From: briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Bush Secretly Aided Saddam Until August 1990
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:46:14 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <brian.702527367@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon (593-0923)) writes:
>
>>>dual use was designed as a way of evading guidelines when the
>>>government WANTS to allow a country to purchase weapons.  Don't believe
>>>me?  Ask the Pentagon.  They argued AGAINST allowing the exports for
>>>precisely that reason, but heavy corporate lobbying got the Commerce
>>>Dept to overrule these arguments and permit the exports.
>
>>The exports of wheat and commercial helicopters.  This could be justified
>>on any number of grounds including helping farmers.  Why should the US
>>not ship wheat to Iraq.  It is in Americas interest to get those sales.
>
>	Oh, well, if you want to take it to the bottom line Mr.Mathon,
>thats fine.  However, don't continue to claim then that the US is _not_
>a friend of dictators, OK?

I wouldn't say were a "friend" of dictators.  Rather a user of dictators.
It may seem semantic but there is a big difference.  A friend you expect to
behave certain ways to you all the time, versus someone you use you expect
them to act a certain way only on certain things.  Otherwise you don't know
(or don't care) what they'll do.

>
>>Iraq is going to buy the wheat anyways, why not get it from the US.  
>
>	Because people like yourself like to attempt to paint the US as
>being somehow morally "superior" to people like Saddam, yet it seems
>that all you really desire is a chance to make a quick dollar....

Not morally superior, just more realistic.  Utopia has not arrived on Earth yet
it sometimes you still have to fight fire with fire.

>>I can fully justify sales of wheat to almost anybody when Europe will
>>sell them it anyways, why should the US not sell these people wheat?
>
>	Because the US claims continually that its not supporting people like
>Saddam when its obvious that it is.......

We've never "supported" Saddam--it was the Soviet Union that did
that--instead we've contributed to him.  He would have gotten what he
wanted, whether it was from us or someone else.  So, instead of cutting off
our nose to spite our face, we sell him stuff to make money instead of our
competitors, as well as possibly gain some influence with him.  Not morally
pristine, but the world is still a rough and tumble place where the weak
and meak get eaten alive.

>
>>Selling Iraq was the correct policy yesterday and when they comply with
>>UN sanctions, selling wheat will be OK in the future EVEN if Saddam
>>is still in power or some other scumbag is in power.  Is this clear!!!
>
>	Nope, because selling wheat to "scumbags" like Saddam only helps
>to make sure that they remain in power Mr.Mathon.  So much for the US 
>being interested in "self-determination" and "democracy/freedom/justice"
>around the world when it supports someone like Saddam.

It wasn't a choice between Saddam and "democracy/freedom/justice".  It was
a choice between Saddam and the Ayatollah Khomeni.  Given that neither
these guys you'd want to take out your daughter, our "friends" in the area
said Saddam was a blusterer that they could always buy off.  The Ayatollah
on the other hand was considered beyond reason.  So, better to deal with
Saddam and let him be a buffer to Iran than "take the moral high ground"
and watch Islamic Fundamentalism sweep through the Arabian Penninsula.
Something that would have really thrown the world into a tizzy.

Saddam wasn't the US friend.  He was a tool, and a minor one at that.  We
dealt with him when it was convenient and beneficial to us.  If we hadn't
it would have made little or no difference to his actions.  Rather, it was
FUSSR that actually supported, and armed him to the point of being the 4th
largest army in the world.

>
>>The US did nothing wrong in selling Saddam wheat.  NOTHING.
>
>	Nothing?  Is this a moral absolutist statement or a moral
>relativist one Mr.Mathon?  If its an absolutist statement then you cannot
>attempt to blame any other nation around the world, for anything.  If its
>a relativist statement, then I'd suggest you actually go and do some reading
>about what is and is not morally acceptable.

Geo-politics doesn't know what the word "moral" is.  Before Ronald Reagan, moral
righteousness wasn't even part of the diplomatic vernacular.  What there
was was quid-pro-quo, influence, leverage, economic/development/military
aid, spheres of influence, national interest.  Morality was something for
domestic consumption, a feel good pill for the public while diplomats,
generals and spies scrambled about trying to avoid a confrontation with the 
USSR that would destory the planet.  Do you think we went to the Moon
because of some desire to better mankind?  No, it was to prove to the USSR
our missles were so accurate we could hit any spot we wanted.  And guess
what, it worked.  Were still here able to hold this conversation, and the USSR
is gone.  It wasn't pretty, but war, be it hot or cold is never pretty.
And morality just doesn't have much place in war.  (It's humanity that
does, but that's a different issue.)

>
>>Second, most of the other nations who sold Saddam real weapons are
>>not responsible for his use of those weapons.  Iraq must take full
>>blame for using the weapons.  Even though Italy, West Germany and
>>France sold him billions in weapons and even though Russia sold him
>>billions in weapons, they are not responsible for his acts as far as
>>I see.
>
>	They are as responsible as the US is Mr.Mathon and no one is attempting
>to excuse them (except in your imagination).  All this charge and counter-
>charge against the US is simply an effort to make Washington accept the blame
>that belongs to it, thats all.

Hardly.  We did little to help Saddam's war effort until it started looking
real bad for Saddam.  Then the US allowed BDM corporation (a military
think-tank) to consult to Iraq.  It was about a year later that the
Repulican Guards rolled through Iranian defenses forcing an armistice
between the two nations.  Our support didn't make Saddam into the aggressor
he became.  Look to the rest of the world for that.  Our support was to
make sure the Shi'ites didn't win, and given that, to end the conflict.  I
think there is a big difference in the actions of the US and the USSR in
regards to Iraq.

>
>--
>Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
>	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
>will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
>suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith


-- 
"You want to know what's scary?  The Third World has 12 new members and
some of them are nuclear armed!"  Former US intelligence officer.

Brian Douglass			briand%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
				602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm