On 25 Apr 2005 05:42:50 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

I suppose invading neighboring countries doesn't
count either.

Apparently not to the Bush.

Note that Saddam's invasion of Iran was proposed, supported, and
informed by us.

Really? That's an interesting spin, seeing how the war between Iraq and
Iran started in Sept. 1980 (when Carter was pres.)

And Iran was holding those hostages that were released on the
day Ronnie Raygun became pres?
They had a deal to get rid of Carter it seems.

Then we had Iran/Contra, right?

and the "record" you
are talking about is US National Security Directive 114 was issued in
Nov. 1983.

From the "National Sercurity Archive":
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

[
The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for
Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear
aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon
capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human
rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on
Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to
provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by
Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald
Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
..........

Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In
that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a
matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document
indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise
the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.
..........
U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution
seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's
chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about
the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response
and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical
warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the
Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's
refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected
from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's
intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of
eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be
inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the
moral and religious basis which it claims."
]

So the use of "WMDs" by Iraq was fine with the US: Rumsfeld,
Bush-I, Ronnie Raygun, etc.
Pretty much the entire crew, except for junior.

It was IRAN that was objecting and wanted Sadam ousted.
The US wanted him IN, "WMDs" & all.

The reason we supported Iraq at that time was because they
were losing the war with Iran. The Iranians were in Iraq all the way to
Basra, and were on the verge of winning the war.

Trying to toss out Saddam ...
I see.

If you want to talk
about history you need to take off your rose colored glasses and look
through the lens of the world that existed in 1983. Would it have been a
good thing for stability in the region to have Iraq taken over by Iran?

Gee, how is it NOW?

From Iraq the Iranians would be a threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the
rest of the Guulf states.

Why? Did Vietnam take over the world too?

Iran is a far different country today than they
were in 1980 don't forget.

Plagues of neocons & wingers ....

I don't see how letting them take control of
the worlds oil supply back in 1980 was a good thing. Maybe you could
enlighten us?

NOW the price has gone up ....
--
Cliff