J
Jule
Guest
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
The arguement made at the time including in the State Dept. report made public was that Iraq was our best check against Iranian fundamentalist expansion. Don't forget, at the time, the Islamic Revolution in Iran which deposed the US back Shaw of Iran was considered the biggest threat to U.S. interests in the region at the time. So we backed Saddam to check the Ayatollah (spelling?). Now we are supporting a number of different SOB's in the region to check Saddam.
Looking back on everything, supporting Saddam was a good idea. His enemies were our enemies, and if he had just kept his hands off Kuwait he might have dined last week in Camp David instead of in a jail cell in Qatar or wherever they have him stashed. Frankly, I cant see how he was any worse than our Muslim terrorist enemies, and it looks like only a totalitarian style government can control Iraq. So better a facist dictatorship than a Shiite dictatorship. Hell, if he we could count on his support, I'd consider restoring him as the rightful president, with our apologies. He was actually towing the U. N. resolution line for the most part, and the U. S. was, from a legal standpoint, in the wrong by invading. Maybe its time we put things back the way they were, but make him agree to allow the Kurds to form their own state. Thats the ticket.