Would you have supported Saddam in the 80s?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wouldn't have, but I bet the right wingers here would've, even if they deny it now. Back then most right wingers LOVED Saddam and worshipped the ground he walked on. I bet Reagan had a very very positive opinion of him.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No

Was Thachter quite fond of him too? I don't know much about the UK's policy during that time but I heard that Galloway was Saddam's biggest critic back then, until after the Gulf War when he became the President of the Saddam Fan Club. Proving how much of a douchebag Galloway is.

[The Dowager Mod]

Nope

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Was Thachter quite fond of him too?

I've no idea. The Tories prefered to sell arms in Africa

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Galloway has always been an invisible M.P in the House and Iraq wasn't even close to being a big issue until the '90's. Before the Gulf War he was best known for being something of a cheerleader for the Soviet Union if that helps.

[Blue Rectangle]

I wouldn't have, but I bet the right wingers here would've, even if they deny it now. Back then most right wingers LOVED Saddam and worshipped the ground he walked on. I bet Reagan had a very very positive opinion of him.

Wow.  Textbook strawman.

[Jake]

Most likely, especially since he was willing to fight the Iranians.

[Blue Rectangle]

Would you have supported Stalin in the '40s?

[Jake]

Not sure if you're asking me? I would for the first half, but not the remainder.

[Blue Rectangle]

Not sure if you're asking me? I would for the first half, but not the remainder.

I was throwing it out for anyone.

I would have given support to Stalin during our involvement in World War II, but not before or after.  Also, I would have only provided enough aid to prevent the Soviets from being overrun.  This is nearly identical to our support of Saddam in the 80s.

[The Duke]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[The Duke]

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).

[Ebowed]

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.

[minionofmidas]

I wouldn't have, but I bet the right wingers here would've, even if they deny it now. Back then most right wingers LOVED Saddam and worshipped the ground he walked on. I bet Reagan had a very very positive opinion of him.

You would have too, he was the anti-Khomeini.

[minionofmidas]

Jake's the only honest Republican on this board.

[Democratic Hawk]

No, I just sat back and watched the Rani's and the Raqi's kick sh**t out of one another

Dave

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, that was the European Left's position.

(The Ranis though? The last fighting Rani I know of was the Rani of Jhansi. )

[??????????]

I would have supported them both wiping each other off the face of the planet.

[The Duke]

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.

[skybridge]

I must say I like Khomeini less, but my enemy's enemy is NOT my friend. The GOP should have reverted to the GOP of the 1920s foreign policy wise in this case, instead of economically.

[ATFFL]

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.

[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.

[J. J.]

Until about 81, probably.  By that point it was clear that he was too brutal. 

[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.