Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
I am not sure how I am in opposition to you? There are still people who are ignorant of the history of the US foreign policy in Iraq. I won't argue that the US gave Saddam the ability to manufacture chemical weapons that were used on the Iranians and Kurds because it served their purpose. The purpose was to help a so called "moderate" regime not get overrun by the Iranians allowing a Radical Muslim goverment control 1/2?? of the Mid - East Oil reserves. And yes a war that the so called "moderate" regime started.
But for some reason people have forgotten or ignored or do not know the fact that the US stopped supporting Saddam about 1989-90. Was that not a good thing? Was that NOT the right thing for them to do?
As well....people have the blinders on to what the Europeans have done in Iraq at the same time and after the US stopped supporting Saddam.
|
by saying that people exaggerated the timeframe or willfully choose to ignore the timeframes, and esp. by spelling things out in caps, like I am some grade schooler...
Saddam didn't become a dictator after 1989-90: he was a dictator well before that, his so-called 'rape rooms' existed before that, the mass executions occurred before that. All under the watchful eye of the US...what happened then, what happened with the mujahideen, what will happen with the new generation of jihadis are all part of the blowback the US continues to generate through their missteps.
You want to know why the euros aren't being called out? Because 1) they knew that the war was not legal (the British people knew this too, and Blair chose to ignore the voice of the people, in effect, his employers) and 2) they are not involved in the war!
This has been a US led, US directed, and US invented proposition from the get go...The Project for the New American Century has proven to be as worthless as the paper its written on...