"Why should Saddam Hussein want to repeat his Kuwait experience? In 1991, he believed that his aggression would be ignored, just like his war of aggression against Iran has not only been ignored, but actively supported by the US."Assertion: America created Saddam. How can it be it's enemy? You can say that America created Saddam. But you must acknowledge that Iraq was created in 1923 by France and England. You can allege US intelligence support against Iran. But you cannot deny that Iraq was armed largely by France and Russia for its war on Iran. The Mirages, Sukhois, Migs, Scuds, Russian armor and German poison gas all speak volumes for themselves. You can assert we were Saddam's allies -- but not to the the widows of the USS Stark which was attacked by an Iraqi Super Entendard (made in France, pilots trained in France).
"Today, Saddam Hussein cannot possibly be under the impression, that the US will leave an attack against a neighboring country unanswered ... Bush's policies have been a very effective advertising campaign for WMDs - now everybody wants them.Assertion: Saddam can be contained and it's OK if he arms. You say America wants Saddam to have WMDs. You say it advertises them like toothpaste. You say everybody has breeder reactors like those built at Osirak from France. Yet Saddam cannot possibly be under the impression that the US will leave an attack against a neighboring country unanswered. Having been encouraged to do the first, why would he believe the second?
"Disarmament can only work on an international level ... After WW2, the UN was created to stop all wars.Assertion: the UN will disarm tyrants. This is assertion is so counterfactual that you cannot even cite an example.
"The Mujahedeen and Osama bin Laden received funding and some military equipment from the US and its ally Pakistan.The Mujahedeen and Osama are not synonymous. Ask the widow of Massoud. We funded the one and not the other. The Saudis funded the other. And it was precisely because we funded the one that they killed the one and funded the other.
That is a strawman argument. The US has supported Iraq in its war with Iran -- by providing intelligence, as well as equipment to produce chemical weapons when Iraq started losing the war.
"But you cannot deny that Iraq was armed largely by France and Russia for its war on Iran."
Do you seriously suggest that it is a good thing if the US follows the lead of France and the USSR (RIP)? In this matter, anyway.
"You can assert we were Saddam's allies -- but not to the the widows of the USS Stark which was attacked by an Iraqi Super Entendard."
This makes Israel and Iraq the only two countries, which were allowed to attack a US vessel without consequences.
You say America wants Saddam to have WMDs. You say it advertises them like toothpaste.
It seems you have misinterpreted my statement. It is the US policy of "regime change" in designated "rogue states" which encourages many countries to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea has shown that nuclear deterrence really works.
"You say America wants Saddam to have WMDs."
That was certainly true when Iraq was fighting Iran. Now the WMDs are a nuissance, but also a formidable pretext for war.
"You say everybody has breeder reactors like those built at Osirak from France. Yet Saddam cannot possibly be under the impression that the US will leave an attack against a neighboring country unanswered. Having been encouraged to do the first, why would he believe the second?"
That is the problem, is it not? Having been encouraged in his war of aggression against Iran, Saddam Hussein thought nothing of attacking Kuwait. Now that this "misunderstanding" has been resolved, it is unlikely that Iraq will start another war.
"Assertion: the UN will disarm tyrants. This is assertion is so counterfactual that you cannot even cite an example."
Selective disarmament does not work well. Besides, disarming "tyrants" might prove difficult, when Europe and the US keep arming them.
You forget the disarmament treaties between the USSR and the USA. Plus the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties which until recently have worked quite well.