Reagan and Saddam were buddies

So let's put replace FDR with Reagan on the dime.

Unbelievable hypocrisy.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

At the time, it was a good thing. You've admitted that. Genocide and rape are alright, when it's in our best interests.

But then, suddenly, Saddam became a bad guy. Why? I think we've just ruled out the idea that it was because of the way he treated his people.

You KNOW why.

We made this guy who he was. "Sure, and as soon as we didn't need him we cast him off and put a distance between our two nations." Is that supposed to be some kind of excuse? Should we be blaming him or ourselves for all those people he killed? Do you have the audacity to call our actions righteous, then? Where's all this arrogance coming from? It's ridiculous.

What ever happened to INTEGRITY?


On edit: http://xerph.com/archives/000769.html

Yup....integrity, integrity, integrity.....tsk tsk.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I hope you realize that the rise of Iran's fundamentalist Islamic regime was a direct result of the harsh dictatorial policies of the CIA installed Shah, who, with the backing of the CIA, deposed the elected head of the country, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, for, horrors, attempting to nationalize Iran's oil industry.

The Shah's CIA- trained Savak secret police were known butchers and used torture and murder to keep people in line. The people got behind Islamic militants because that was the only group with any significant following that could oust the tyrant, Reza Pahlavi.

How about we stay out of their affairs and let then choose their own leaders? Mossadegh was ok, but the U.S. government didn't stay out of it and look at all that followed.
If we can't, why don't we try support the leaders the people elected legally, instead of deciding who should run countries based on our bottom line. Are we better than them? Are we the only ones who know what's good for everybody? If we get attacked or threatened in a REAL way by the leaders of another country, we have means to defend ourselves. Not liking how they choose to run their own internal affairs becuase our gas may cost more is not a good enough reason.

I believe our primary goal in the Middle East at that time was to ensure that it remained fractured. Then, like now, the US biggest fear was a unified Islamic world which would wield serious power over the western capitalist society that we headed.

In doing so we ignored some severe human rights abuses and allied ourselves with some truly nasty people. I don't think that is forgivable, sorry.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You neglect the fact that Iran was a secular democracy, or rather a representative monarchy, before we stuck our nose in their business. Mossadaq had socialist leanings and was viewed as a threat, not because he supported Islamic fundamentalists(though they did support him, because they were not oppressed under his rule), but because he had the tendencies of the other boogeyman of the period, the socialists. (Allende/Pinochet parallels, anyone?)
He was looking to return the power to the people. U.S/U.K. oil interests and the monarchy did not want the peons to have a say in where their resources were going, and who was profiting from them, so they organized a coup when he wouldn't play ball.

The Shah, with CIA support, had him removed. Pro-monarchist and pro-democracy supporters clashed, and, with U.S./U.K. help, Mossadeq was arrested and convicted of treason.
That was the fall of democracy in Iran, and the U.S. caused it. To come back now and say that the problems in Iran are caused by the fundamentalist Islamic regime there in the 80's, 90's and today is to ignore the fact that they would not be there if we did not help to eliminate a popular elected leader because he had socialist tendencies.

How do you feel about gun control? Or more specifically screening for potention arms buyers?

We sold chemical weapons to someone we knew was an evil dictator. I don't care what the strategic purpose. I was like 2, and I helped, via my parents purchases, to gas thousands of Kurdish people.

Reagan was a fuck. Besides that he fueled a war b/t Iraq and Iran via ilegal arms trades.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I was trying to make a relation b/t us selling a madman WMD and then going after him for having/using them.

It really makes no sense to me.

edit: WELCOME TO DU! BTW! :) :) :) :) :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that no matter what the situation is, it is immoral to both give WMD to Saddam and give arms to Iran.

Yes, I do think our foreign policy has been really weird for quite a while.

I think that Bush I started the first gulf war, which was okay'ed by April Glasby (who is apparently dead in light of the criminal trials), to remove Saddam, but realized we would get in a situation similar to the one we are in now. I think Bush 2 started the war due to economic resources and political potential (based on the idea that the war on terror might end and thus the political benefits on 9/11).

I think the right wing is very smart, basically. And I think the "opposition" party, the Democrats (aka, the whore to the Repbulican pimp) are very weak.

I think the current situation is very bad. Very bad. Liberals, above all, stand for peace, and they are not represented. "Bad times soon come" - Hunter S. Thompson.

It's a two party system in which both parties are corrupt. Kind of like a relationship, and the Republicans are the alpha male. Reagan was a corrupt POS, but people worship him. They do and did. While FDR was in office he was denounced as a socialist, even though he very well might've saved the world from anti-semite fascism. Russia had them trumphed on the eestern front but they could've taken western europe (minus our support) and if they quit the offensive on the eastern front I am relatively sure Stalin would've aquiesced (sp? it's late).

I still cannot believe Lincoln was the first Republican president, and Teddy Rosevelt was a part of thier party. Or even Ike Eisenhower. I think they all would spit on the current Republican admin.