Why did Reagan Veto Anti-Apartheid Act?

Saddam originally brought economic, and social freedom to the people of Iraq. He brought more freedom of education, and women's rights, and many other things. Saddam came to power, fighting against Abd al-Karim Qasim, who seized control through a military coup.

Iran's Ayatollah, had been exiled from Iran, and gained residence in Iraq, which Saddam allowed. For his tolerance, the Ayatollah after several years, pushed to overthrow Saddam. Naturally this fueled problems between Iran and Iraq, after Ayatollah gained power, combined with some long standing land disputes between the two countries.

When Iran captured US personnel as hostages, Saddam saw this as a chance to gain favor from the US, and deal with the land disputes with Iran.

Saddam was very upset that the US didn't charge in to support his war with Iran, but nevertheless, it was done partially for our benefit. In fact, it is in theory, possible that the reason the Iranians released our hostage people, is because of the war.

While everything else you say is true, it is also true that Saddam made direct attempts to gain diplomatic relationship with the US, and at the time, this served us well against a common enemy of Iran, and we also liked removing Saddam as a puppet of the Soviets.

If Saddam had continued toward a mutually beneficial relationship, and not gone back to randomly invading everyone around him, the last 20 years would never have happened. Of course, if our ambassador had not unintentionally given a green light to the invasion of Kuwait, things would have been different too.

So should I assume you would have done things differently? Would you have never talked to Iraq? I assume that you are not of the same opinion as all the Obama supporters, who say we should have talked to Iran?

It's very possible 10 years from today, we'll be invading Iran, over the 'talking' that Obama has done with them.

 

You can lie all you want, but I'm not going to discuss anything with someone who knows the truth, and flat out lies about what other people say and do.

This specific topic is finished. All you do is lie every post. I'm not wasting my time talking to a pathological liar. What's the point? You'll just lie about everything I post.

Good bye liar. Lie to someone else. Waste their time, not mine.

 

When was that?

Evidence? Ie do you have a source for those claims? There is a reason he was called the Butcher of Baghdad WHEN he came to power, you know. Also this is really inconsequential since the US was his ally before AND AFTER he started the Iran-Iraq war and AFTER he had started massacring Kurds as well as his own people.

Yeah he came to power through a one party state regime.

I don't disagree - didn't require an aggressive war though.

Really? What's your source for that assertion?

Who in the world supports that theory or your previous claims. Are you saying this justified arming Saddam's and supporting his crimes?

So you are finally admitting the US aided and enhanced Saddam's crimes?

She did no such thing.

Where do I begin. At what point in time is the question asked? I could say the US should not have supported the various dictatorial and authoritarian regimes in the Middle East but that would start me back in the 40s with Saudi Arabia.

Is bet any amount of money that will not be the case.

 

Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam
Book by Mark Bowden

Details the whole thing. I guess you really don't know the history of this at all.

Not directly, but yes of course. Obama is doing stuff like that right now. Clinton did stuff like that. Nearly every president, has supported groups that were opposed to a larger enemy.

I disagree.

Oh good grief. The ayatollah's in Iran, are very oppressive, and we just gave them billions of dollars. Obama just did, exactly what you are claiming Reagan did.

The only difference between Iran and Iraq, is that we know for certain, that Iran has nuclear capability. Iraq we only suspected they were trying for nuclear capability.

 

What racism!

You think you can put a picture with some some Muslims and call them Taliban and people will believe it.

That is pure racism!!!

You should be ashamed of yourself. Vile disgusting post!

Look at the person on the far right you racist!

I'm sure the Taliban had a woman leader!

Disgusting racism abounds in these threads.

 

Details what exactly? Where does he say Saddam was a relatively benign and constructive leader when he came to power, which is what you said?

Is that how describe arming a dictator to massacre minorities? Strange.

 

That quote of Reagan's was actually him describing terrorists, yep terrorists, that he funded in Nicaragua. Reagan was at best a total idiot, at worst an evil warmonger.

 

Of course. Name one president which never made a gaffe? Name one PERSON who never made a gaffe? This is normal. It happens all the time. If you were to condemn everyone who misspoke, you'd have to hang yourself first, and then everyone else.

Did the Cuban Communist government fall because of sanctions? If you can't answer that, maybe there's yet another leftist idiot in this conversation.

lol.... can you not read? I answered that in the very first post. He did that to appease the leftist idiots who wanted the sanctions.

But he did, unless my source is wrong. That could be, but as far as I know there were sanctions on South Africa by Reagan. Just not the leftist sanctions that would harm poor south african blacks, not that the left ever cared.

 

First, the book I mentioned was about how Saddam and Iran, and getting our hostages free. The fact Saddam came in as a secular leader, who supported more freedom, and education, and modernizing Iraq, is well established. There was heavy oppression before Saddam. Saddam became a tyrant after he was in power.

I realize how difficult this is for you to grasp, but sometimes a more dangerous enemy can be thwarted by someone you don't like, but nevertheless is a better alternative.

Question, would you give $1,000 to a tyrant, to get your wife returned to you? Most would. But you have no idea what the tyrant might do with the $1,000. Perhaps he could buy explosive and kill children. Perhaps he might not. What do you do?

Maybe if you knew exactly what he would do with the money, you might seek another way. But without knowing, I wager you would, like most, just give him the money, and get your wife back.

Well, should Reagan work with someone, against another country holding your citizens hostage? Iran, had US citizens, hostage. Iraq, who had previously sided with the Soviet Union, another of our greater enemies, now wants to talk. Do you talk with them or not?

Reagan did what any decent leader should have done. And honestly, what *YOU* would have done, in the same situation. You are lying if you say otherwise.