Posted on 06/10/2004 7:46:44 AM PDT by Roamin53
You’ve also got our history with Saddam a bit mixed up. As you admit, we helped Saddam. We supported him, providing him with arms and funds, for the war with Iran.. We were also, of course, selling arms to Iran for that same war. Later, Saddam started to not be as reliable of a go-to guy as he had been. We didn’t object to his gassing his own people, but we thought maybe he wasn’t the best person to rule this oil rich land. Then, when Saddam asked permission of the US to invade Iraq, the US under George Bush Sr. did not give him a response. After waiting a while, he decided that the US’s lack of a response amounted to permission, as it had in the past. At this point, Bush fought a war on Iraq for invading Kuwait, which he had known full well they would do. The world generally gave their support despite this baiting because no one was all that keen on Saddam or the US’s support of him.
You say that Saddam has been a “general pain in the ass for 10 years.” A pain in the ass to whom? The oil companies? Iraq has been crippled economically by the first Gulf war (which the Iraqi people called “The Great War”) and by the sanctions that followed. Saddam has been pretty quiet for 10 years, actually.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefoggiestidea.com ...
Well, he's gonna be a lot quieter nowadays, ain't he?
From another former lib - let's just hope he is permanently quiet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.