Phanerothyme Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 No I don't think it was Halabja. At the time, only "marxists" protested against the Iraqi regime (according to Douglas Hurd) - and the response from the US, Britain etc was pretty muted - yet none of the soon to be Alliance were under any illusions that Saddam Hussein was anything but a brutal, blinkered hard man with a track record of oppression and genocide, after all they had knowingly dealt with him for a long time. My enemy's enemy is my friend, until such a time as my enemy's enemy is defeated. Then my ex-friend will be the enemy, and their enemies shall be by friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Hushed tones about the "The Elite Republican Guard", then just the "Republican Guards", finally "The Republicans lied, there are no guards." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 yet none of the soon to be Alliance were under any illusions that Saddam Hussein was anything but a brutal, blinkered hard man with a track record of oppression and genocide, after all they had knowingly dealt with him for a long time. the United States only resumed diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1983 after a 17-year break. During that time, there was no contact at all apart from through the Belgian Embassy in Baghdad. Six or seven years is not a 'long time'. Iraq was a client state, not of the United States, but of the Soviet Union. But not for much longer because when the Berlin Wall came down, this had massive ramifications worldwide, not just with Iraq. It totally messed up the PLO, drove Syria to the Madrid negotiations with Israel and also led to the unbanning of the ANC and the release of Nelson Mandela. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 the United States only resumed diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1983 after a 17-year break. During that time, there was no contact at all apart from through the Belgian Embassy in Baghdad. Six or seven years is not a 'long time'. Really? Do you mean all contact or all contact through announced diplomatic channels? Is this a case of being 'economical with the actualité'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 the United States had next to no contact with Iraq between the years 1967 and 1983. Not just minimal, but totally miniscule. The embassy was closed and there were no US diplomats in the country. Iraq, like Syria, was a client state of the Soviet Union, who sold or otherwise provided Iraq the massive lion's share of the weaponry the coalition faced in 1990. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 No I don't think it was Halabja. At the time, only "marxists" protested against the Iraqi regime (according to Douglas Hurd) - and the response from the US, Britain etc was pretty muted - yet none of the soon to be Alliance were under any illusions that Saddam Hussein was anything but a brutal, blinkered hard man with a track record of oppression and genocide, after all they had knowingly dealt with him for a long time. My enemy's enemy is my friend, until such a time as my enemy's enemy is defeated. Then my ex-friend will be the enemy, and their enemies shall be by friends. Sorry I didn't mean that the Govt's came to that realisation - I think ti was more that the general populace came to that realisation and then the various Govt's started to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 No, the fear did not exist, nor does it now ... and it never will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.