1. Saddam. Just for being Saddam.
Absolutely right on that point.
2. America which supported Saddam for more than 10 years during the destructive war against Iran. He was then the only middle eastern angel
fighting the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran.
We sided with Saddam because AT
THAT POINT, he had done nothing to our country, while Iran held a large amount of Americans hostage for over a year, something which we could have stopped quite easily, if only not for Jimmy Carter, nice man, lousy President. Iran was enemy #1 at that point, Saddam was just another crazy guy that had done nothing to us at that point. Just as we gave the Mujahahdeen equipment to fight the Soviets, we felt that a hostile Mujahadeen was a LOT easier to beat than the Soviets, which were quite equal to us from a military standpoint and just crazy enough to use a nuke. We felt if Saddam turned hostile, we could overrun him relatively easily, while Iran, 3 times the size, would be more difficult.
3. America again and all its security agencies for not predicting and preventing Iraqi invasion to Kuwait. An act that fells only in the
interests and benefits of the US as shown and proven later.
Kuwait was and is a great ally to the United States of America, one of only a few sane countries in that part of world, in the ranks of Israel (puts on anti-Arab flame suit), Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman, as well as Jordan and Turkey, and soon (hopefully) Iraq. Notice I did NOT include Saudi Arabia. They were illegally invaded with hopes of colonization and annexation, not liberation. Yes, we violated Iraq's sovereignty, but we were liberating 25 million people. Saddam wanted to annex Kuwait as part of Iraq. We'll leave when Iraq is stable, Saddam had no plans to. We cannot predict every possible security issue in the world, we can have contingency plans. Besides, even if we knew he was going to, what were we supposed to do? We would have been criticized just as harshly then for being preemptive as we are now.
4. America again after invading Iraq using the discrepancy policy
among different sects, religions, and nations of Iraq. The more these
groups fights between themselves, the more the Americans feels free to
achieve their main goal (which you might not agree on) 10 000s of miles
away from the its borders.
A differing policy? Yes we had one. Some groups were oppressed by the Baathists, some contained most of the Baathists. We treated the Kurds and Marsh Arabs with the most leniency, because they were the most eager to have Saddam gone and the least likely to attack us back. Notice you hear next to nothing from both of these groups, the way modern news works, no news is good news. The Shiites were also oppressed harshly, but they were 60% of the country and an uprising among them would be much more difficult to stop. The majority of the Baathists were/are Sunni, so we were the most cautious with them, because they were the most likely threat. Its simple logic. You should be glad we have the power to bring liberty, democracy, and freedom to nations thousands of miles beyond our borders, because France doesn't seem too eager to do so.
Peace on you that means? Same to you if it does.