So, you would then have had us look the other way in WWII when Hitler was gassing the Jews because he didn't like them? How can you call that government moderate when it tortured and killed thousands of its own people? When they were on their way (by all accounts at the time) to having nuclear weapons and refused, FOR YEARS, to allow the UN in to verify their compliance? When they stole aid for the welfare of their own people and used it to produce weapons? Maybe we should have just waited 'til they send a nuke into Israel? I really hope I misunderstood what you said, and please let me know if I did.
When Saddam gassed his people, he was our guy against the Iranians. Didn't seem to bother us then, in fact, according to Senate investigations, we seem to have sold Saddam the means.
Using your anology, we would have been content to arm Hitler and tolorate his murder of millions of jews as long as he did our fighting for us.
When they were on their way (by all accounts at the time) to having nuclear weapons and refused, FOR YEARS, to allow the UN in to verify their compliance?
The US government knew who Saddam was when his scientists were invited to a conference on Nuclear weapons detonation.
The detonation conference. In 1989, the Pentagon and the Department of Energy invited three Iraqis to attend a "detonation conference" in Portland, Oregon in August. Financed by American taxpayers, the meeting brought together experts from around the world to explain to the Iraqis how to produce shock waves in any desired configuration. There were even lectures on "H.M.X.," the high explosive of choice for nuclear detonation, and on flyer plates, used to help produce the precise shock waves needed to ignite A-bombs. The UN found both H.M.X. and flyer plates at Iraq's main nuclear weapon development site. The three Iraqis who attended the conference came from the laboratory that provided parts for Iraq's first high explosive nuclear detonator. Testimony of Gary Milhollin, Before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs October 27, 1992
But putting all that aside, weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq and were doing their job when we invaded.
We have sowed the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.
That's basically what the U.S. did for quite a while, wasn't it? And we certainly didn't enhance our moral credibility by allying with Stalin -- who had killed 30 million people in Eastern Europe in the 1930s -- to defeat Hitler.
How can you call that government moderate when it tortured and killed thousands of its own people?
I didn't call the government "moderate" in general -- I called it "moderate" in comparison to other governments in the region. Every Islamic government in that region has engaged in the torture and death of its own people (do some research on Jordan's King Hussein -- that long-time champion of peace in the Middle East -- for a good lesson in this). So Saddam's crimes are really nothing special in that region.
When they were on their way (by all accounts at the time) to having nuclear weapons and refused, FOR YEARS, to allow the UN in to verify their compliance? When they stole aid for the welfare of their own people and used it to produce weapons? Maybe we should have just waited 'til they send a nuke into Israel?
None of these things are legitimate reasons for the U.S. to topple a government. In fact, for one of them -- telling the United Nations to "f#&% off!" -- he ought to get a medal.