Quote:
Originally posted by CanadianTeke
I didn't mention anyting about "aid" the that US gave to Iraq in this article. What i mentioned was that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq meeting with with high ranking government officials, while at the same time chemical weapons were being used in a genocidal fashion, but then he had no moral issue with it. Only after Kuwait was invaded, and oil supply was in question was there any moral opposistion to Saddam (to the point where the US suported Saddam up to 2 weeks prior to the invasion, which was 1990, 2 years after chemical weapons had been used to exterminate the Kurds.
I understand that there are Geopolitical reasons for the war, and don't get me wrong i am gald that there is one less madman in a posistion to hurt people. But using Morality to justify the invasion is wrong. Morality had nothing to do with it. Morality has never had anything to do with it.
|
The moral issue was one evil against another actually. Khomeini was considered much more of a "mad man" with much more potential than Saddam. That is why so many countries in the world went against him - including much of the middle east and Arab countries.
Rumsfeld met with Saddam to give US "aid". Most (key word) of that aid came in detailed strategic analysis of Iranian defenses and positions, pretty much giving the Iraqi army a superior advantage. How much after that did Rumsfeld and the US keep supporting, meeting with, or giving aid to Saddam do you know?
-Rudey
--And do you know how much longer than the US the French were still arming this madman with WMD's? I do.