Simon,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the time you took to write.
1. What evidence is there that the US knew that Saddam would turn out to be an evil dictator when the US legally supplied him with arms?
He was already a violent, evil dictator who had seized power and had his opponent 'dissapeared' when they started supporting him. Of course, they have taken part in the overthrow of democratically elected leaders and replacing them with dictators before (eg Chile). Saddam was backed because he was seen as a tool to fight Iran with when the previous meddling in foreign countries backfired and made them into an enemy.
2. If you believe that America is responsible for Iraqi deaths because we supplied Iraq with arms prior to any UN sanctions that prohibited it, then do you also believe that France and Russia are responsible for American deaths because they supplied arms to Iraq when they knew it was against international law?
If you want to put all the deaths in a big ballance then be my guest. The US will always lose that one because they have exported death around the world on a massive scale. Just because something is legal does not make it right or ethical. Also, just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean that it makes other wrongs right or acceptable.
3. Since France and Russia began supplying arms to Saddam after it was evident that Saddam was in fact a dangerous dictator because he had already gassed his own people, does that make them responsible for Iraqi deaths suffered at the hands of Saddam before the second Gulf war?
See 2.
Let's assume you are right, that we were aware of Saddam's violent tendencies, as referenced by the fact that he "took out" his predecessor. Budding evil dictator or not, at the time we supplied him with arms, we considered him an ally. How were we to know that he would use the arms we supplied him with to kill thousands of his own citizens on the basis of race and not for the purpose for which we supplied him in the first place - to use on our common enemy? This does NOT mean I am condoning or excusing what Saddam did in regards to his predecessor or that I am a war monger. I am just trying to figure out why so many people point such an accusing finger at America for legally supplying Saddam with arms that he ended up using in a terrible way, when they will defend or ignore the fact that other countries illegally supplied him with weapons that he didn't get around to using in such a terrible way? The differences between the two acts are 1) - of course, the legality and the illegality of the acts, but more importantly 2) - that when America supplied arms to him as an ally - there was one dead leader, but when France and Russia supplied him with arms (in what capacity?), there were thousands of innocent victims. As eluded to, since France and Russia were supplying arms to Saddam against UN Resolutions that they put their own signatures on, were they doing it as a Saddam ally or a Saddam enemy? Either way, this means that they were a silent ally who condoned any way he chose to use their weapons, or they were enemies who didn't care how he used the weapons - even if if it meant that he was going to use them on his own people, as they had full knowledge he had done with American weaponry. He had already set a precedent, yet they supplied him anyway! Why, was it wrong for the US to legally supply him with arms with less evidence of his evilness, and okay for others to illegally supply him with arms with literally thousands of examples of his evilness? Help me find a reason for this other than "just because the US is so manipulative", because if this were so, then France and Russia are guilty of the same crime. Does that mean that two (or three) "wrongs" make a right? No! It means that if people are going to point the finger at the US for their evil atrocities, they need to spend equal time pointing their fingers at France and Russia for the same thing. So far, the silence is deafening.
4. Since France and Russia signed the UN Resolution prohibiting trade with Iraq, does that make them guilty of violating international law?
What? More than invading a foreign nation that is not an imminent threat?! You argument is akin to pointing to someone committing traffic offences as an excuse for murder.
With all due respect, this does not answer my question.
5. Do you believe that when France and Russia illegally supplied Iraq with arms that this was a moral act on their parts?
No. But I imagine the amounts involved are a lot less than those of the US. You are simply trying to distract attention from the issue and come up with an excuse for your countries poor behaviour and the convenient amnesia of the population when it comes to foreign affairs.
I can see why you think that I am trying to distract attention from the issue by asking this question about the morality of what France and Russia have done. However, I not only am NOT trying to distract from the issue, I am trying to point out that it is the exact SAME issue and want to understand why there is no outrage when it comes to countries doing the same thing under illegal circumstances. Additionally, although it may appear as if I am trying to come up with excuses for my country's "poor behaviour", I am NOT trying to excuse my country. However, I AM saying that when America supplied arms to Iraq, we did it legally, and had less knowledge of how he might use those weapons than when the French and Russians did so illegally, and yet the outcry is louder at the US's actions. I am just trying to understand why.
Thanks for debating with me.
growedup
