Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
This is a nonquestion, as the answer is manifest. If you're going to blast other nations about their dealings with "ruthless dictators", best make sure you're not chummy with any yourself. Oh, sure, we helped Saddam 'cos he fought against the Ayatollah. Maybe there's something legit there. I doubt it, but my mind is open enough to admit that much.
But giving money to the Taliban? Propping up Pervez Musharraf? Cozying up to Islam Karimov? How on earth are these things justified? How can this not be considered compliance? You're saying that since the United States is the one giving them the things that they want (usually hard currency or weapons) isn't fairly "pathetic compliance" with their demands? Get real.
|
Back in the olde days when Saddam was still mister nice guy, the US supported his regime in it's fight against Iran, because Iran was seen as the worst of the two. Later, when it turned out how evil Saddam was, the US (at least officially) stopped their support. In international politics, especially during the cold war, you could not (and still cannot) choose your allies - you take what's offered. Later on you might regret it, or you may get attacked for it, but at the time you usually have no choice. Is that "compliance with their demands"? Nope, it's called "supporting friendly regimes". You give them weapons or money, they support you in the fight against fascism/communism/terrorism. They scratch your back, you scratch theirs.
Quote:
Ever hear of April Glaspie? Read this, and then try to make that statement again. I would argue that granting him tacit permission to attack Kuwait was all the support he needed at that moment.
|
To you, and Superbelt: the US did NOT give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. That they didn't say "don't do it or else" would be called *diplomacy*. Again, in the real world, you usually do not insult leaders of foreign countries, especially if those countries supply you with a lot of oil. Saddam should have known the US would never accept his aggression, if only because there was no reason to assume he'd stop at Kuwait...
As for the sale of chemical and biological agents: true. And? German companies build chemical factories in Iraq, France supplied him with an atomic power plant, and loads of weapons, Russia supplied even more weapons; hell, even the Netherlands joined in - we supplied him with night-vision goggles. At the time, it seemed like a good idea, given that he was fighting the evil extremist Iran, which was threatening to overrun the entire middle-east, drive the Jews back into the sea, and cut our vital oil supply...
Quote:
Or was it the United States who was dependent upon their support? We got really cozy with Pervez Musharraf in a big hurry, didn't we? And what exactly did we have to promise Islam Karimov to get his backing for the "war on terra"?
But, of course, we're the United States of America!. When we cozy up to foreign lunatics, it's "good statemanship". When France does it, it's "pathetic compliance." Gotcha.
One of these days, someone's gonna have to compile a Republican-to-English translation dictionary. Maybe then these tragic misunderstandings will stop happening.
|
I don't blame France for kissing up to foreign leaders; I just blame them for a bad choice at a bad time - supporting Saddam at the very end was clearly not in their best interests. They should have known better, and should not have let their national pride cloud their judgment... But what can one expect from the French...