We didn't continue to arm Saddam after the Gulf War. The whole thing sort of puts their mysterious opposition to removing Saddam in a different light.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Two wrongs do not make a right.

However, doing the same thing as someone else, then complaining about them doing it is a little unfair.

We are not absolved of the crimes, just as Nixon wasn't absolved of his crimes even though "everyone else was doing it", however, I don't think the guy who held up the 7-11 last night should be on the jury which condemns the man who robbed Wells Fargo last week.

I think what MakK is asking for is fairness. Equality in blame. Or maybe he's just doing the whole "If I'm going to hell, I'm taking you all with me" bit. Either way, I don't see an error in this logic, but then, I come from a country whose constitution promises equality. Maybe I'm just biased.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

It's not the same thing, when it was before the Persian Gulf War.

No, I clearly said that France, Russia and Germany's opposition to removing Saddam is shown in a very different light after this information.

wuh?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

It's not the same thing, when it was before the Persian Gulf War.

Why's that? Iraq was less of a threat to the region after the war than it was before.

No, I clearly said that France, Russia and Germany's opposition to removing Saddam is shown in a very different light after this information.

Surely we knew all this. Haven't we even talked about it earlier in this thread?

It had less technological capabilities after that point, but you know, the entire thing where Saddam marched into a neighboring country and took it over sort of showed that maybe backing him was a bad idea.

No, I clearly said that France, Russia and Germany's opposition to removing Saddam is shown in a very different light after this information.

Surely we knew all this. Haven't we even talked about it earlier in this thread?

I don't think there was specific evidence about French, Germany, and Russian weapons still going to Saddam.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

It had less technological capabilities after that point, but you know, the entire thing where Saddam marched into a neighboring country and took it over sort of showed that maybe backing him was a bad idea.

But America supported him after he marched into Iran!

Surely we knew all this. Haven't we even talked about it earlier in this thread?

I don't think there was specific evidence about French, Germany, and Russian weapons still going to Saddam.

Ok.

That's like saying "America supported Pakistan/India after they marched into Pakistan/India !"

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Er, what? You mean because they equipped Iran as well as Iraq?

You are comparing the Iraq-Iran conflict to the Persian Gulf War. They are not comparable. The conflict between Iran-Iraq was ongoing, and there was no clear party in the "moral" right. Saddam was clearly wrong to invade Kuwait. I compare the Iraq-Iran war to the ongoing conflict between Pakistan and India. The conflict has a long complicated history, and villifying Iraq for attacking Iran during the Iraq-Iran War would be like villifying either Pakistan or India for their respective roles in their ongoing military conflict.

Also we did not just support Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War, we also supported Iran (as you point out). Likewise we still have more or less friendly relations with both Pakistan and India. Our support in both instances is related to the world order "status quo", as was our opposition to an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Why was it worse for Iraq to invade Kuwait than to invade Iran? Why was the former "clearly wrong" and the latter more ambiguous? Wasn't there also a "long complicated history" between Iraq and Kuwait? Please explain.

Er, the only snag with that is that the president claimed not to be involved. The official story was that it was just a bunch of criminals acting independently to arm Iran. It wasn't state policy, which was to support only the aggressor in that conflict.

Still don't see why that's different from an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

Like I said, the Iran and Iraq conflict had a wider context than the Kuwati invasion. The conflict had been ongoing and a clear "correct" party wasn't identifiable. I made the analogy to the Pakistain-India conflict to explain this.

Er, the only snag with that is that the president claimed not to be involved.

What does that have to do with the discussion?

Still don't see why that's different from an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

You don't see because you keep claiming the invasion was "unprovoked". It has a wider context. If you want to continue to pretend it doesn't, then you of course can continue to pretend the Iraq-Iran War was exactly the same as the Kuwaiti invasion.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Like I said, the Iran and Iraq conflict had a wider context than the Kuwati invasion. The conflict had been ongoing and a clear "correct" party wasn't identifiable. I made the analogy to the Pakistain-India conflict to explain this.

Iraq was the invader, so the "correct" party (to use your scare quotes) is pretty easy to pick out.

Er, the only snag with that is that the president claimed not to be involved.

What does that have to do with the discussion?

Because it wasn't America supporting Iran. It was criminals who happened to be American. If rogue elements in the administration started covertly funnelling funds to Kim Jong-Il, would you call that America supporting North Korea? So the Indo-Pak analogy doesn't hold.

Still don't see why that's different from an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

You don't see because you keep claiming the invasion was "unprovoked". It has a wider context. If you want to continue to pretend it doesn't, then you of course can continue to pretend the Iraq-Iran War was exactly the same as the Kuwaiti invasion.

You still haven't elaborated on this "wider context". Did the Kuwait invasion just happen in isolation, with no context to explain it?

Reagan ok'd the support to Iran, and Israel also supproted Iran. The U.S. was fighting to outclass Soviet influence in both countries.

And the analogy would still hold regardless, because my point wasn't that the U.S. supported both sides, therefore both sides are legitimate. My point was the conflict between the two nations was considered "acceptible", in that it came from a longer history of unresolved conflict. We might threaten sanctions against Pakistan for building nuclear weapons, but it wouldn't make sense for us to threaten sanctions against Pakistan for just sparring with India over Kasmir. Likewise Iraq might face condemnation for using chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran War, but the war itself isn't cause to condemn Iraq.

The cause and effect, once again since you seem to have a lot of comprehension problems lately, isn't America supports both sides, therefore both sides have legitimacy in a conflict. The cause and effect is both sides have legitimacy entering into an armed conflict, therefore the U.S. supporting either side isn't out of the question.

Yes I have, over and over. Iran and Iraq had a long history of conflict, so war breaking out between the two of them isn't a giant shock. This is the context. I've said it plain as day before, and I say it again. And the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War could not rationally thought to be one nation completely conquering the other, as it would be equally silly to think the world would let Pakistan conquer India or vice versa. Once again, this is the context, since you seem to need it completely spelled out.

Yes, Iraq and Kuwait have a context. The context is nothing like Iraq's history with Iran. Iraq just marched into Kuwait and took it over. That should (and did) shock the international community. Two neighboring countries having border disputes is a context far different than one mammoth military power overwhelming a small neighboring country with no legitimacy to do so.

I'm hoping you're just being rhetorical, otherwise I'm at a loss of how someone so apparently intelligent cannot grasp this concept.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Did everyone take note of kaufman completely backing Makk into such a logic corner that not even his usual dodge-and-weave flashmine tactics could save him?

I did.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Noted. yes.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Reagan ok'd the support to Iran, and Israel also supproted Iran. The U.S. was fighting to outclass Soviet influence in both countries.

What do their professed motives have to do with it? Also, who brought up Israel?

Considered? By whom? Who said Iran-Iraq was "acceptable"? Those look like scare quotes again, so I assume you just made up that description.

Still, you're probably right that the US, USSR, UK, France and others who were profiting from the slaughter would consider it very "acceptable".

I understand that's what you're trying to say (your president disagrees with you, though: he's repeatedly cited Saddam's "invading two countries" as a reason why he had to go). I just don't see why the circumstances in Iran-Iraq were significantly different from the Kuwait invasion. Both were aggression by a megalomaniac in an attempt to become the ruler of the Middle East.

It's easy to have comprehension problems when you write incomprehensible paragraphs like the above.

Yes I have, over and over. Iran and Iraq had a long history of conflict, so war breaking out between the two of them isn't a giant shock. This is the context. I've said it plain as day before, and I say it again. And the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War could not rationally thought to be one nation completely conquering the other, as it would be equally silly to think the world would let Pakistan conquer India or vice versa.

Your speculation on what would have happened if one side in Iran-Iraq had looked like demolishing the other is just that, and if it's based on any evidence you don't mention it. Why would Washington not have been perfectly content to see Saddam march into Tehran?

quote:

---

Once again, this is the context, since you seem to need it completely spelled out.

Yes, Iraq and Kuwait have a context. The context is nothing like Iraq's history with Iran. Iraq just marched into Kuwait and took it over.

---

quote:

---

Did everyone take note of kaufman completely backing Makk into such a logic corner that not even his usual dodge-and-weave flashmine tactics could save him?

I did.

---

Considered? By whom? Who said Iran-Iraq was "acceptable"? Those look like scare quotes again, so I assume you just made up that description.

Iran or Iraq wasn't summarily condemned by the international community for the war alone. (Like I said, for certain atrocious acts during the war, they might have been).

No might about it - but American support continued. Why is it worse for France to arm Iraq after Kuwait than for the US to do it after, say, Hallabja? Both of these actions were condemned by the world, and the latter was the greater atrocity.

You obviously just don't want to do any research to understand what I mean when I say Iran and Iraq had a history of conflict. I offer the Pakistan-India example as a short cut to research since you don't seem to be able to pick up a book. But somehow you can't make the connection. Do some reading and understand what I mean when I say Iran and Iraq had a history of conflict. Saddam is only judged after the fact the villain because he has now lost.

Em, no, he's the villain because he instigated the conflict. Sure, Arabs and Persians have been at each other's throats off and on for centuries, but that doesn't make the instigation of violence more acceptable. I'm sorry you think it does. Arabs and Jews haven't exactly been historical pals either, so I guess if Egypt were to invade Israel you'd consider it not that big a deal.

You're right. If not for Kuwait, Saddam would still be a US ally. I didn't ever dispute that. I'm not sure why you think I did. W is bullshitting when he says his invasion is related to Iran-Iraq. Glad we agree on that.

quote:

---

Take a deep breath and try again.

America's support of countries during war (i.e. Iran and Iraq, i.e. India and Pakistan) doesn't give both sides a form of legitimacy. It is a reflection that both sides have some form of legitimacy in the conflict. The "legitimacy" might be as shallow as contending to be a dominant power, and the U.S. is hedging its bets and playing both sides, but it is still a legitimacy. Saddam had no form of legitimacy in his invasion of Kuwait.

---

Considered? By whom? Who said Iran-Iraq was "acceptable"? Those look like scare quotes again, so I assume you just made up that description.

Iran or Iraq wasn't summarily condemned by the international community for the war alone. (Like I said, for certain atrocious acts during the war, they might have been).

No might about it - but American support continued.

That's not the point I'm arguing. American support didn't stop because of the war itself. Using chemical weapons is definitely bad, but even the U.S. has used chemical weapons (Agent Orange in Vietnam for example).

It might be a greater crime against humanity, but we don't go to war just because something is atrocious. I'm not arguing that this is correct, I'm just stating the facts.

Likewise it is simply a fact that the world turned on Saddam after he invaded Kuwait, but not after the atrocities of the Iran Iraq War. It's not up for debate, it's a fact.

You obviously just don't want to do any research to understand what I mean when I say Iran and Iraq had a history of conflict. I offer the Pakistan-India example as a short cut to research since you don't seem to be able to pick up a book. But somehow you can't make the connection. Do some reading and understand what I mean when I say Iran and Iraq had a history of conflict. Saddam is only judged after the fact the villain because he has now lost.

Em, no, he's the villain because he instigated the conflict.

There are wars that are considered acceptible by the international community. (Or not worth trying to stop or condemn either party over). It remains a fact whether or not you want to keep proposing the notion that Saddam instigated the entire Iran Iraq War on his own. Maybe if Iraq overwhelmed Iran we might have moved in and supported Iran, as we tried to do in Vietnam. But, dispite your protests, the facts of the matter remain the facts.

Nevertheless the world did not go to war against Saddam for his involvement in the Iran Iraq War. How strange.

Egypt did attempt to invade Israel, twice. And no, it's not as big of a deal given the historical conflict and the current situation.

I suppose you'll suggest now that Israel "started" the 6 Days War by preempting the inevitable attack.

You're right. If not for Kuwait, Saddam would still be a US ally. I didn't ever dispute that. I'm not sure why you think I did. W is bullshitting when he says his invasion is related to Iran-Iraq. Glad we agree on that.

I have never seen the quote you are talking about, and I didn't know what Bush said was the topic of conversation. Definitely Saddam's behavior in the war with Iran comes into play when you talk about crimes against humanity.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Take a deep breath and try again.

America's support of countries during war (i.e. Iran and Iraq, i.e. India and Pakistan) doesn't give both sides a form of legitimacy. It is a reflection that both sides have some form of legitimacy in the conflict. The "legitimacy" might be as shallow as contending to be a dominant power, and the U.S. is hedging its bets and playing both sides, but it is still a legitimacy. Saddam had no form of legitimacy in his invasion of Kuwait.

---

Ok, American involvement doesn't legitimise a war. Got it. Never claimed otherwise, never claimed you were claiming otherwise (though I'd be interested to hear if there is any aspect of US foreign policy which you actually oppose).

---

Indicative of your general philosophy. Instead of catering to everyone or just select groups, the international community should be hearing all voices. So should the U.S. government. We have startlingly little access to our representatives, communication-wise.

My summation of your philosophy is that you don't want world peace because the thoughts and beliefs of the people of the world are irrelevant. Unless your idea of world peace is total subjugation.

This, more than anything else in your rhetoric, speaks volumes of your ignorance. There may be a large percentage of Muslims who have a very dim view of women, and Islam in general has pretty solid philosophy that women are subservient, but this is not the case for a billion Muslims unless you've got their signatures on a survey. Islam teaches that women and men must come to a symbiotic relationship within the household, and that the man must work to support the wife while the wife works to support the husband. The rest of the more oppressive principles are regional and interpretational. Islam in general is a religion dedicated to a strict personal code of behavior, for both men and women. It is especially strict for women, in my opinion, because it has evolved based on the inherent idea that a man finds it impossible to restrain himself when confronted with the female flesh. This also may be true, but it is the man's responsibility to correct this behavior, and not the woman's.

Islam may have a lot of archaic beliefs, but so does Fundamentalist Christianity and Orthodox Judaism. I see no difference between the oppressive ideals of one religion and the oppressive ideals of another.

Also, when one is raised in an environment of chaos and death, and the only real teachings they have is of the Muslim faith, which is a standard all around them, how can you fault them for believing that way? Men and women are taught from birth in these Muslim nations that their roles are God-given. This is no different than an American being born and seeing from birth that wanting toys and nagging your parents for them are okay.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

No might about it - but American support continued.

That's not the point I'm arguing. American support didn't stop because of the war itself. Using chemical weapons is definitely bad, but even the U.S. has used chemical weapons (Agent Orange in Vietnam for example).

Weren't you arguing that the US's foreign policy was more ethical than France's?

It might be a greater crime against humanity, but we don't go to war just because something is atrocious. I'm not arguing that this is correct, I'm just stating the facts.

Who said anything about going to war? I just said US support for Saddam should have stopped. Why do you insist on arguing against things I never suggested?

So?

There are wars that are considered acceptible by the international community. (Or not worth trying to stop or condemn either party over). It remains a fact whether or not you want to keep proposing the notion that Saddam instigated the entire Iran Iraq War on his own. Maybe if Iraq overwhelmed Iran we might have moved in and supported Iran, as we tried to do in Vietnam. But, dispite your protests, the facts of the matter remain the facts.

Only difference in Vietnam is that the enemy were communist insurgents. I sincerely doubt the US would have made similar moves to protect Islamic fundamentalists from a secular tyrant who was largely cooperative.

Nevertheless the world did not go to war against Saddam for his involvement in the Iran Iraq War. How strange.

We don't care what the world thinks!

Egypt did attempt to invade Israel, twice. And no, it's not as big of a deal given the historical conflict and the current situation.

Well, the world did think the Six Days War was a big deal!

Huh? No.

You're right. If not for Kuwait, Saddam would still be a US ally. I didn't ever dispute that. I'm not sure why you think I did. W is bullshitting when he says his invasion is related to Iran-Iraq. Glad we agree on that.

I have never seen the quote you are talking about, and I didn't know what Bush said was the topic of conversation. Definitely Saddam's behavior in the war with Iran comes into play when you talk about crimes against humanity.

But that wasn't anything to do with the cassus belli, so why bother mentioning it? No, what W said is not the topic of conversation - I just thought it was interesting you were in disagreement with him for once (search for "invaded").

You can't stop a tank so why bother.

Then why bother supporting policy? Why bother having any opinions at all?

quote:

---

Right now I'm not sure what our foreign policy is. I don't think with hindsight 20-20 you can post-judge American foreign policy though. Today, many of our current problems stem from our Cold War foreign policy. Perhaps our Cold War foreign policy defeated communism. Perhaps this is a much more favorable than the alternative, even considering the consequences. Perhaps not.

It's all irrelevant except for trying to avoid future wrongs.

---

That you hear about, actually. And those practices are not only associated with Muslims. Stone to death rape victims? My friend, you are actually quoting from the Old Testament right there.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Is that so? Perhaps you could quote the relevant scripture.

And even if that were the case, they don't still do it. That's where they part company with the Islamists.

I don't know what "that you hear about, actually" is supposed to mean.

mikey baby:

Indicative of your general philosophy. Instead of catering to everyone or just select groups, the international community should be hearing all voices. So should the U.S. government.

Actually it should be catering to the U.S. people.

Leaving Saddam in power wouldn't have led to world peace. My summation is that you are saying the world wasn't behind the war to oust Saddam, therefore you are saying the world doesn't want peace.

Our best chance for a functional peace is a strong America and strong and real democracies around the world.

This, more than anything else in your rhetoric, speaks volumes of your ignorance. There may be a large percentage of Muslims who have a very dim view of women, and Islam in general has pretty solid philosophy that women are subservient, but this is not the case for a billion Muslims unless you've got their signatures on a survey.

Uh, what? Why don't you read the Koran. Why don't you check out what life is like under Muslim law. Why don't you check and see how many Muslims are fighting to establish Muslim law in countries around the world.

You go take a survey.

And under Muslim law a woman is stoned to death if she is raped.

Under strict Islamic law a woman cannot go outside with her face uncovered.

Therefore the woman must be punished. Gotcha. Welp I'm not yet converted but keep at it! ;)

That's why we don't have a Christian government, we have a democracy. That's why we don't let simply the most populous religious group guide the nation. That's why saying public opinion should guide foreign policy is inherently flawed.

I'm not faulting them, I'm saying that just because an opinion is widely held, it might be false (or as you say, formed in an environment of chaos and death.

There's a difference between believing something and being oppressed. Oppression isn't a "gift" given by endulgent "parents".

dougan:

Weren't you arguing that the US's foreign policy was more ethical than France's?

Using Agent Orange isn't the same thing as foreign policy. I think I'm starting to see why you're having so much trouble understanding. Please review the definiton of the main vocabulary terms of this discussion and return prepared for class.

America's policy in Iraq certainly makes more sense than France's. Our policy in Vietnam wasn't very different than our policy in Korea or Afghanistan during the Cold War. I didn't know we were arguing that.

So?

So, you keep debating the point. I'm glad you've finally stuck a sock in it.

Only difference in Vietnam is that the enemy were communist insurgents. I sincerely doubt the US would have made similar moves to protect Islamic fundamentalists from a secular tyrant who was largely cooperative.

We were at war with communism, that's why we were fighting in Vietnam. If it was a civil war unrelated to communism I don't think we would have given two damns.

We don't care what the world thinks!

What government thinks and what "global public opinion" are are two different things. In this instance what the world "thinks" is the political reality.

Well, the world did think the Six Days War was a big deal!

Israel was newly formed so there was some kind of justification for invasion. I don't think you can exactly say that whole situation is completely sewn up. You could argue that from the Arab nations' perspectives they were just in trying to attack Israel. That's my point, not that the war was not "scary" or "a bad thing".

You can't stop a tank so why bother.

Then why bother supporting policy? Why bother having any opinions at all?

You're right. Shut up about your opinion.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Right now I'm not sure what our foreign policy is. I don't think with hindsight 20-20 you can post-judge American foreign policy though. Today, many of our current problems stem from our Cold War foreign policy. Perhaps our Cold War foreign policy defeated communism. Perhaps this is a much more favorable than the alternative, even considering the consequences. Perhaps not.

It's all irrelevant except for trying to avoid future wrongs.

---

But you can't stop a tank, so why bother?

---

Now you've said that no one's opinions matter because America will do what it likes anyway, that its decision-makers may be "evil", and that it is not "grown up" to allow ethical considerations to drive foreign policy, I no longer see the point of your presence in this thread.

Just one last thing: "you don't need US weapons to commit atrocities", huh? Then what's so bad about France continuing to arm Saddam after Kuwait? You don't need French weapons to invade countries.