Would you have supported Saddam in the 80s?

[Jake]

Your premise is faulty.  The US did not support Saddam.  It had basically the same relationship with Iraq that we had with nearly every other non-aligned country.

Aside from that, no I would not support Saddam.

Who sold him tons of weapons? And note the famous picture of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld.

I'm sure we all remember the columns of M-48s and M-60s on the Highway of Death and all of those nice F-4s lined up to be destroyed during the First Gulf War. Oh wait...

[dazzleman]

Yes, I would have supported Saddam, tepidly and tacitly, in the 1980s.

Only those with very constricted and myopic views of the world insist that we must act the same way, regardless of circumstances.

There's nothing wrong with doing one thing under one set of circumstances, and something different under another set of circumstances.

But there is always something wrong with supporting a brutal genocidal dictator.

Then why do you like communists?

We supported one brutal genocidal dictator in World War II (Stalin) against another one (Hitler) because Hitler was a more immediate threat.  A tilt toward Saddam is in the same vein.

[minionofmidas]

Your premise is faulty.  The US did not support Saddam.  It had basically the same relationship with Iraq that we had with nearly every other non-aligned country.

Aside from that, no I would not support Saddam.

Who sold him tons of weapons? And note the famous picture of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld.

We've been through this, get it through your thick commie skull.

Saddam's top supplier of weapons was the Soviet Union, providing over 50% of the Iraqi arsenal, $25 billion out of $42 billion Iraq spent between 1979 and 1990 (They years Saddam was in power, but before the UN weapons embargo was imposed).

BRTD's claim was that the US sold Saddam "tons of weapons," not that the US was Saddam's "top supplier of weapons."  Comparing the US and the Soviet Union won't change anything.

US weapons transacxtion with Iraq accounted for 0.05% of Iraq's weapons purchases.  We sold them transport helicopters that did not even carry armaments.

I bet those helicopters weighed tons, though.

It's amazing how hard the left finds accepting the simple fact that the US was not a major supplier of weapons to Iraq.

If you want to talk about supplying military intelligence, then you have a case.

If you want to claim that these should not count as weapons for the purposes of this discussion, then you do not have a case.

[Wakie]

A more appropriate way of putting this question is "would you support a brutal dictator if he was waging a war with one of America's enemies".  Or, do you support Islam Karimov?

[minionofmidas]

Since when is Islam Karimov waging a war with one of America's opponents?

[Wakie]

Since when is Islam Karimov waging a war with one of America's opponents?

We used Uzbekistan as a staging area for going into Afghanistan.  We gave their "law enforcement" services $79 million in 2002.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, I would have supported Saddam, tepidly and tacitly, in the 1980s.

Only those with very constricted and myopic views of the world insist that we must act the same way, regardless of circumstances.

There's nothing wrong with doing one thing under one set of circumstances, and something different under another set of circumstances.

But there is always something wrong with supporting a brutal genocidal dictator.

Then why do you like communists?

We supported one brutal genocidal dictator in World War II (Stalin) against another one (Hitler) because Hitler was a more immediate threat.  A tilt toward Saddam is in the same vein.

When have I said I like a brutal genocidal communist dictator like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot? Find a comment of me praising one of them.

Who was Saddam facing that was a more immediate threat? If you're talking about Iran as horrible as that government was Saddam invaded Iran and started that war and therefore deserved to get his ass kicked. And Iran is still around so it didn't accomplish anything anyway. Plus your stance on Iraq is great for Iran because it allows those Shiite asswipes to take over the government and suck up to Iran. Opposing Iran and then supporting turning Iraq into another Iran doesn't make any sense.

[minionofmidas]

Since when is Islam Karimov waging a war with one of America's opponents?

We used Uzbekistan as a staging area for going into Afghanistan.  We gave their "law enforcement" services $79 million in 2002.

Yes, I know that. Still not quite the same situation.

[ATFFL]

Yes, I would have supported Saddam, tepidly and tacitly, in the 1980s.

Only those with very constricted and myopic views of the world insist that we must act the same way, regardless of circumstances.

There's nothing wrong with doing one thing under one set of circumstances, and something different under another set of circumstances.

But there is always something wrong with supporting a brutal genocidal dictator.

Then why do you like communists?

We supported one brutal genocidal dictator in World War II (Stalin) against another one (Hitler) because Hitler was a more immediate threat.  A tilt toward Saddam is in the same vein.

When have I said I like a brutal genocidal communist dictator like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot? Find a comment of me praising one of them.

Who was Saddam facing that was a more immediate threat? If you're talking about Iran as horrible as that government was Saddam invaded Iran and started that war and therefore deserved to get his ass kicked. And Iran is still around so it didn't accomplish anything anyway. Plus your stance on Iraq is great for Iran because it allows those Shiite asswipes to take over the government and suck up to Iran. Opposing Iran and then supporting turning Iraq into another Iran doesn't make any sense.

Know what President gave him permission to start the war with Iran?

[Hitchabrut]

Autocratic Theocracy>Secular Autocracy

[Platypus]

Would you have supported Stalin in the '40s?

Go, Go Uncle Joe!