John Halliwell wrote:

In article , Stephen Harding

BBC, CNN, ABC and the like can be right in that Baghdad neighborhood when
an errant bomb from those aggressive, bloodthirsty Americans goes off, but
are absent when Saddam's thugs round up Kurdish villagers "for interrogation"
never to be seen again.

But isn't that Saddam the same one the west armed in the '80s and fought

Not that I know of. US followed a policy of cautious favoritism for Iraq
as opposed to Iran (for obvious reasons). This "US armed Iraq" line is way
out of proportion from truth.

Pretty much, the Soviets armed Iraq, and did so throughout the Saddam reign,
and if the UN (French) get the US out of Iraq within 6 months, will be arming
Saddam again inside of 5 years.

Yet only the American flirtation with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war seems to
be remembered.

a war against in '90/91, only to leave him in power? Aren't those the

Why are you arguing against this? Isn't this the UN line? Isn't this what
many of the "hate Bush so much I'll help Saddam" crowd believes? Why criticize
something you seem to believe in?

same Kurds the west said they'd help if they rose up against Saddam, but
didn't and allowed him to use helicopters against them when they did?

For all the same reason spoken today by anti-Bush people for getting out of
Iraq. If you argue in favor of immediate withdrawl, or non-involvement to
begin with, how can you bring up American non-involvement in 1991?

What about Turkey, are they bombing the Kurds in northern Iraq?

Don't think so. The PUK seems largely under control now.


SMH