Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice!

[Steve]

You've got to read this! (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp) Apologies for the snopes link, I couldn't find an English translation anywhere else, but the snopes site does link to the German language original.

As mentioned in another thread, Bush has been and is right, and others are starting to pay attention.

[Coot]

Wow!! This guy needs to write more.

[cmhbob]

Wow indeed. Great article; thanks for sharing.

I can almost hear the outcry now.

[ethics]

You know what? He may as well not publish it. As in this forum (and many others) do you honestly think this made people THINK, to reflect?

I doubt it. People are so set on the Iraq War (anti/Pro) that it will take a LOT more than an article like that.

My prediction is that those that needed to read it either laughed about it at the watercooler or labeled it a rant from an extreme right.

[Swamp Fox]

I would also add that the Muslim population in Europe is far more of a problem and far less integrated because they are not as readily accepted there as they are in North America.

[Techie2000]

It makes some good points, however to say that "literally everything" is at stake is misleading IMHO. Also although he may have taken a hard line against communism, Reagan was a supporter of Hussein. Reagan doesn't have a moral high ground.

[Steve]

The point about moral high ground involves the amount of sacrifice involved to fight evil. Reagan focussed on the Soviet Union and made hard choices that, yes, weren't all that great for the American economy but sure as hell were pretty good for the rest of the world. That's a moral high ground. During Reagan's Presidency, Saddam Hussein simply wasn't perceived to be the threat that he became. I can't fault Reagan for not having foresight.

Bush, Jr. will no doubt be faulted for not fighting some obscure movement that, 20 years from now, will become a major threat to world peace. So he fights the one in front of him, at great risk to America. But then, those who dare greatly may succeed or fail greatly.

I think he'll succeed as did Reagan.

[Techie2000]

Well of course Hussein wasn't that much of a threat at the time, he didn't have WMDs yet. I don't fault Reagan for simply not paying attention somewhere, but rather for acting as a catalyst by equipping Saddam with weapons after taking his country off the state sponsers of terrorism list.

[Coot]

Well of course Hussein wasn't that much of a threat at the time, he didn't have WMDs yet. I don't fault Reagan for simply not paying attention somewhere, but rather for acting as a catalyst by equipping Saddam with weapons after taking his country off the state sponsers of terrorism list.

Well, you can fault Reagan for that, but you'd be wrong. The U.S. provided Saddam with little in the way of weapons. The vast majority of his weapons were supplied by France, Germany and Russia. What he was supplied by the US was more symbolic than anything.

[Stiofán]

I'm sorry Techie, but this is one area where you need to have lived through it at an age of awareness. Saddam was our ally in the 80s, as they were countering the Iranians, and really for no other reason. Thanks to Mr. Boffo ("Peanuts" Carter), we had our asses handed to us in the late 70s by that two bit theocratic regime of Iran. They were not only content to control their own Shi'ite population but very intent on spreading their brand of fascist Mullah dominated style government throughout the middle east, with Iraq's Shi'ite population being the first logical step. At the time, the ME had never had a theocratic hard right regime controlling a country during the modern era, and it frightened everybody. All control then was by the tribal houses of power which still controls most of the ME today. Unfortunately for the Iranian's grandiose dreams of conquest, they didn't figure on crazy man Saddam having the same power dreams of being the big man in the gulf, along with him being afraid of their brand of government replacing his tribal Tikriti government with a more theocratic one.

We may look back now and say it was wrong to support Crazy Saddam, but we were in a desperate balancing act in dealing with the Middle East, just as we are now. Let's remember we also supported Osama in Afghanistan against the Soviets and their communist government. What we got was the same theocratic mess with the Taliban.

Hindsight is great, but things look very different from when you're right in the middle of it.

[Techie2000]

Well, you can fault Reagan for that, but you'd be wrong. The U.S. provided Saddam with little in the way of weapons. The vast majority of his weapons were supplied by France, Germany and Russia. What he was supplied by the US was more symbolic than anything.So providing Iraq with vx nerve gas, anthrax, and some standard arms is only symbolic while he is fighting Iran, but when they threaten America they become reason to institute regime change? I find that logic, interesting....

[Coot]

So providing Iraq with vx nerve gas, anthrax, and some standard arms is only symbolic while he is fighting Iran, but when they threaten America they become reason to institute regime change? I find that logic, interesting....

Saddam's government was supplied with samples of pathogens (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm) by the CDC as requested by our then ally. The samples were requested under the guise of legitimate medical research. We certainly did not knowingly arm or fund his bioweapons program, as that is not a function of the CDC.

[Stiofán]

Techie, take a gander at this site. (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm) You're parroting the anti-Bush Iraq war folks about our role in the Iran-Iraq war. As I mentioned above it was much more complex than " Rummy gave 'em WMD" 25 years ago.

[Copzilla]

So providing Iraq with vx nerve gas, anthrax, and some standard arms is only symbolic while he is fighting Iran, but when they threaten America they become reason to institute regime change? I find that logic, interesting....
Really, Techie, you're talking blatant misrepresentations of fact. Samples provided 1) was not arming Saddam, 2) did not give him the capability or knowledge to manufacture those samples by the tonnage. The majority of Saddam's technical know-how was supplied by Russia, and indeed, the bulk of his conventional weapons.

I find the entire argument that we supplied Saddam Hussein to be akin to a mass murderer buying a kitchen knife set at Wal-Mart, guns at Buster's Outfitters, ammo at Ammunation, and Wal-Mart being the store blamed for the murders. It's just such a massive stretch that it defies logic, and is simply "bad ol' America!" rants being bandied about by the fringe left.

Yes, America has made mistakes, and in retrospect, should not have even sent those samples. But you know what? If we were the ones who armed a tyrant, shouldn't we be the ones to clean that mess up?