April 07, 2003
At It Again
Note: The Mukilteo Beacon's Larry Simoneaux is up to his old tricks, chiding war protesters for their "naivete". Perhaps the following letter will be published, perhaps not.
Larry Simoneaux, in listing the crimes perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen ("Reason for Pause", April 2, 2003), demonstrates the utility of selective memory in fitting the facts to a desired conclusion. No serious person doubts the crimes enumerated -- as well as many others -- were indeed committed.
But what Larry "forgot" to mention is that through the period of Saddam's greatest atrocities -- the mid- to late-'80s, he was avidly and crucially aided by the United States. The United States' friendly ties to Saddam extended to re-flagging Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq war (so that they would not be attacked by Iran) and increasing the flow of military aid to the Beast of Baghdad after the gassing of the Kurds. No serious person denies these facts, either -- they simply choose not to mention them.
Similarly, the United States continues to this day to provide substantial sums of military to aid and/or maintain friendly relations with many of the world's most brutal, repressive regimes: Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Egypt, Russia, and Pakistan to name a few. Regrettably, the United States has increased aid to human rights violators since September 11.
While still a far cry from what one would consider acceptable, Human Rights Watch's 2002 Country Report for Iraq is nowhere nearly as stomach-curdling as that from 1989 (the earliest year archived on its website -- and which also takes the United States to task for its support of the regime). More importantly, for those American Citizens willing to cast stones, HRW's 2002 Country Report for the United States is also a far cry from what one would consider acceptable. In fact, a blind reading of the HRW Iraq report and Ashcroft's proposed "PATRIOT Act II" could not but leave one wondering which country's citizens would be the worse off.
Many are fond of pointing up polling results indicating 70% of Americans support the current war in Iraq, while at the same time failing to notice that polling results indicate only 10% of the world's population in favour. The blatant double-standard, and selective memory, of U.S. foreign policy is one of the chief reasons for this disparity. (Though surely the horrific humanitarian catastrophe resulting from war is of even greater importance.)
Posted by Eddie Tews at April 7, 2003 03:58 PM
Comments
My dearest Eddie, You're still a dumbass. In reference to your claims about the US aiding Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war: The US is not perfect and clearly made a mistake. At the time, our government thought that by aiding Saddam, we would be harming Iran, our enemy at the time. Down the road (i.e. now and in 1991) this turned out to shoot us in the foot. Does this mean we should now do NOTHING? Do yourself a favor: go pick up an introductory level Economics textbook and look up the term "SUNK COST". That is exactly what our past aid to Saddam is, a sunk cost. Don't you, and those like you, ever notice that when you mention that we used to help him back in the 80s (your cohort's favorite piece of trivia) that you go absolutely nowhere with the statement? You make no point other than that we did. Yeah, and? Does the fact that we helped him 20 years ago mean that we should do nothing now? NO! It's a sunk cost, move on. So, I ask: what is your point about that? Just to prove that you know it? No one is impressed. -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 11, 2003 06:02 PM