Originally Posted by
JTaylor
Ok, that makes more sense, although I still don't follow the abortion and death penalty reference. I'll respond after TG.
In 1980 Iran was (and still is) a Pan-Islamist state; this offered up an ideological threat to the West. Iran is/was Shia and Persian, which Saddam didn't like (because he was Sunni and Arab) and invading Iran and winning would present a nationalist victory alongside an increased oil reserve and dominance in the Gulf. In September, under the pretext of an assassination attempt on Tariq Aziz, Saddam invaded. Saddam presented himself to the world as secular and a socialist.
Amidst the battle Iran knocked out some of Iraq's oil fields, restricting their capacity to export. The war continued with Iran being supplied by North Korea, China and North Korea (enemies of the West) and Iraq being supplied by France, Italy, Germany, the US, the UK, Spain and others (the West).
In 1984 Iraq attacked some Iranian tankers. Iran countered by attacking Iraqi tankers (and that of their allies) which affected oil supply to the West. This little lot cost Lloyds of London a small fortune.
In 1985 Khomeini stated: "It is our belief that Saddam wishes to return Islam to blasphemy and polytheism. ... if America becomes victorious ... and grants victory to Saddam, Islam will receive such a blow that it will not be able to raise its head for a long time ... The issue is one of Islam versus blasphemy, and not of Iran versus Iraq." The words of a theocrat, the US and Nato were firmly behind the secular socialist, Saddam. Reagan responded that the the West could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."
The war waged and, after extraordinary atrocities by Saddam against the Kurds and Iran excepting UN resolutions, peace was restored.
Saddam then became madder and more brutal and then he invaded Kuwait and the rest, as they say, is history.
Sometimes, and it's hard to swallow, one has to back the bad guys because they present less of threat to one's way of life than their enemy. Yes, it smarts. Yes, it presents as hypocrisey. And yes, it's incredibly sad.....but that's the nature of internationalism and the long game.
The West were right to back Saddam in the 80s: the West were right to remove him in the noughties. My allegiance, as ever, is to the West, Great Britain, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and free religion. I believe that to defend this one has to make sacrfices. Sometimes that involves swallowing vomit.