Recently I took a poll...finally got results...

[Thcranky1]

Come now...the US was giving Iraq every almost every weapn imaginable to Iraq at this time. Iraq had yet to be sanctioned and was wealthy. They didnt need charity. They wanted and asked for weapons.

Yer not spending the time necessary to investigate this particular issue...and I say that because...

If you had investigated this particular era and issue you would know that Saddam was way over his head with this war and it had made him more broke then an out-of-work painter in the Sistine Chapel.

Additionally, it seems apparent, with all due respect that you don't even piece together the reason why Saddam attempted the take over of Kuwait in the first place. The man needed serious funds...and so he became a common looter. (On a grandious scale of course but a looter and a tyrant just the same)

Finally, let me add that I mean absolutely no personal disrespect in this debate and only wish to discuss issues, with some intensity, in a gentlemanly fashion.

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

[jayyy]

Finally, let me add that I mean absolutely no personal disrespect in this debate and only wish to discuss issues, with some intensity, in a gentlemanly fashion.

I appreciate that.

Its well known that Hussein bankrupted his country with that war, but I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Hussein wanted -and received- massive, massive amounts of weapons from the US. he did not request nor require chemicals for "civillian purposes" He wanted to cook up some anthrax, and thats what the US gave him the means and knowledge to do.

The point of this is, Husseins atrocities are listed off whenever the Iraq war is thrown into question. "Who could be so mad as to oppose the removal of such a person?" goes the chorus.

"But wait," the answer goes, "Didn't hussein do all these things as an ally of the US and with US weapons? Why didn't Rumsfeld and co. care about these injustices when they were giving hussein golden boot spurs, and giving him what he needed to cook up the gas to do it all with?"

The pro-Bush voicer lowers and goes semi-conspiratorial- "But don't you understand, those were different times. US interests were at stake. We had to ally ourselves with the lesser of two evils. He might have been a monster , but he was OUR monster..." and on and on and on.

Well okay. But you can't have that end-justifies the means mentality, and then hypocritically spin over to this self-righteous "We must stop this monster in the name of all that is good" 15 years after the fact, when its convenient for you. I think this war is every bit as "strategic" (ie- amoral) as the Iraq allaince was.

[sito]