For the record:
Saddam's arsenal was a mishmosh of weapons, mostly Soviet made. His chem stuff wasn't terribly sophisticated, and he didn't buy it off of us. There are various nonproliferation treaties that cover nonconventional weapons like that, and the U.S. track record with them is good. As far as us supplying him financially.... well, we bought oil from Iraq. Politically were friendly with the country as well. No attempt to prevent him massing arms back in the 80s because it was Iran we were pissed at. Cold war, different situation altogether... even though the overarching theme of getting the lesser of two evils was just the same as today. But anyway, Saddam became persona non grata after invading Kuwait. Middle East, typical story. Over there it's always 12th century cultural attitudes trying to tackle the problems of the 21st century, with this weird sort of cult-of-personality fascism that the culture seems to foster, be it a mullah or a Saddam. Insh'Allah, I guess. Stuck dealing with it right now, but the sooner we can not have to deal with that part of the world, the better.
Now as for the rock stuff, can't argue. Pretty much all of the innovators in the music scene have swayed left. There's the odd Nugent in there to mix things up, but mostly politically left. Good music is good music, anyway. Hehheh... Nugent.
HF 0529z30march
To qualify the way I've stated some of these things... it isn't right for me to argue what Steve said about us arming Saddam. From a financial standpoint the U.S. supported Iraq early in its war with Iran, which was a short term act in line with our overarching Cold War goals. It made sense at the time, though dealing with the Middle East is a sad affair in the grand scheme. Still--the stakes are high there. The oil resources there are critical, as control of them by an enemy would tip the balance of world power. Not something we can ignore. -HF