dictator was.
For us to sit here with the information we have now and debate about what we didn't know then is juvenile at best. I don't recall the outpouring of condemnation from the EU towards the US when we were dealing with Saddam then. If I recall correctly, it wasn't the US who was manufacturing/sending the equipment for "oil delivery" to Iraq in the late 80's which turned out to be materials for the super gun. This is only one instance, but it can be applied to many others which we debate now.
My point is this, no one's hands are clean in any of this and to throw stones at each other only strenghtens Saddam's defiance. It was due to the infighting of the United Nation's predecessor that Hitler ran across Europe. Debate is good, but debate to the point of inaction is irresponsible.
Saddam is not a physical threat to the US, but he is a direct threat to the interest of not only our nation, but to that of the EU, Russia, and China et al. If you want to call it "oil" so be it, but that is only a part of the "interest" at stake, only extremist will blind themselves of the global picture.
