Furthermore, what we were forced to do back when Rumsfeld (a civilian/private citizen at the time) was shaking hands with Saddam…

Two points here:

(1) Forced? Who forced us to turn a blind eye to genocide?

(2) “...Rumsfeld (a civilian/private citizen at the time)...” Um, no. Rumsfeld travelled to Iraq as a “personal envoy” of then-President Reagan. He was most decidedly acting as an official representative of the US government.

It was not in our interest to see Saddam lose to Iran…

Explain how “our interest” was served by Saddam’s gassing of the Iraqi Kurds, and how that atrocity was seen as essential to preventing Saddam from losing to Iran.

Our backing, by the way, is over-exaggerated by liberal kool-aid drinkers…

How, exactly is our backing for Iraq exaggerated? By whom? Names and quotes, please.

I don’t buy the argument that we have no other choice than to make deals with the devil. Actually, we do have a third choice: do the right thing. This isn’t a right or left issue. We’ve botched it up from both sides of the aisle for decades, no matter what party has been in charge. What we should do is stop tinkering around in the politics of other sovereign nations at the behest of corrupt big business interests. Greed is the only common thread these “friendships” ever had.

BTW, I’m sure you know that Iran had a democratically elected government before our CIA sponsored coup installed the Shah as our puppet leader. The Taliban was also propped up, trained and armed by our intelligence services when they were being good and fighting the Soviets. Saddam certainly was our buddy when he wasn’t threatening American oil interests. We’ve created these Frankensteins. You reap what you sow.

Don’t quite know what the direct relationship is between the FA blogpost and the point you make in your post, other than the mention of “Iraq”....but I’ll bite.

It’s true that we turned a “blind eye” to Saddam’s brutality in the 80’s, as we did back in the 40’s when we aligned with Stalin against the common threat of Nazism. Does that mean we should have been BFF’s? No. Alliances and even friendships in your own personal life aren’t forever; not if circumstances change, down the road. Were we ever at war with Britain? Japan? And today? Point being: things change.

Furthermore, what we were forced to do back when Rumsfeld (a civilian/private citizen at the time) was shaking hands with Saddam, is to play out the hand that Carter dealt us when he failed to support a flawed but deeply pro-American, loyal ally in the Shah of Iran. The Shah was insufficiently pure enough for the sanctimonious Carter, thereby allowing a brutal dictator to be replaced by an even more brutal regime- a threat which we still face to this day, and comprises one half of the Islamist radical theology of shia-brand fundamentalism. It was not in our interest to see Saddam lose to Iran then, anymore than it would be to see Iran shape and influence Iraq’s future, today. Saddam only invaded Iran because he sought to take advantage of the revolutionary upheaval, perceiving instability and weakness. When the war wasn’t faring so well for Iraq, yes, Reagan made the decision to back Saddam with some economic assist and satellite intell, as well as restoring relations with Iraq (broken during the Six Day War).

Pragmatically, we often find ourselves in the world faced with two choices. Sometimes it’s a choice between evils. The question then becomes whether or not your choose the lesser of the two.

We were right to join other western nations and back Saddam at the time. Our backing, by the way, is over-exaggerated by liberal kool-aid drinkers. And over-emphasized.

Trivia question: Who sold the majority of military arsenal to Saddam? It wasn’t the U.S. A Swedish study cited a ridiculously low figure- something like 1%, if not less. The former Soviet Union, China, Germany, and France can account for most of the supplying.

Thanks for providing me the opportunity to share the wingnut perspective.